UV Tech 枪击，死了33人

[Jun]

且不说Michael Moore了，就连澳大利亚的总理今天都跑出来炫耀自己国家枪支限制的政策，这已经不是左右政治阵营的问题了。

就算美国人里不是个个都热爱中国文化，热爱中国人民，有红脖子看见黄面孔就难受，so what? 林子大了什么鸟没有？自己心惊肉跳一定要怪别人吗？如果你要我跟其他中国人心连心一条心我可做不到，关我什么事？我还想其他中国人如何如何呢，人家听我的吗？

[tiffany]

33 innocent people died and all you care about is possible impact on your visa and job application, I think that's self-centered.
I am not going to argue with you any more. You make me sick.

knowing, 如果你是说我， 你可真是冤枉我了。 我没有visa问题， 我已经有绿卡2年了。 我的问题是我不管什么时候， 涉及到中国人， 我就特敏感。 我想讨论的是这个心态其实不好， 但很难， 或者说我不知道怎么不这么想。

这个反应也正常啊，没什么好不好的，要接受你就会对中国人／事敏感这个现实。

[boat]

33 innocent people died and all you care about is possible impact on your visa and job application, I think that's self-centered.
I am not going to argue with you any more. You make me sick.

knowing, 如果你是说我， 你可真是冤枉我了。 我没有visa问题， 我已经有绿卡2年了。 我的问题是我不管什么时候， 涉及到中国人， 我就特敏感。 我想讨论的是这个心态其实不好， 但很难， 或者说我不知道怎么不这么想。

这个反应也正常啊，没什么好不好的，要接受你就会对中国人／事敏感这个现实。

白金， 但有时就会导致看问题不能中立， 或者片面， 或者激烈。 比如这次， 我的注意力就是放在了是什么人的问题上。

[Beguiled]

It doesn't seem to me that boat is worried about visas or job prospects. She is bothered that she cares so much more when Chinese are involved. I think it's understandable to have such a mentality, especially for someone living in America, a country obssessed with race. I suppose it helps if you try to define yourself less on your ethnicity.
Some American media may be biased -- that's sad and inevitable, but there are many different voices out there too.

[water]

oh, I made you sick. I am sorry. I believe you live in a world with many sick people, especially lunatic racist Chinese F1 students around everyday.

Boat and 火星狗 talked about their thoughts after the initial shock. I tried to understand them in their shoes but I never said I agreed. Instead I suggested a way to turn the negative thoughts to a positive action in real life.

And I belive the first direct feeling of Chinese students community after hearing this tragedy is shock and sadness. You can make accusations about me anyway you want. Anyway It's much easier to make yourself feel morally superior in the internet world than treat people respectablly and equally in real life.

[花差花差小将军]

Then tell me why we need to overly discuss this and validate their point? Let alone the self-incriminating tendency

[boat]

It doesn't seem to me that boat is worried about visas or job prospects. She is bothered that she cares so much more when Chinese are involved. I think it's understandable to have such a mentality, especially for someone living in America, a country obssessed with race. I suppose it helps if you try to define yourself less on your ethnicity.
Some American media may be biased -- that's sad and inevitable, but there are many different voices out there too.

是， 是， 是； 这是我的情况。

[Jun]

In this particular case, who is obsessed about race?

There are a lot of racist assholes in US, sure. No doubt there are racist chatter on the Internet among extreme right wing nuts. Do you want to give a damn about what they say?

But in the media coverage I have seen so far and from my chatter with people around me, I have not heard anyone who make sweeping generalization about Asian (or Chinese) people's violent tendencies. The only place that I have heard discussion about generalized race and national sentiments -- IS HERE!

On NPR, Washington Post, Salon.com, other major media outlets, I have heard many people who come out and ask, the kid was 8 years old when he immigrated to US. He grew up in VA. What does that say about the education and social influence?

Yes, there are incidents that evokes intense discussion about immigration, but THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM. This mass murder is about school security, education, violence, (most intensely debated) about gun control. Nobody but some Chinese immigrants and some extreme racists are focusing on the nationality of the killer. I personally happen to think 1) it's the human condition and 2) it's about mental health and public health. But that's just me. To be focusing on Chinese national and racial sentiments is ... stretching it way behind my comprehension.

This is not ABOUT Chinese immigrant. Why does any irrelevant person feel compelled to "defend" herself? What's there to defend? What does a particular crazy Korean kid who has killed 32 people have anything I need to internalize about? Why should anyone take it personally EXCEPT THOSE WHO HAD KNOWN HIM? I just don't get it. I just don't understand.

[boat]

Then tell me why we need to overly discuss this and validate their point? Let alone the self-incriminating tendency

我是想知道你们怎么能做到不“self-incriminating tendency”( 虽然我并不同意你这样说， 但我们先用你这个词， 比较容易理解。)

[water]

Then tell me why we need to overly discuss this and validate their point? Let alone the self-incriminating tendency

我是想知道你们怎么能做到不“self-incriminating tendency”( 虽然我并不同意你这样说， 但我们先用你这个词， 比较容易理解。)

＂己所不欲，勿施于人"

[花差花差小将军]

Because I lack such tendency

[tiffany]

Then tell me why we need to overly discuss this and validate their point? Let alone the self-incriminating tendency

我是想知道你们怎么能做到不“self-incriminating tendency”( 虽然我并不同意你这样说， 但我们先用你这个词， 比较容易理解。)

主要得有自己的个人意识。知道自己是谁，跟自己的圈子有什么样的关系，这个关系是否互利－－－如果否的话得改变关系；然后也知道一个人是一个人，虽然大家背景相同，有共同语言，但是谁也不代表谁。

[tiffany]

＂己所不欲，勿施于人" 老祖宗不是早说过了？你得到美国才学会吗？

老祖宗的教训很多，依稀似乎还有一个教人说：不知道怎么说话就不要说话的，原来怎么说的来着？

[Jun]

且不说这个疯掉的男学生是韩国移民孩子在美国长大的，跟中国根本扯不上关系（也没有主流美国媒体到现在还厚着脸皮跟亚洲或种族扯关系）；就算是新下飞机的中国学生，或者是经历背景跟我一样的中国女移民，甚至是我的什么远方亲戚失去理智伤害了别人，我也不理解为什么我或者其他中国人要感到丢什么面子，担什么负罪感。这也扯得太远了吧？都哪儿跟哪儿啊？我必须承认完全不能理解。

倒是如果我认识这个人，或许会回想自己是否观察到这人精神失常的迹象，是否应该建议他去接受心理检查和治疗，这才是我觉得有关联的事情。

[camellia]

Can we stop now? There were 32 HUMAN BEING who were still alive yesterday DEAD. BEING KILLED by gun. Is any one here related to those people who lost their lives? IF NOT, please stop acting like you need to have recovering treatment after tragedy.

[火星狗]

今天早上逛某bbs，看到一些人提议起诉那个最先发布rumor的编辑，老实说我被sick到了。这么大的惨案，自私的人就只能看到自己身边三尺之内的事情并且无限放大。那个时候我可没想到自己几个小时后会因为同样的原因让人家sick。

这个案子对我来说挺震撼，我平时连CSI都躲着走，鸵鸟心态严重。在internet上看的时候直觉得毛骨悚然。然后看见那条rumor，本来很正常的人类情感（同情震惊惋惜，总之都还比较positive）突然就混进了一些说不清倒不明但是绝对是negative的感觉。直到今天早上被relieve掉，但是我在“松了一口气”的同时感觉到了真正的guilty。今天看了大家的讨论，我才明白为什么我会感到guilty。在33条人命丧失的时候仍旧惦记着“小我”，姑且不论那个惦记的缘由是否正当，本身就是有私心的不美不好的human nature。

好像我和boat并不需要别人来validate我们的“松了一口气”?如果真是那样的心理，大概早就自然淘汰离开恶人谷了，我们也不会feel bad about it。Realize it's there and control it，这个才是我们肯暴露思想阴暗面的初衷吧。

I suppose it helps if you try to define yourself less on your ethnicity.

这句话对我震动很大，大概是我今天收获的最有建设性的一句话。

好了，在我这方面其实与整件事情没有关系的非理性逆向racial profile就告一段落吧。

这件事情的确太shock，今天我们学校的校长发了一封给全体人员的悼念邮件，学校也降了半旗。Internet上有更多细节被揭露出来，看得我非常难受。

[tiffany]

You r located at VT?

[火星狗]

No.

直到我们校长发电子邮件，我才直观的感受到这件事情对于这个国家的人的影响。怎么你们学校里没反应吗？

[tiffany]

no, very quiet here.

yeah, some kids on the news yesterday were visibly shaken --- really, how can people even beging to get over a trama like this, really cannot imagine

[water]

＂己所不欲，勿施于人" 老祖宗不是早说过了？你得到美国才学会吗？

老祖宗的教训很多，依稀似乎还有一个教人说：不知道怎么说话就不要说话的，原来怎么说的来着？

哦，有这么一句，难得你知道．　

boat，言语不当之处抱歉了．

[tiffany]

哦，原来您老不知道。难怪难怪。

[camellia]

no, very quiet here.

yeah, some kids on the news yesterday were visibly shaken --- really, how can people even beging to get over a trama like this, really cannot imagine

I was shaking for more than 10 minutes after a minor car accident. Depressed for a long time after 911. Hardly can move myself after seeing one man gun down on the street of Brooklyn. And I consider myself strong minded. That's why I Couldn't imagine what kind of horror people are going through right now in Virginia Tech. Especially those parents who lost their children. To raise a college student, that's around 20 years of parenting. It happened in school not at war. Killed under gun shot is totally different from disease or accident. Hope time will help those heart break parents getting back to their normal life.

[洛洛]

我昨晚才看到新闻，第一个感觉是特难受，怎么会有人这么冷血，然后――我确实考虑到自己（当时确实有谣言说是中国人），我怎么跟同事解释，在中国私人拥有枪支是非法的，而且男生不用服兵役，很多人都没有机会接触枪支（我自己军训的射击训练只是走过场）...我们很多同事就在va tech念过书，他们对学校感情很深，那么好的学校，发生这样的事。我也想知道why（尤其是中国留学生的话），而不是只是跟他们说声I feel sorry for you。

911后签证的麻烦就不用说了，还有其他比如安检，招聘，驾照...等种种规定，至今我还在被折磨中。

[Jun]

我怎么跟同事解释

You don't need to.

And if someone wants you to 解释, just tell them to f*ck off.

[洛洛]

jun他们不是恶意的那种询问。――不过今天真相渐渐出来以后，而且我几乎整天都在外面开会，没有跟人讨论新闻。

[lvxiu]

事情太可怕，好像看了一场真实的criminal minds，晚上作了几场恶梦。
校方和警方反应也太迟钝了，导致伤亡这么多。

[gigi]

×òÌìÌýµ½Õâ¸öÏûÏ¢£¬ÎҵĵÚÒ»·´Ó¦ÊÇɱÈËÕßÓÐmemtal health problem£¬ È»ºó¾ÍÏ뵽ǹе¹ÜÀíÎÊÌâ¡£½ñÌìÌý¹ã²¥£¬Virginia Gorvernor ÊÇÕâÑù»Ø´ðÒªÇó¼Óǿǹе¹ÜÖƵĺôÉùµÄ: "For those who want to make this a political hobby horse they can ride, I¡¯ve got nothing but loathing for them," Kaine said during a press conference this evening. "Let this community heal."

ÎÒºÞ²»µÃץסËû´óº°:"This is not a political issue. This is a moral issue!"

[/code]

[Rainbow]

我觉得还是影响同国籍的人的。这次

[笑嘻嘻]

等我起床的时候，架又吵完了。
各位，尤其是各位声称自己新中年的，都消消气。据今天泼墨博http://ckmoon.yculblog.com/post.1793421.html和今日helen博http://www.blogcn.com/u/97/13/helenclaire/index.html显示。人不可能互相了解，到了一定年龄也不愿意完全被人了解。每个过了青春期的勤奋聪明的人，如我，都在往孤岛的方向迈进。（我一句话用了这样多的形容词，可见我最近看狸狸博也看多了。）作为一粒成年孤岛，大家站在自己的角度出发想问题也没有什么错误。当然能够能够站在更好的角度更加好哈。
比如我今天对着一个无辜的人发了几十个关于自己为什么这样勤奋却毫无成就的天问，但是在这样严肃的大问题的帖子里和稀泥。我想说的是你不能对他人的道德做如此细节的要求。社会问题又不是能用道德来解决的。中国的地区问题，民族问题都还严重呢。美国能把种族问题控制在一个稳定范围内够不错的了。1，我为什么会转到种族问题上？这应该是个大是大非的问题。
当然也没准儿你们都觉得从争论中得到了许多我也不知道的东西，也说不定哈。

[橙]

[quote]我想说的是你不能对他人的道德做如此细节的要求。[/quote
我同意这句话。

还有，刚到国外缺乏安全感的阶段，恐怕很少有人能做到清醒地把个人和所谓“海外华人”这个群体分得一清二楚。都需要躲在集体里获得些哪怕只是想象中的温暖帮助。自然也就会认为这个集体里出什么事儿都跟自己有点关系。
应该不应该，正确不正确，这样的判断都挡不住它客观存在。
人在社区中安全感增加，幸福感增加，预期寿命长，出生率高，这是有数据证明的。寻找同类，区分异类，这个是天性，保不定哪一天会发现也写进了遗传密码。
在生存压力大的时候，个性和自我意识就是一件奢侈品。

我自己现在是不会有“幸亏不是中国人干的”这样的想法了。看到别人这样想，第一时间还会有点惊诧。但是我不能说我理解不了他们为什么这么想。也许10年8年前我自己也会这么想。
海外华人这方面的敏感和狭隘，是他们的成长背景和生存环境造成的。要改变，也不是一朝一夕的事情。在开明富足民主自由的环境下成长生活的人，自然会更加尊重个体。
不管怎么说，象前面几位那样愿意自省，已经不是每个人都能做到的。

[Jun]

人不可能互相了解，

Xiaoxixi you are right. I declare I accept people who I don't understand as they are. (I don't mean to imply anybody needs to be accepted, but the acceptance is for myself.) I accept the fact that I don't understand.

"Nobody knows anybody. Not that well."

(Can't help but sneak this in though -- I personally don't think this tragedy has anything to do with morality. But that's just me.)

[putaopi]

The instructor of Room 204 recounts the event. I was shaky just by watching her interview, horrible.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

[dropby]

我觉得这个更恐怖. 不大可能是自杀, 多半是玩出事故来的. 美国这个枪支管制为啥就一直阻力这么大呢?

美国又响枪　五岁男童举枪自杀身亡

美国维吉尼亚理工学院枪击事件突显出美国枪枝泛滥的问题，无独有偶，在俄亥俄州，17日发生一起五岁男童对自己胸膛开枪身亡的惨剧，警方正深入调查。

据东森新闻记者罗纭辰编译报道，五岁应该是无忧无虑的年纪，不过俄亥俄州州府哥伦布，传出五岁男童以一把枪结束自己的生命，住在冠军大道800街的沙迪厄斯家，五岁的小男孩汤玛斯(ThadeusThomas)，17日晚间被发现卧倒在楼上卧室一片血泊当中。

汤玛斯以一把上膛手枪，对准自己的胸膛之後开枪，当时汤玛斯的父母都在家里，听到枪响之後，紧急将汤玛斯送医抢救，不过仍旧回天乏术。

当地警方正深入调查，小男孩是怎麽拿到这把枪，及怎麽会对着自己开枪，截至当前为止警方没有对这起枪击案发出立即的指控。

[simonsun]

美国这个枪支管制为啥就一直阻力这么大呢?

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Protects the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms.

"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. "

你知道美国人多固执，好几个信条动不得。比如说“fairplay”。要是大家觉得你unfair，就算你多有理，也讲不清。再比如说这个宪法。制定了要尊重要遵守，但是发现不好了，就要想办法改。如果像个圣经供起来，那和人人背毛选没啥区别。

反对枪支管制的家伙，发财是第一目标。宪法正好给他们拿来当挡箭牌。不过我怀疑某些天良丧尽的人在找到此类挡箭牌之后，心里真的会以为自己是个圣人。

[21grams]

So we will be safer if the government has guns and people are not allowed to have guns? I think the government would love that. The problem is whether we can trust the government to own and distribute guns.

[Jun]

别忘了加拿大也是不限制私人拥有枪支的哦。而且小孩子玩枪走火的例子毕竟是少数，跟游泳池害死的数目不能比。参见Freakonomics这本书里的解释。

[tiffany]

well, it is not all about making money.... one side of the arguement is that if the shooter did not have such easy access to guns, this horrible thing would not have happened, the other side of the arguement is that if the students had gun, this guy would be shot and stopped by somebody before he could have done that much damage. Personally I do not believe in the latter arguement, 'cause it takes a killer to shoot at people.

However, I really think gun control is besides the point right now, remember the infamous Ma Jiajue, who murdered 6 roommates? One could have argued knives should be banned too. I do not even think this kind of people are stoppable, and this kind of tragic preventable, it is just so random and inevitable in hindsight.

Young lives were cut short, so wasted and so meaningless, but what can we --- the general public, horrified bystanders --- do? Pretty much nothing, nothing effectual anyways, we really hate this feeling don't we? and the saddest thing? just wait and see, quite a few people who understand this feeling would jump out and take advantage of this whole thing, and they will succeed. All those people at VT would become a step stone for someone's career, just like all the ghosts of the twin towers of the world trade center.

[dropby]

加拿大对枪支的管制比美国严得多. 加拿大至今未发生类似的校园枪击事件. 加拿大社会的枪击事件, 不少涉及枪支走私. 应该说作为美国的紧邻, 这个问题上, 加拿大在某种程度上是遭殃的池鱼. 英国对枪支的管制也很严, 英国也从未发生类似事件. 奥大利亚十年前有游客枪杀三十五人, 从此收紧枪支管制, 十年来未蹈覆辙.

是, 刀子一样可以杀人, 但是刀子的杀伤力小得多. 一个人挥着刀子大庭广众下杀人, 能杀几个? 制服一个持刀的罪犯的机率和制服一个持枪的罪犯的机率各是多少? 而且刀子是日常用品, 总不能大家都不做饭吧? 枪械不是吧? 美国虽然对枪支管制比较松, 我理解对杀伤力极大的枪支, 比如机关枪也是管得比较紧的吧?

美国宪法制定是在牛仔时代, 允许持枪有当时当地的合理性. 时至今日, 环境改变了规定也该变吧. 就算你是VT的学生, 就算你有枪, 从今天以后你会天天带着枪去上课吗? 枪是可以用来自卫. 但是现实地说, 用到枪来自卫的时候能有多少? 杀手永远是有准备的, 没有准备的受害人即使有一屋子的枪, 当时当地没有带在手上有什么用? 就算是支持持枪的人, 也不会希望看到大家都得带枪上街, 带枪上课, 带枪逛街吧? 如果真是那样, 我怀疑枪杀事件只会增加. 多少人会冲冠一怒就把枪拔出来了?

那位同学说政府有枪人民没枪如何如何. 人民有枪又如何? 美国宪法也没说人民手中的枪是用来对付政府的吧? 就算人民有枪, 军队可是还在政府手里, 机关枪, 大炮, 战斗机....也都只有政府才有.

美国难禁枪也许不全是钱的原因. 不过按美国的现状, 武器制造商肯定大发其财. 政治游戏中, 钱的声音有多大, 大家都知道我就不说了.

[森林的火焰]

我记得据Michael Moore的电影说，加拿大的枪支平均拥有量和美国差不多。但这些有枪的家庭更多是在有渔猎的地方，从兔子和鹿嘴里保护庄稼的农民和打猎爱好者。不仅有枪，还有厉害的弩箭什么的对付熊。
但是大城市里，枪不是有身份证就可以买到的，似乎检查很严，手续很繁。多伦多最近发生数起枪击案，发生在黑帮或青少年之间。警方都说是美国来的走私枪。我觉得一定程度上是加拿大警察推卸责任的借口。当然，美国的确是有不少走私枪进入加拿大供应帮派团伙。
美国枪多，太容易得到是一个事实；另一个问题是：包括ＮＲＡ在内的很多人，喜欢把社会描述得耸人听闻，好象人们动不动就该开枪保护自己。在这样的生存压力下，本来口角小事或者打一架的事情都上升到动枪的高度。同样程度的冲突，有枪的时候就是命案，没枪的时候至多斗殴罢了。
把社会描述得极不安定，人们自求多福，另一个用处是转移人们的视线，追问用于社会安全和人民教育的那部分钱到哪里去了。本来社会安全不能全靠加强警力，要靠经济和福利带动，以及教育的更完备。当人们光注意社区有多不安全的时候并响应号召主动带枪保卫自己的时候，政府好象就可以逃避那一部分该负的责任了。

[21grams]

那位同学说政府有枪人民没枪如何如何. 人民有枪又如何? 美国宪法也没说人民手中的枪是用来对付政府的吧? 就算人民有枪, 军队可是还在政府手里, 机关枪, 大炮, 战斗机....也都只有政府才有.

========================
No the Constitution did not say that, but I fail to see why I should trust the government with distributing guns, especially it already has all the other weapons. Violence is not about owning or banning guns.

[simonsun]

So we will be safer if the government has guns and people are not allowed to have guns? I think the government would love that. The problem is whether we can trust the government to own and distribute guns.

你不能trust这个政府，那么就换一个政府，但打仗治安不能靠民兵……你说的对，人民要做的，是让好的政府拿枪。

不过我们讨论的不是政府该不该拿枪的问题啊。现在是讨论什么政府该拿枪的时候么？有一个学生跑过来，拿着昨天在小店里买的枪，朝大家扫射。这说明什么，如果你觉得说明枪的买卖太随便了，那么就应该管一下。你要谁来管，你不能管，那么就要政府来管。枪支管制是政府向下的事情，你希望政府干预，当然先要相信你把枪交上去，他不会对你扫射。要不然大家造反算了。

问题要一个一个的解决，不然大家都是好意，就互相绊了腿。最不好的就是这种辩论：坏政府拿枪信不过，枪不能给政府；人民拿枪但是人民不能打仗，而且人民要互相残杀，因此枪也不能给人民。如果政府有枪了，那么人民也得有枪。要不然大家都不要有枪。好比一个人有枪了，大家都得有枪。要么大家都不能有枪……你写学术著作可以，解决问题，这样就不成。

布什政府还有一年，如果等不及，就算你信不过布什政府，你还是要催促他加强枪支管制――因为你觉得被一个强盗扫射，比被政府扫射，要更有可能。当然如果你的想法刚好翻过来，那你就不应该支持枪支管制。某些情况下，你只能解决一个问题，那么就解决更迫切的。否则，什么事情也办不了。

[克里斯汀]

"倒是如果我认识这个人，或许会回想自己是否观察到这人精神失常的迹象，是否应该建议他去接受心理检查和治疗，这才是我觉得有关联的事情。 "

死了３２个无辜的人，真令人痛惜．　但回过头来细想究竟有没有办法遏止这类事件的发生？　　一切并非全无征兆：　Cho 极其孤僻，拒绝和别人沟通．　事发前他身边很多人已经注意到他不正常的迹象. 　　他的同学们都怕他, 私下交谈时都曾经怀疑他会否是个"SCHOOL SHOOTER" 他的老师两年前已经看到他的creative writing里充满阴暗仇恨和暴力，尝试过和他沟通以及曾经向外求助．　并且我看他并不是一时丧失理智，假如之前两周内他已经发出炸弹警告以测试学校的保安程度．　　这人就是一颗充满仇恨的定时炸弹，迟早而已．　　但人们能拿他怎么办呢？　假如完全无法和他进行哪怕是一场正常的交谈，怎么能建议他去接受心理检查和治疗？　　令人痛心的是就算现在事情已经发生，还是看不到解决和预防的方法．　　　　　

[21grams]

So we will be safer if the government has guns and people are not allowed to have guns? I think the government would love that. The problem is whether we can trust the government to own and distribute guns.

你不能trust这个政府，那么就换一个政府，但打仗治安不能靠民兵……你说的对，人民要做的，是让好的政府拿枪。

不过我们讨论的不是政府该不该拿枪的问题啊。现在是讨论什么政府该拿枪的时候么？quote]

I am not discussing what government should own guns as they all do. Government is a concept and does not carry guns, people carry guns. I am discussing the issue of gun control, which is gun ditribution and not a complete gun ban. I hope this is the right time to discuss this issue. Unfortunately, this issue comes up every time when there is a mass shooting in school, but all discussions are no more than a knee-jerk reaction to the horrifying crme, and people quickly forget this issue and move on to other things. So this issue comes up again and again when another mass shooting happen.

The issue is not government having guns but their exclusive right to distribute guns, I am not sure a government can do a good job controlling guns so they do not fall into unreliable hands. If the desired end result is less violence, then government regulation can do very little. Drug is illegal, alcohol used to be illegal, despite government regulation, people who wanted these substances could always get their hands on them.

Even if civilian cannot own guns anymore, police and soldiers can still carry guns, how do we make sure they do not kill the innocent? As far as I know, they have killed more than the VA shooter has. An innocent life is a life regardless of who the killer is and how the life is lost. Many innocent people die everyday because of guns carried by soldiers (some acting in violation of military law), would gun control prevent these losses?

If the issue is the prevention of loss of innocent lives, and I think that is what we are discussing here, allowing the government to decide who may or may not own guns is ineffective in my mind.

Gun is a product of violence, not a cause of violence. I have no solution to reduce violence as it has existed for as long as human has existed, I hope you do. I hope everyone of us take this discussin beyond a mere discussion and actively engage in the reduction of violence - otherwise it is even less than a scholarly debate.

[Jun]

美国宪法也没说人民手中的枪是用来对付政府的吧?

Actually, that was indeed the idea behind the Second Amendment. The implied concept is -- If the government is oppressive and harmful (like, for example, the British Empire at that time), the people will have the means to organize militia to rise up against the government. That is precisely the point -- a constant reminder to the government of the power of the people.

令人痛心的是就算现在事情已经发生，还是看不到解决和预防的方法．

That is true. I'd be the first to advocate for better mental health awareness and treatment, but I cannot honestly say that better mental health would prevent individuals from slipping through the cracks. No matter how you look at this tragedy, it is an isolated incident. Unlike the vast majority of murders and deaths going on every day, this particular crime is not rooted in any obvious social structure or defect. It does not reflect a larger social problem. Therefore, fixing any larger social defect is not going to prevent it. Changes in social policies would only affect large-scale population behavior or condition -- and that's only if these policies actually work (they often don't work). When it comes to isolated individuals -- in this case, one single person -- there's nothing we as a society can do to prevent it. That's the reality of it.

As Dr. Tiffany said,

but what can we --- the general public, horrified bystanders --- do? Pretty much nothing, nothing effectual anyways, we really hate this feeling don't we? and the saddest thing?

Yes, mixed in our horror and fear and distress and sympathy, is a profound sense of powerlessness. Which is why I said this is the human condition. Living is hazardous to our health. Death is not within our control. Just because it feels terrible, does not mean it is not a universal and constant human condition.

So what's my own take-home message? Go home, hug your loved ones, and do something for yourself, make yourself happy, today.

***************************************

On a side note, I wonder: What is the real question? Are we, the public, collectively, really interested in preventing the loss of innocent lives? Or is this more of a powerful, visceral reaction to an extremely rare incident that evokes strong emotions in us? Can the loss of innocent lives be prevented or even reduced? To what extent? Aren't most lives lost every day all over the world predominantly innocent anyway?

Of course, this is nothing more than philosophical and futile digression.

It is natural in moment like this to ask, "What can we do to prevent this from happening again?" I often wonder if this question and its consequences are more dangerous than doing nothing.

[simonsun]

I am not discussing what government should own guns as they all do. Government is a concept and does not carry guns, people carry guns. I am discussing the issue of gun control, which is gun ditribution and not a complete gun ban. I hope this is the right time to discuss this issue. Unfortunately, this issue comes up every time when there is a mass shooting in school, but all discussions are no more than a knee-jerk reaction to the horrifying crme, and people quickly forget this issue and move on to other things. So this issue comes up again and again when another mass shooting happen.

The issue is not government having guns but their exclusive right to distribute guns, I am not sure a government can do a good job controlling guns so they do not fall into unreliable hands. If the desired end result is less violence, then government regulation can do very little. Drug is illegal, alcohol used to be illegal, despite government regulation, people who wanted these substances could always get their hands on them.

Even if civilian cannot own guns anymore, police and soldiers can still carry guns, how do we make sure they do not kill the innocent? As far as I know, they have killed more than the VA shooter has. An innocent life is a life regardless of who the killer is and how the life is lost. Many innocent people die everyday because of guns carried by soldiers (some acting in violation of military law), would gun control prevent these losses?

If the issue is the prevention of loss of innocent lives, and I think that is what we are discussing here, allowing the government to decide who may or may not own guns is ineffective in my mind.

Gun is a product of violence, not a cause of violence. I have no solution to reduce violence as it has existed for as long as human has existed, I hope you do. I hope everyone of us take this discussin beyond a mere discussion and actively engage in the reduction of violence - otherwise it is even less than a scholarly debate.

I might have misunderstood your point... But I totally understand your worries with a government unlmtd.

But I still think the these worries are in the second place at this time... I totally agree that everyone should do something when time calls, like now. And I don't see a more direct way of improving the situation other than a stricter gun control (not gun ban, I agree).

[simonsun]

Actually, that was indeed the idea behind the Second Amendment. The implied concept is -- If the government is oppressive and harmful (like, for example, the British Empire at that time), the people will have the means to organize militia to rise up against the government. That is precisely the point -- a constant reminder to the government of the power of the people.

Thanks for the point

[21grams]

My worries, to be more precise, is the effectiveness of gun control administered by a questionable entity. I certainly hope it is not a secondary issue in this debate on gun control. What good does gun control law do if the entity is utterly ineffective?

Murder is too against the law, but that did not deter the killer. How would making gun ownership illegal deter the killer from owning a gun? Of course this may be the best solution for the time being. If this is the case, let's make sure that this issue reaches the legislation and let's convince the voters. Let's go beyond mere lip service.

[simonsun]

My worries, to be more precise, is the effectiveness of gun control administered by a questionable entity. I certainly hope it is not a secondary issue in this debate on gun control. What good does gun control law do if the entity is utterly ineffective?

Murder is too against the law, but that did not deter the killer. How would making gun ownership illegal deter the killer from owning a gun? Of course this may be the best solution for the time being. If this is the case, let's make sure that this issue reaches the legislation and let's convince the voters. Let's go beyond mere lip service.

You are right

[Jun]

How would making gun ownership illegal deter the killer from owning a gun?

By making it more difficult to obtain guns, especially highly efficient guns.

林岭东的电影＂龙虎风云＂里面给我印象深刻的情节之一就是弄把枪如何困难。看的时候觉得好真实，其他的港片都是翻云覆雨无所不能的。

在gun control这件事上，我并不坚定地站在哪一边。一方面，硬要说控制枪支／禁止枪支完全没用，或者＂枪不杀人，人杀人＂摆明了是片面的说法。用刀杀人，或者其他方式杀人，跟用枪杀人的效率，完全没法比。如果禁止，市场上流通的枪数量会急剧减少，黑市上枪支的价钱会急剧上升，普通百姓（包括疯子）搞到枪的途经毕竟也会跟着减少，就算是小混混也不易搞到。

另一方面，我不觉得控制或禁止枪支的政策法律会大幅度减少无辜群众死亡率。每年死于枪支犯罪的人数，我没查过，但是几乎可以肯定事故多于犯罪，自杀多于他杀，而总数绝对少于其他死因，例如酒醉车祸。难道我们应该因此而禁酒吗？

不过呢，禁止私人拥有枪支是否就那么可怕，我也不认为是件大不了的事。例如，其实很多美国人害怕枪支管制和禁止，来源于历史沿袭的libertarian的主义，对政府的怀疑和不信任和对个人自由的迷信。但是这种sentiment是感情的，文化的，非理性的。看看其他禁止枪支的国家和社会，大多数并没有退化到集权政府压迫人民的程度（例如欧洲多数国家），而某些禁止枪支的国家也并不比美国更文明安全。在不禁止枪支的国家里既有动荡凶杀的，也有挺安全的。枪支政策与否，其实并不能大幅度地改变一个国家的性质。大的不说，小到比较德州（很多枪支，而且可以藏身）与华盛顿DC（禁止枪支好些年）的治安差别，可见光是枪支管制政策是没有什么特别大影响的，其他方面的影响更大。

其实这些社会政策上的争论，大多数时候是ideological，原则上，感情上的争论，跟现实中人群的行为规律和客观现象不怎么搭界。不过人们一般总是凭直觉思考和做事，主观认识与客观世界有很大差距。跟人群讲理，期望人群做出有理性的判断和决定，嗯。。。good luck。

今次发生的惨剧，现在大家当然是群情激昂，但是过不了两天就blow over，不会有太大的改变。正如人性之非理性，注意力短暂也是本性之一。

[Jun]

Even if civilian cannot own guns anymore, police and soldiers can still carry guns, how do we make sure they do not kill the innocent?

At this moment, civilians do carry guns, but police and soldiers have always been killing innocent civilians, often by accident or mistake. Like the NY man who was getting married a few months ago. NYPD shot him and his friends outside his bachelor's party. They were unarmed. Would gun control/gun prohibition INCREASE the likelihood of police shooting civilians? I find that highly unlikely. On the contrary, nothing gets you killed faster by the police than showing them that you might carry a weapon.

At the moment, when a policeman stops anyone on the street, he or she has to prepare for the (fairly high) possibility that the person carries a gun. So the policeman is more likely to be prepared to use his own weapon. I have heard too many stories about police officers shooting an unarmed (often black) civilian because they mistook a cell phone or a comb for a gun. Because they EXPECT to encounter armed criminals.

But, if 95% of the population do not carry guns, the police would be more inclined NOT to expect any routine traffic stop or suspicious activity to turn into a gun fight. So they are less likely to expect to be shot and less jumpy or paranoid. I think with gun prohibition, if nothing else, fewer black citizens would get shot full of holes by the police every few years.

My worries, to be more precise, is the effectiveness of gun control administered by a questionable entity. I certainly hope it is not a secondary issue in this debate on gun control. What good does gun control law do if the entity is utterly ineffective?

I do not disagree with you on the ineffectiveness of the US government in generally everything they do. But I do find the argument a bit ... limited and skewed. We all know the government is to a large extent ineffective, and a lot of people routinely use the argument to fight against "big government" and its interference in individual lives. Fine. But it seems a bit hypocritical that:

It is often the SAME GROUP OF PEOPLE who push the government to take away individual choices in every other aspect of personal freedom and choice. They don't trust the government to control guns, but

1) they trust the government enough to take away women's rights to their own body and health;

2) they trust the government to redistribute their tax dollars (to rich people and corporations);

3) they trust the government to open their letters and listen to their telephone conversations without consent or court oversight;

4) they even trust their children's lives to this ineffective and dangerous government, which sends their children to their deaths.

So you can't sit there and tell me that you do not trust the government to run your life -- unless you are a pure libertarian on EVERY ISSUE.

I also have a problem with the definition of effective vs. ineffective. If a government is able to reduce illegal gun ownership to 2%, is it effective or not? Obviously no government, even Singapore, can absolutely 100% eliminate all illegal activities, but what level of ineffectiveness would lead the public to throw up their hands and say, "forget it" and "don't even bother"?

Has the government's ineffectiveness been reason enough to NOT let them do something? For example, the glorious "War on Drugs" has been fantastically effective -- the number of people jailed for illegal drug use and trade have massively ballooned. But the probelm pretty much stays the same. Perhaps cocaine use is down a bit, but meth has gone way up. None of these discouraging results has and will stop the US government from spending BILLIONS of dollars on the continuing war on drugs within and abroad. One can make a convincing case that this "war" has been massively wasteful and ineffective. But I haven't heard much citizen protests against waste tax dollars on building more prisons and locking up more nonviolent illegal drug users and dealers. So it begs the question: Is this argument about gun control in fact about whether the government can be effective? Does it matter if it may be ineffective?

(NPR recently did an illuminating series about America's War on Drugs. Check it out, if you are interested, at:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=9213877)