Virginia Tech shooting

[johnfoyle]

Sad and tragic as has been the lose of life and fractious as the whole gun control debate may be I find myself dwelling on a aspect of the matter. Most newspapers today had pages of coverage. A similar body count results from actions on a daily basis in Iraq and it's given a few paragraphs in most publications. I don't watch TV news ( haven't for years) but I daresay it's the same there. It's just not right.

[pophead2k]

Here, here Mr. Foyle. Life wasted is life wasted. Many Americans are particularly insulated when it comes to this idea. I would hazard to guess that there is probably an entire generation of Iraqis gone due to the war.

[Tim(e)]

Here, here Mr. Foyle. Life wasted is life wasted. Many Americans are particularly insulated when it comes to this idea. I would hazard to guess that there is probably an entire generation of Iraqis gone due to the war.

That is not solely the province of the US of A... it seems to be a trait in anglo-western society in general to put little or no value on the lives of those in third world countries.

In most western press, a train accident in India that kills dozens or even hundreds will receive about 1 inch of column space on page 10; likewise an earthquake in a small Chinese province that kills 100's. Bombings in Iraq are so common place that no-one even gives them so much as a second thought (let alone consideration as to why they have escalated so much post Hussein - eg. 200 were killed yesterday) - yet if 5 people are killed in a train crash in the US, UK or almost any other western country, it is guaranteed front page news world wide.

[alexv]

Tim(e), I don't think that it is a trait of anglo-western society in general to put little or no value on the lives of those in third world countries. I'm not so sure about France, or Germany or Switzerland or Spain, but when it comes to anglo-western society I tend to think that they act like any other temporarily culturally omnipotent multi-country entity: they care more about their powerful selves than about those over whom they temporarily tower. And why do folks in other less currently fortunate parts of the world pay undue attention to events in the Anglo-American axis? I suspect it's the natural human impulse to pay undue attention to those who currently hold the upper hand. I would think that if the tables were turned, and history shows us that ultimately they will turn, the possibly Indo-Tasmanian-Ecuadorian dominant triumverate then wielding the cultural mallet will be spending much time obssessing over their petty lives rather than paying attention to events in Vegas. I don't think folks in Anglo-American land are much different when it comes to selfishness than their brethren anywhere else in the globe.

Now, if your point is simply that the Anglo-American press is obsessed with events in Anglo-American land, I would argue that they are simply giving folks in A-A land what they want, news about themselves, since, in their eyes, that's the news that makes the world go around. A natural reaction given 20th century realities. The Indo-Tasmanian-Ecuadorian press in our hypothetical future will be doing the same for its loyal readers who like present day Anglo-Americans will be considering themselves the straw that stirs the drink.

[Tim(e)]

Now, if your point is simply that the Anglo-American press is obsessed with events in Anglo-American land, I would argue that they are simply giving folks in A-A land what they want, news about themselves, since, in their eyes, that's the news that makes the world go around. A natural reaction given 20th century realities. The Indo-Tasmanian-Ecuadorian press in our hypothetical future will be doing the same for its loyal readers who like present day Anglo-Americans will be considering themselves the straw that stirs the drink.

Not really... I am in Sydney and my experience is that any catastrophe/human tragedy occurring in the west gets an inordinate amount of coverage whereas any similar or worse event in say Africa, India, China, the Mid-East etc gets a cursory mention. The general world view of the western press seems to be that life is cheap in those countries.

Having been to the States a couple of times, I do understand that the press is even more insular than elsewhere (for example, it was nigh on impossible to get Australian sporting results - something I could do in most other places I have been, even in Japan), but my argument is that the west (or should I say, western press) generally places little value on life in the countries I mentioned before - the only time I can recall China getting any kind of sympathetic coverage in the past was the Tianamen Square events, and I tend to think that was more concerned with pointing out the evils of the regime at that time than with the human tragedy. The only time I can recall compassionate coverage of Iraq was when an allied soldier(s) came to grief.

[alexv]

And my point is that this kind of insularity should not be surprising. It's not a western or American failing. It's a natural consequence of the position the West occupies in today's world. Also, it's much easier for the rest of the world to know in excruciating detail what goes on in the US, whereas it is much more difficult for the Western press to get a good idea of everyday catastrophes in China and similar insular societies. I'm not disputing the facts, just your explanation which seems to emphasize some kind of inherent Western (anglo-american) failing.

[BlueChair]

Okay, not to shift the debate here but I have something that I'm wondering about. It's a question of censorship vs. integrity. Clearly most major news organizations have flushed integrity down the toilet, what with their daily reportages on the happenings of Britney, Lindsay, Paris, Brangelina, etc, etc, etc.

As I'm sure all of you have read, NBC received a package Cho Seung-Hui, the Virginia Tech murderer, yesterday. As such, they have been given the unique opportunity to present things from inside the mind of a killer. I think it's their duty to share at least the basics with their viewers.

What I take issue with is this. Pretty much every major news organization has made an image of Cho Seung-Hui brandishing two guns and facing the camera prominent on their front page. I do not believe in censorship, but doesn't printing a photo like that disregard the sensitivity of the situation?

I'm disturbed by the photo, not because of me, but because of all of the people who may have witnessed the slayings. Or the friends and families of those killed. These people will already have to go through deep psychological counseling and learn to live with what they have experienced. Why make that journey even harder by displaying such a disgusting photo so prominently?

I think if they wanted to make these images available, they should at least allow those who want to avoid them do so.

Thoughts?

[Boy With A Problem]

but doesn't printing a photo like that disregard the sensitivity of the situation?

Yes.

And in a way Brian Williams referring to the package as a "multi-media manifesto" somehow lends a legitimacy to the whole thing.

I don't think anyone or anything is served by the pictures and the videos on television. Maybe the news outlets could have restricted the content to their websites, but it truly is a feeding frenzy out there - scoops and exclusives and just plain nasty business.

[A rope leash]

"...but it truly is a feeding frenzy out there - scoops and exclusives and just plain nasty business."

But why doesn't at least one media outlet rise above the fray and do something respectful? Have you asked yourself exactly why every major media outlet is cramming these images down our brains? Did you notice Saturday last many of the major networks had black anchors talking black issues over the Don Imus brooha? Was that just co-incidence? Is it really just a ratings race?

Perhaps you don't like censorship, but you think something should not be seen, out of respect for the victims. Someone has decided that you want to see this, and it is plastered everywhere. Meanwhile, what our communal weapons do in Iraq is censored. I suppose that's out of respect for the victims.

?

The few corporations that run the major media profit from the war, directly and indirectly, as do a whole lot of other very wealthy interests. Keeping the general population in a continuous state of soiled underwear is how they get away with it. They are going to suck this incident for all its horrid juices, and you are going to stay hooked to the edge of your sofa until you get the story jammed in there just where they want it. He was a nut, see? (He's your neighbor). The cops failed to protect us! (We need no guns or more guns) Why does this always happen here in the USA? (You tell me).

..and, Bwap, I know how you feel...I used to be the same. Someone is always going to have a gun, though. I trust my countrymen more than I trust my leaders. Even though I do not possess a firearm, I possess the right to own one. That is something pretty special, and it's hard to see for some, but our founding fathers saw it clearly. The government is not your country. People have the right to protect themselves, from any threat. That's really pretty cool.

Dictators love gun control...the Germans disarmed themselves in the name of the Third Reich, and many lived to regret it. As for armed teachers, it is supposedly fairly common in Israel. You have to know it would help restore classroom order...

...a bit of a joke there, but I gotta wonder what Noise would think...

[Tim(e)]

"I possess the right to own one."

Hmmm... I always wonder about the validity of that statement... I may be wrong, but isn't the rest of the ammendment referring to a well organised malitia that was intended to defend against the British?

"Dictators love gun control...the Germans disarmed themselves in the name of the Third Reich, and many lived to regret it"

That is a non-argument, a hoary old chestnut, but a non-argument. One could just as easily point to Japan or Switzerland where there is strict gun control and low crime rates.

Events like this one just serve to revive the gun control debate and to say that the death toll might not have been as large as it was if everyone was armed is neither here nor there. The fact of the matter is that if everybody were armed (generally speaking - not just in this case), then you could almost be guaranteed that the already outrageously high number of gun related killings in the US would be even higher. We are not talking about Hollywood where the gunman points the gun at the intended victim talks to them, philosophises with them over why they have to do this etc etc giving the victim time to defend themself before the gunman can take a shot. In real life people shoot before asking questions. In real life people shoot other people in the back. In real life people intending to defend themselves may find themselves mentally or physically unable to do so - lack of nerve, lack of training, lack of killer instinct, or whatever.

And alexv,

"it is much more difficult for the Western press to get a good idea of everyday catastrophes in China and similar insular societies. I'm not disputing the facts, just your explanation which seems to emphasize some kind of inherent Western (anglo-american) failing."

My point is this... if there is an earthquake in LA and 10 people are killed we here in Australia will have it plastered over the front pages of our newspapers for several days. If there is an earthquake in China's Shandong province and 10,000 people are killed, it will receive an inch of column space in the World news secton of the paper one day and never be heard of again. This has nothing to do with China being insular (it is not that insular) but everything to do with the press not considering it newsworthy. Maybe it works both ways, maybe not... I only know what I see.

Anyway, that is just my opinion, and as someone said to me that other day: opinions are like assholes, everybody has one

[alexv]

Tim(e), let's keep the opinions flowing. Differences of opinions make the world go around.

Here's how I would address your point about LA/China coverage in Aussie land: Despite the fact that China is a world power to be reckoned with, it is not the US. Events in LA will always (under current conditions, that is) be more sexy than similar or more seismic events in China, to the press in Australia and elsewhere, and particularly because Australia has that Anglo heritage in common with the US. This may change, by the way, in a very few years and our children might all be tracking the movements of a Chinese rock star with the same care Mr. Foyle follows our Elvis.

But for now, the Aussie obsession with LA is not a sign of an Anglo/Us failing, or of a trait that belies superficiality or Aussie insularity. It's a perfectly reasonable way for folks, in an English-speaking country particularly, to act in a world where one country, what you call the Anglo/American culture, is so dominant.

This is not an argument that the culture should be dominant or that it is destined to remain so, just an argument that there is what to me seems to be a perfectly understandable rationale for the difference in emphasis. Not only do the Aussies have more in common with the US than with China, but it's understandable that they would care more about events in the culturally dominant country.

I know in your example you are focussing on the perceived Aussie failing, but the argument is also made that the US itself should be more concerned about similar events worldwide. I also object to that.

So often, it seems to me, the US is criticized, openly or covertly, for failing to abide by standards of conduct that I just don't think they should be held to. The fact that a dominant culture fails to treat other cultures with equal, or even somewhat similar regard to its own is not a sign of an inherent failing. It is what is to be expected. It is the way every other culturally dominant culture has behaved in the past (and I would argue that the US has been much better at this than prior empires).

Should a country be praised for behaving differently, with that degree of care and attention you talk about? Absolutely, but that would be exceptional, and failing to live up to that kind of standard should not lead to criticism.

[A rope leash]

An example from history is not an argument? OK...let's not take into account history, lest we learn something.

Yes, people shoot people all the time. This is why gun ownership should be considered by everyone. Guns are simply not going to be eliminated...the product will still be there, and so will the market. The law can't stop it, like it can't stop cocaine or crank. There's a buck to be made...the legality of it is secondary.

The bottom line is very stark: Disarming a people is a nasty business. How is this going to happen? Door to door police raids? I doubt it...the public will have to be frightened into turning their weapons over. I doubt they will ever be frightened enough to do it en mas, as they already see the gun as protection, and for some, this would be surrender.

So, for me anyway, banning guns is a non-starter. It isn't going to happen. Just try it.

..and, I'm sorry, but more guns won't lead to more violence. A person is less likely to shoot someone in the back when they know for sure his loved ones are packing and ready. Yes, it's a bit anarch-ish, but look around...there's a bit of anarchy out there everyday. We have a right to protect ourselves from it.

Here's some interesting reading, just a tad off subject:

http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/1226 ... llComments

[bambooneedle]

[so lacklustre]

If crack cocaine were legalised would more or less people die?
If the road speed limit were doubled would more or less people die?
If paedophiles were encouraged to babysit would more less children get fucked?
If I had a gun and could shoot people through the internet all you people with cheap haircuts you'd all be fucking dead.

[A rope leash]

What, more eye rolling instead of real comeback? Bambi, that's beneathe you. Frankly, I don't think you are the orignial Bambooneedle, you are actually an imposter.

If crack were legal, more would die at first, but others would quickly pick up on the fact that crack is highly addictive and incapacitating. The same goes for other drugs. Alcoholism became a real problem during Prohibition. There will always be a certain number of substance abusers...why waste so much time and money trying to stop them?

More people would die if the speed limit were raised.

More babies would be molested if pedophiles were encouraged to babysit.

People cannot be shot through the internet, so the point is moot. But, you can certainly go out and kill people with bad haircuts...it's just a matter of paying the consequences. Now, if 30% of the population is armed, are you more or less likely to go out and shoot people with bad haircuts?

I think you are probably still So Lackluster, you just got sick of the phoniness of cyberpersonalities, and decided to be yourself.

You know, yesterday a student in Colorado said in class that he understood how someone could kill somebody. He was whisked away to jail, where he was later released after they realised he hadn't broken any laws. There is, however, new hate-speech laws that are waiting to be implemented...and what So Lack has posted here would be cause for incarceration. He said he wants to kill people with cheap haircuts, and, as if everything that comes out of a mouth is fact, some will take him at his word. Soon, by law, they will have to.

That's not freedom. Our rights and freedoms are slowly being laid to rest by fear mongering political criminals who care nothing about the ideas and concerns of our forefathers. As it was in Germany, it will be here...the masses will stand around with their fingers up their asses until they are absolutely forced to act, and by then it will be far too late. The crimes are being committed, and we are negligent by not having intervened. Americans are not so stupid as they are distracted, confused, and morally impotent.

So be it...but I don't think anyone will be taking our firearms anytime soon, so what exactly is the argument here? Banning guns will not make them disappear...it will only give more money to the criminal, and more power to the State. Is this really what you want? A police state?

No one rules absolutley over an armed populace...ask King George.

[migdd]

If crack cocaine were legalised would more or less people die?
If the road speed limit were doubled would more or less people die?
If paedophiles were encouraged to babysit would more less children get fucked?
If I had a gun and could shoot people through the internet all you people with cheap haircuts you'd all be fucking dead.

Ahem. Describe "bad haircut".

[mood swung]

I love you guys.

[bambooneedle]

ARL, I don't really have the time this weekend to elaborate much but your arguments on this are weak. It's the new postmodern era, I'm not sure how relevant past history is. Arming teachers is ridiculous, as if they haven't got enough pressures. Sure, it might seem impractical to ban handguns effective immediately, but that doesn't mean the populace couldn't be better persuaded before too long (nationally, or else too many disgrunted over differences in state laws). It would probably be easier than you think. Your cops' (& security guards', etc) work in general would be more effective gradually if it's a lot less likely they could be confronted by some idiot with a gun. And they would be more willing to do it... Less crime would pile up undealt with as it does now with guns. The advantage that they are already reasonably well trained to deal with the potentially armed would still serve them. Do you want law and order or not? If you think the law is a piece of ass, see about making it easier to apply. Motivate cops differently, make sure they're better and pay them more or something (I've seen lots of dodgy cops on those show 'Cops', 'The First 48hrs', etc. I like those shows though). It's up to people collectively to see how things like that could work before they want it and then they will demand it. Or revolt!

[Mr. Average]

The images of evil need to be shown and discussed with family members. To the degree that one peson might be saved when a small, seemingly insignificant aspect of another perp who is off his or her rocker is recognized by the media coverage is to the degree that it is worth it.

Asking to insulate us from the brutal realities of the world serves only to make us 'feel better'. Golly, that picture might cause dissonance or discomfort, so I don't want to see it!. That is crap.

Ask the families of the brutally murdered, and 99.9% they will of the time say "Anything...anything that might help keep this happening again, please do it, regardless of my discomfort." These people exemplify real courage. Wimpiness is to suggest that we can escape our brutal reality by suppressing images that might increase the production of hydrochloric acid in the stomach and cause reflux. Screw it.

"Reflux away, Mr. McManus!"

I want to see the planes careening into the world trade center each and every day to remind the soft minded and weak among us what the face of evil can and will actually do, who think that the perpetrators of such evil can be chatted down. How ignorant! What an amazing ability to ignore centuries of history in the naive hope to recreate a new world around dialogue. I want to see the poor indigent people of New Orleans screaming from their housetops because FEMA had its head so far up its ass that they didn't even care to react. Seeing this people in such dire straights is disquieting at best whilst we sit in the comfort of our Lazy Boy Recliners, but it represents an evil that we must face if we can ever hope to effect change.

And I want people to be reminded, because people forget. Fast. It seems that the American attention span is about 2.5 days even for the most horrific of stories. Canada and England about the same. Too easy to forget and then insulate.

I don't want to ever forget VA Tech, the World Trade Center on Sept 11, the Pentagon on Sept 11, the Pennsylvania countryside on Sept 11, Hurricane Rita, Jesse lying to America, Al lying to America, Imus slurring great atheletes and many great students. I don't want to forget Georges blunders in waging a war that we have a right to fight but we have fought it like imbeciles. I don't want to forget that Hillary is a lying sack of shit, and that Bill waved his finger at all of America to say that he did not have sexual relations with Monica when he had sexual realtions with her and dozens of others.

Keep us reminded of the lunacy so we can fight back, instead of stay comfortable by looking away.

Face the music. Face the brutal reality and effect change instead of hiding your heads in the sand.

[A rope leash]

Bam: "It's up to people collectively to see how things like that could work before they want it and then they will demand it. Or revolt!"

Revolt with what? iPods and Blackberries?

Bam: "that doesn't mean the populace couldn't be better persuaded before too long".

Yes, perhaps after the MSM has scared the pants off of them, and possibly after the next terror attack, but that will only be some. I'm not sure you understand America. No one is going to confiscate our guns...not the police, not the army, not God.

Bam, you simply do not write or project the way you used to. The only thing that makes me think it might still be you is the one paragraph construction.

Av: "I want to see the planes carreening into the world trade center everyday to remind the soft minded, weak among us who think that the perpetrators of such evil can be chatted down..."

I want to see the buildings falling...over and over...until everyone understands that those buildings were professionally demolished. At the core of our current shame resides the lies of 9/11...everything that has happened since has happened on the back of this hoax. It isn't disrespectful to the victims to show the collapses...the MSM shows horrid video all the time. But this, they kind of stay away from...because after a while it becomes obvious.

There's about two VTs in Iraq everyday. Those are people, too...but where the daily moment of silence for them? They are not really real to "us", nor is this "war". Where is the daily moment of silence for our own soldiers who die over there?

America, home of the dupe, and land of the hypocrite.

[Otis Westinghouse]

Thoughts?

This is a tricky one. I watched and rewatched those clips with a horribly rubbery neck, but I think I would ultimately come down in favour of NBC releasing the story that they'd received them and explaining that he was a very, very sad and disturbed individual and the videos were clear evidence of deep psychosis, but not to have shown them. If only for the friends and relatives, and not to give him the exposure that he wanted to get having already killed two people and setting off to kill more. It was totally bizarre to see it and hear the events being pieced together, but it takes the focus away from the issues of gun control and the loss of life here in relation to the daily carnage from Iraq and more into the realm of individual freak show.

[bambooneedle]

Bam, you simply do not write or project the way you used to. The only thing that makes me think it might still be you is the one paragraph construction.

You may be right but I don't know if that's bad or good...

I do have more thoughts brewing to follow up on my other post Rope but have to sleep now.

[Valerie]

I worked at Virginia Tech a few years ago and live 1/4 of a mile away from one of the murder victims, Jarrett Lane. The employees there that I know and the family of Jarrett were horrified by the footage of Cho's rantings.. However, I feel NBC was obligated to report this story.
My biggest fear is that this incident will increase the zenophobia in this area. Southwest Virginia as a whole is not very diverse. The VT campus on the other hand has a huge international student population. I have heard the comment made several times "that's what they get for letting damn foriegners in". Cho's evil and insanity had NOTHING to do with his nationality. I'm afraid that those among us in this area will let their ignorance run wild and make life extremely difficult on international students.

[bambooneedle]

Bam: "It's up to people collectively to see how things like that could work before they want it and then they will demand it. Or revolt!"

Revolt with what? iPods and Blackberries?

That revolt bit was obviously just a little joke. However although folks may still be going through the motions supporting the system, inside them may be another matter. If things gets bad enough. Maybe there's a point where civil conditions get so bad in places for enough people (because of crime, poverty, lack of social services...) that masses of them will be on a similar page about having been left behind and they just won't believe what they're told anymore, media spin will have no effect and they may be given voice in a powerful way. But then, maybe the few in power have it sussed out so it doesn't quite get to that point.

I don't really have much to say, especially as I don't live there, but it's so disillusioning how everyone's opinions about the legality of guns is basically irrelevant if it apparently has little or no bearing on policy. I think it's got to be healthy to want there to be no guns though, and ask why there are. I also acknowledge that someone's personal position about using a gun would depend a lot on whether they thought their life were being threatened.

[Mr. Average]

Yes, it can all be distilled down to that simple unqualified statement for me, Bamboo: "I believe in Guns!"

You have such a simplistic way of reducing things to a lowest common demoninator that doesn't exist, but that doesn't stop you for the strident generalizations that are, in fact, virtually nonsensical.

I believe in little baby ducks, big pick up trucks, and Guns!

Did I mention I also believe in Butter. Put that into your oversimplification function box and lets see what the output is? Toast and Jelly with some gunpowder sprinkled on to make me aroused.

God, I love these trite oversimplifications.


1. It is called the Consititution of the United States of America. To the degree that it needs to be amended, then let it be amended. Meanwhile, the simple minded theory that if we eliminate guns that they also will disappear from the hands of criminals has got to be one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever, ever read.

2. If a deranged CHO comes to my door with two guns a-blazin' and I have a berry spoon, the only good thing the berry spoon will be used for will be to dig the bullets out of my body. On the other hand, if CHO comes to my door with two guns, and I too have a gun, CHO is done. I have a right and a responsibility to protect my family. Not to aggress and threaten. That should be criminal, and it is.

Have a gunny, gunny day. I'm off to the resort to relax with my gun collection.