From the National Review:
thoughts also arise on the killer’s being an English major and on the spiritual emptiness of much education nowaday
Yep, it’s the English that made him snap.
And Dr. Phil blames… video games.
Because surely the problem wasn’t the high powered killing machine known as a gun that Cho Seung-Hui used to kill these people.
Pick that cherry!
Not to mention the fact that more than 12 years of education trumps a few pounds of hardware when it comes to behavioral influences, any day.
Wait a minute… I’m an English Major… and I play lots of video games… oh my god I’m a Homicidal Maniac!!! AUGHHHHH!!!!
Except the problem is, even if you assume an english major and video games convert an otherwise sane person into a homicidal maniac (and that’s a huge and idiotic assumption), all it does is create a really dickish person. Where it becomes a danger to the rest of us is when you give the nutjob a machine where you just spray death on innocent people.
You know, I think it speaks volumes of my cynicism that my second thought after hearing about the massacre (the first, of course, being simply “Oh, fuck”) was to wonder how long it would take someone to blame video games.
At least Dr. Phil suggests you have to be a sociopath in the FIRST damn place to think video games are telling you to kill people, but it’s still a completely asinine thing to say.
“the spiritual emptiness of education nowadays.”
That’s brilliant. Have people forgotten already that the BTK killer was a 30-year churchgoer?
(No, of course they haven’t forgotten…but “secularism” is a convenient evil when nonsense like this occurs.)
Spiser J: How do you do it? One guy disproves the theory?
Did it ever occur to you that your ass in the pew doesn’t automatically put God in your heart?
Says Oliver: “… an english major and video games … create a really dickish person”
If I said that, I’d be in big trouble!
BTW, Rex, how do we know you’re not a homicidal maniac?
Rex, how do we know you’re not a homicidal maniac?
I just admitted that I must be. I mean TNR says its English Majors and the Spiritual emptimness that it instills (which must be the case, since I think organized religion is a farce, I must therefore have no morals whatsoever) and a TV host (as well as this soon-to-be-disbarred walking publicity stunt) says Videogames are the root cause and who in their right mind would disagree with him? I absolutely must harbor murderous tendencies, right? If thats the real explanation for the shooting and the access to guns had nothing to do with it, then… oh my god, I just realised I know where my father keeps his shotgun at his place… *sighs* guess I have to go and find it and kill some random people… I mean I have to at this point, on account of being a homicidal maniac as derived by these fonts of wisdom that they are. Ive no choice in the matter…
Whoever I kill therefore, I’m really sorry, I’m kind of forced into it, what with having gone to college and also having just purchased Super Paper Mario, but apparently I didnt know then what I do know, that I, resultantly, have to go out and do the killins. Take this as a warning kids, never seek interactive entertainment or literature. It can only end in murder.
Thad, the idiocy of blaming video games isn’t far from the idiocy of blaming “the gun culture.”
First of all, people like to point out that there are close to 30K deaths a year due to firearms. That is true. However over 60% of those are suicide. (source: CDC)
There were 11,600 homicides in 2004 committed with a firearm (source CDC). The majority of those are gang related and drug related. Yet, we don’t hear about the “gun culture” when it comes to crime in the inner city and rural areas. Then its always about things like “root causes” and “poverty”. It’s never about the guns or the “gun nuts.” It’s about what could cause it to happen. I’m sure that in the LA area alone, more young black men lost their lives to a bullet last year than were killed at VA Tech, but where was that wall to wall coverage?
When horrors like what happened at VA Tech go on, the perp is often a middle or upper middle class person, usually white. In this case, the man was Korean, but a college student. Yet immediately, it’s the “gun nuts” and the “gun culture” that is to blame as well as our supposed system of lax gun laws.
Why is that?
True, Frank, no more than your ass in front of Grand Theft Auto puts hate and violence in your heart.
Or for that matter, no more than secularism puts murder and depravity in your heart.
Holy crap on a stick. Oliver, if that got your goat, go read what this cowardly asshat writes…
I’m pretty sure if someone walked up to Derbyshire with a gun he’d crap his pants and fall down.
(Thanks to commenter BChurch at Sadly No!)
“Spiser J: How do you do it? One guy disproves the theory?
Did it ever occur to you that your ass in the pew doesn’t automatically put God in your heart?” – Frank
It’s the ‘Reak Christian’ argument. Any Christian who does something bad wasn’t a real Christian, even if the bad things they did were in the name of Christianity.
“Why is that?” – Jay
Didn’t you just out argue yourself?
You gave multiple scenarios in which guns were used to kill, (depression, gang violece, drugs, etc.), and even discussed the mass killings that feature none of those.
The only connection is guns.
In this case guns that can kill multiple people in a short span that seen to have no legal use.
My goodness.
I thought you were kidding us OW. Ms. Iannone’s entire comment on the English major angle is this:
No further explanation. Are we really sliding down the “Idiocracy” path? Are people like Iannone going to become suspicious of anyone who uses words anstuff?
I’m so old, I remember when conservatives wanted students to spend more time on literature and expected immigrants to study English.
This says it for me:
Va. Tech Massacre: A Hellishly Bent Soul
by Ralph Kinney Bennett
By the way, I think the gun culture extends to the gangs. Lots of people have hard lives, they don’t turn to crime. Easy access just makes thugs lives easier. I’m for gun control, everywhere. Proudly so.
Does Mr. Bennett have anything other than poetry (egads! ENGLISH!) to offer to this discussion? Nobody here is saying that the shooter isn’t at fault and clearly had horror in his mind, they’re saying that the body count wouldn’t be so high if it weren’t so easy for a civilian to get one of the excess of guns (and that’s key here–EXCESS) that proliferate the market.
This boy–and that’s what he was, a boy–bought his firearms from somebody who gave him receipts. This is not responsible gun trade, but heaven forbid we crack down on such merchants.
And my question is–does Mr. Bennett believe that since there will always be evil and murderousness, that we can’t do any better about keeping these psychos from acquiring tools to act upon their thoughts?
Even if you got rid of all the guns people would still get killed, sure. But can Mr. Bennett honestly say they’d be killed like this? En Masse? By a child?
SpiderJ: You didn’t take your train of thought to its final destination:
True, Frank, no more than your ass in front of Grand Theft Auto puts hate and violence in your heart.
Of course, I said the opposite.
Or for that matter, no more than secularism puts murder and depravity in your heart.
It doesn’t do too much to remove it…
But your final destination would seem to be:
A gun puts murder and depravity in your heart
Wouldn’t it?
I foresaw that line of thinking hours ago:
Not to mention the fact that more than 12 years of education trumps a few pounds of hardware when it comes to behavioral influences, any day.
Japan, Western Europe, Australia, Canada — all these places have comparable violent crime rates to ours. But they have much lower deaths from violent crimes. Why? FEWER GUNS.
Conservatives will spin nuanced, imaginative, speculative cultural flights of fancy, arguing that it’s because Americans have “darker hearts” or because the Japanese and Germans “value life” more than us. Don’t buy it. It’s because it’s harder for them to get guns. Period.
Nobody here is saying that the shooter isn’t at fault and clearly had horror in his mind, they’re saying that the body count wouldn’t be so high if it weren’t so easy for a civilian to get one of the excess of guns (and that’s key here–EXCESS) that proliferate the market.
What defines excess? The market is going to bear what people want to buy. If their is saturation, then that product stops getting made. It’s like any other product (in terms of how sales work – Need to get that in before some jackass says, “Oh yeah Jay, a gun is really the same thing as a pair of ski boots!!”). In addition, despite guns supposedly being so easy to obtain and readily available, incidents like this continue to be extremely rare.
This boy–and that’s what he was, a boy–bought his firearms from somebody who gave him receipts.
He was not a boy. He was 23 years old and legally allowed to purchase a firearm.
This is not responsible gun trade, but heaven forbid we crack down on such merchants.
Crack down on what? Every indication is the transaction was done by the book. The guy had no criminal record, so he was able to make the purchase.
incidents like this continue to be extremely rare
Oh, how comforting. How many would it take before there were cause for alarm, Jay?
Sure, the market will bear all sorts of shit; it doesn’t mean that a completely unregulated market is the answer.
Oh, how comforting. How many would it take before there were cause for alarm, Jay?
I didn’t say it was comforting. But people like yourself need to stop behaving like it’s an epidemic.
And the market for guns is very well regulated.
What constitutes an “epidemic”? One a year? One a month?
And why would it have to get to that point before you do anything more than shrug your shoulders?
Why don’t you all just start blaming Bush. You know you’re just aching to…
I thought it was more de rigeur to blame the victims, like Derbyshire.
The guy had no criminal record, so he was able to make the purchase.
And yet he was clearly very mentally disturbed, writing down his fantasies about killing in creative writing class no less. I submit that if a young man with a history of violent behavior (stalking, arson) is legally allowed to purchase a firearm, then something is severely wrong with the law itself.
I concede though that I am at a loss on how to fairly and effectively legislate as much though, particularly in the case of the sort of emotional problems Cho had, however I am compelled to believe that a rigorous licensing procedure for all gun-owners would at least have some positive impact in this area. If he were required to prove basic mental competancy, Cho might never have been able to purchase the weapon, for instance, or would at least have had a harder time of it. Might have been less easy for him (and incitentally, other criminals) to have stolen a gun if it were guaranteed that the legal owner of it were equally competant and responsible and, say, bought a gunlock and hid the key or something, I dunno. Just saying that even if you oppose “gun control” (read: Gun Elimination) as I do, you at least have to be able to concede that there are areas of the current model that could sorely do with a bit more regulation.
Just to be clear, I don’t think gun laws or gun availability have much impact on spree killers, just the overall American homicide rate in general. Spree killers can happen anywhere.
Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy: Yeah, yeah. It’s the guns.
We get it.
Now get this:
The Second Amendment to the Constitution, one of the “Bill of Right”
Read it.
Learn it.
Here’s what happened to the people who didn’t have it.
Why don’t you all just start blaming Bush. You know you’re just aching to…
We’re waiting on Bush to blame it on 9-11 first.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…
Why is this part always glossed over by the Cold Dead Hands crowd? Tell me how, for example, a man with a small arsenal of assault rifles is (a) providing for the security of a free State and (b) is part of a well-regulated militia?
For what it’s worth, it would be nice if more people were required to go through at least the same amount of training and testing required of getting a driver’s license as it would take to get something that is actually designed to kill people. But no…if I can’t get a gun when I want, and how many I want, then we might as well gut the Constitution entirely.
I’m aware of the second amendment, Frank, I’m just pointing out that it’s bad policy these days. Also, your photo is a non-sequitur.
Second amendment absolutists always forget the “well regulated” part. And the argument that this thing is rare is ridiculous too. When it does happen, 30 people die. Somehow that this doesn’t happen daily is a good thing? No.
“If their is saturation, then that product stops getting made. It’s like any other product…”
Right, Jay. It’s just like any other product, which is why we allow the free flow and trade of nuclear arms … Oh wait …
Second amendment absolutists always forget the “well regulated” part
No we don’t.
It refers to the Militia, which in order to be “well – regulated” needs to be trained in the use and handling of guns.
Since it was the intention of the Founding Fathers that the militia be ready to roll at a moment’s notice, the free and unfettered ownership and usage of guns was required.
Tell me how, for example, a man with a small arsenal of assault rifles is (a) providing for the security of a free State and (b) is part of a well-regulated militia?
Well, Spidey, he might lend a weapon to someone who doesn’t have one, or whose weapon is in the Repair Shop, when they need to head over to a nearby high school and shoot a hole in some pouting, alienated, young “yoot’s” confused brain, to get him to stop bulletizing his classmates, that were teasing him the other day.
And the argument that this thing is rare is ridiculous too. When it does happen, 30 people die.
Wrong. When “it” happens, it has always been less than 20. As has been WELL reported on the news, this attack had the highest death toll of it’s kind in US History.
This event and those like it are tragic enough as it is without you piling on the hyperbole.
There were 11,600 homicides in 2004 committed with a firearm (source CDC). The majority of those are gang related and drug related.
That’s a fascinating fact, Jay. Where’d you get it?
Jay, I don’t blame “gun culture” for murders relating to the drug trade. Europe, Japan, Australia and Canada all have that as well, after all. I blame easy gun availability first and foremost.
The reason we have vastly more murders than the rest of the developed world (despite having similar levels of violent crime) is primarily because it is much, much easier to get guns here. That’s my only point.
I submit that if a young man with a history of violent behavior (stalking, arson) is legally allowed to purchase a firearm, then something is severely wrong with the law itself.
He had no “history”. He was “referred to counseling”. We don’t by whom or for what, and we don’t know if he went, and / or what happened when he went.
He was “referred to counseling”.
And was prescribed anti-depressive medication. And some women reported he was stalking them, and setting fire to a dorm. Paperwork accounting for this has to exist somewhere, and yet it was not included in the background check, which is not to say that it necessarily should have been, but I have a hard time swallowing that this guy should have been allowed outright to purchase a handgun given that recent history. A more thorough background check for the purchase or, perhaps more appropriate and convenient for most people, a personal licensing procedure would have likely as not caught these red flags and would have hindered his access to guns, thereby limiting his ability to slaughter people.
So Frankie believes in vigilante justice and the rightness of crowds.
And is this superheroic assault weapons collector going to train everybody he so cavalierly hands a weapon to so as to avoid them blowing away innocent people or themselves?
Rex, you bring up an interesting point, because civil libertarians would scream HTILER!!! FASCISM!!! if anyone — outside of this context — were to suggest that people treated for mental illness should be somehow “tagged” by the government. Insurance companies already do it. Try getting a life insurance policy of you have been diagnosed with depression.
In guaranteeing our “freedoms,” we as a society elect to take certain risks. Nowadays, our freedoms MUST include the nebulous “right to privacy.” And we (or at least the ACLU, etc.) have concluded that the risk is worth it.
Similarly, civil libertarians have concluded that the risk to the general population from furloughed prisoners convicted of violent crimes is far lower than the benefit to said criminals. If someone gets killed by a parollee or furloughed criminal (as happened here in Oklahoma City about a decade ago) well … too bad.
And to all the “Bush is a nazi – we’re living in the Fascist States of America” crowd … isn’t it fascinating that it takes less than 24 yours for YOUR SIDE to demand taking away constitutional rights because of one tragedy. And you guys have the gall to complain about the Patriot Act. It is to laugh.
It refers to the Militia, which in order to be “well – regulated” needs to be trained in the use and handling of guns.
Fine. Well-trained people who are members in good standing of what passes for state or federal ‘militia’ these days can have whatever gun they want.
But nutjob loner 23-year college students can’t walk into a store and by two semi-automatic handguns with a credit card and a five-second background check, o-tay?
Actually I another have a deal for those of you who support a president who has been busy trashing every item in the bill of rights except the second amendment:
Since we’re going with a strict interpretation of the framer’s intentions, it’s obvious that framers had no idea about uzi’s, semi-automatics, rpg’s and nuclear bombs (which are “arms”, after all) so there’s no way that they could have intended to include such weapons in the second amendment.
Therefore, why don’t we agree that what the second amendment means is that “the right to keep and bear the types of arms that existed in 1789 shall not be infringed.”
If the VT wacko has been armed with a flintlock and a blunderbuss a lot more people would be alive today.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
All the believers in the right to carry automatic weapons would not join the National Guard to do so and don’t understand the significance of introductory phrases. People who are willing and eager to give up their constitutional protections insist on having guns which lead to others giving up their very lives. The kind of people that value their weapons over the lives of their children are the real problem in society
Rex, you bring up an interesting point, because civil libertarians would scream HTILER!!! FASCISM!!! if anyone — outside of this context — were to suggest that people treated for mental illness should be somehow “tagged” by the government
Maybe that’s because nothing outside of this context involves giving mentally ill people control of devices that are specifically designed to kill people efficiently.
The private possession of automatic and semi-automatic weapons NOT being necessary for the maintenance of a well-regulated militia (or anything else besides going on killing rampages), said possession is a privilege, not a right.
I don’t believe the government should outlaw such weapons, but it should do its best to see that as many of them as possible remain in the hands of sane and competent individuals.
Don’t you think that’s a fair tradeoff?
Try getting a life insurance policy of you have been diagnosed with depression.
Have done. Tried to at least. Wouldn’t recommend it.
Thing is though I also see the civil libertarians point here (largely because I consider myself one) as far as infringing privacy rights, yet I still think something on that order still needs to be done, and I hate to admit but will be the first do to so that I have no idea exactly what that something would be that would be both fair and safe. I don’t think insurance companies should, for instance, be allowed to deny their services on the basis of diagnosed depression in childhood, but if they can do it, why can’t/shouldn’t gun sellers?
Problem is that thats not the debate, how to best solve both problems. The debate is between both sides arguing that only one problem exists and the other side has it. Its Rosie ODonnel saying that the right to bear arms is poisoning our culture and way of life, and its the NRA (or, in this thread, Frank) saying that gun control advocates are Nazis in disguise.
Yup, a gun can kill off the best educated. What a stupid remark.
The greatest threat to any American is the gun nut and his weapons.
No gun nuts, no guns. That should be simple enough for even you to understand.
A few years ago it would have been heavy metal bands now it’s Vice City. Cue joe LIEberman in 3.. 2.. 1…
“I’m for gun control, everywhere. Proudly so.”….
Put your money where you mouth is Ollie….99% of those gang members aren’t legally allowed to possess weapons, yet amazingly, they do!
So, now you take the guns away from all the folks that can legally own them and then, voila! In Ollies magical world the gang bangers just stop carrying the suckers…..but wait, it is already illegal for them to own them!
And the 800lb elephant in the room is that AA males have a gun violence rate 10x higher than the rest of the population (10x higher rate of being a victim of gun violence too)….if those numbers are removed, turns out that the US has a homocide rate about the same as sweden….
So Frankie believes in vigilante justice and the rightness of crowds.
Wrong. No further explanation required. You are a liar.
Yup, a gun can kill off the best educated. What a stupid remark.
Cherry picking at its very worst. You are a liar, too.
You two: Why pretend you are in a discussion / debate when you just lie about what another person said?
Why don’t I just say you insisted that Barack Obama killed all those people?
Pointless. Silly.
“…if those numbers are removed …”
Well, that’s about the most casual, euphemistic phrasing for genocide i’ve ever read …
Holy mother of God, Frank. You really believe that regulating the sale of fucking instruments of death will lead to the fucking Holocaust?
Why are you still posting here, you sick fuck?
“In Ollies magical world the gang bangers just stop carrying the suckers”
There are gangs in Europe, and drugs in Europe, but through a combination of decriminalization of lower-level drugs, and restrictions on the gun market, the European gangs kill each other much less frequently. If you want to reduce homicide in this country, legalize pot, cocaine, and heroin, and crack down on the sales of guns. Of course, conservatives aren’t bothered by the homicide and incarceration rates because they’ve already written off what Pedro calls “AA males.”
Why are you still posting here, you sick fuck?
Only because you’re here, you narcissistic freak.
Only because you’re here.
conservatives aren’t bothered by the homicide and incarceration rates
Take away the guns!
Legalize drugs!
Let all substance abusers out of prison!
There, that takes care of your next 20 posts…
You’re not reading any conservative posts, why should we read yours?
Legalize drugs!
Let all substance abusers out of prison!
…well why not? I mean non-violent drug-offenses constitute a ridiculous percentage of our current incarcerated population. I don’t like drugs and would probably never use them if they became legal, same with alot of sane people. My making them illegal in fact, I remember reading somewhere that as a result of the Drug War’s criminalisation of Herion, it is now something like 50 times more pure than it was in the 70s. Arguably removing the criminal status of a drug like, for instance, marijuana (which is so minimally toxic that it is impossible to overdose on, unlike alcohol) would start the regulated manufacture of a product that you can safely, publically buy, which would have the secondary effect of making inner city crime less self-sustainable and thus less appealing. More room in jail for real criminals, and less imparitive to become one, what exactly is the downside of doing away with the new prohibition when the old one didnt work at all?
Whether or not legalizing drugs would eliminate crime — even drug related crime — is certainly arguable. But I’m not even going to argue the fact.
Whether or not drug users are not “sane” is also arguable — they are, indeed sane, unless they are mentally ill chemical abusers, a slightly different category.
Set all that aside for a moment.
You must admit that a large number of drug offenders are addicted, and will pursue that addiction once released from prison.
Unless America is willing to abandon its stigmatizing of ex – cons and / or recovering substance abusers — not likely anytime soon — there is going to be a fresh crop of addicts hitting the streets on “Set ‘em loose” Day.
(Historical footnote: The “old prohibition” accomplished more than it gets credit for: Alcoholic related domestic violence decreased, active alcoholism declined, alcohol related injuries and accidents went down)
To let thousands of addicts hit the streets — now that’s insane!
To let them hit the streets without treatment — sadistic…
Your experiment has been tried with the mentally ill. The outcome has been awful, and while in the process of being corrected, it is far from squared away.
Their “let ‘em loose” date: NOV ‘63.
Grade as of today on the success of the experiment: Maybe a 70.
The mentally ill make up a larger percentage in prison than they do in the population at large.
I didn’t check the figures, but I’m sure that least 30% of the homeless are mentally ill.
You can probably count on a great number of addicts returning to prison (muggings, burglaries, theft — unless you want drugs to be legal AND free); and you can probably count on a large number of them becoming homeless.
“Unintended consequences” and all that.
You lost the right to be taken seriously as soon as you bvrought up the Holocaust.
Just so you know.
N G: Stop commenting on my comments, and say something!
You miss “s” so much you’re taking his place?
Stop being a pest, and make a contribution, or does annoying me constitute, in your mind, a contribution?
The framers of the Constitution obviously had semiautomatic pistols in mind for their well-regulated militias. Therefore in NRO-land blaming the English curriculum is fair, as is blaming video games.
John McWhorter, as usual, has an amazing insight into the shootings.
The mentally ill aren’t relevant, Frank. The proper analogy is western europe’s gradual decriminalization of pot, first and foremost, and their limiting of handguns. The point of decriminalization is not so much to alter the addiction rate, but to prevent violent drug gangs from profiting from drugs.
The point of limiting handguns is to limit the access violent drug gangs have to guns. It won’t eliminate it, but it will cut the homicide rate and the incarceration rate, which is where we’re way above the average for the developed world.
Dr AGH: “The mentally ill aren’t relevant”?
And why the hell not?
I thought I saved you 20 posts.
What you have more or less said with your comment was, “I don’t like your example, because it destroys my premise. So let’s ignore it, so I can say again what I have said many times.”
If you look at my comment of 12:26 PM, the situation I predict is likely. For the purported results you claim — for which you have no evidence — unless you’re contending that Europeans and Americans think alike, a preposterous notion — my results would still obtain.