UV Tech 枪击，死了33人

[camellia]

The point is People are not rational most of the times. Otherwise there won't be culture revalution and McCarthyism. No doubt some politician will utilize this event to benefit themselves.

[沉默的知了]

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，

I'll have to say this point is a little weak. It had been pointed out long time ago that issues such as gun control obey the wooden barrel theory, whereas the shortest staff around the edge determines the maximum capacity of a barrel - similarly, the state with the weakest gun control policy determines how easy guns can be obtained in the country. With DC surrounded by states like Virginia where a one-hour drive and one-minute background check are enough to get you a gun, the strict gun control policy within DC actually does mean much.

One thing I do agree is that the discussion here won't make much difference. No matter what you think, in the end its the majority votes that count. If anyone really wants to change anything, one's got to reach to the other voters and change their opinions. A wish for less gun or less violence usually just stays as a wish, and soon be pushed behind for other more imminent headaches. And this is not just about gun control.

[21grams]

Effectiveness like fairness is in the eyes of the beholder. I do not see it as an absolute standard but rather a relative one. I think the entity will be as effective in distributing gun ownership as it is in doing everything else, such as counting votes and giving tax breaks. Whether I am a libertarian or an independent or an alien is merely a label, and feel free to choose the best label that seems suitable. I make my own choices in all circumstances possible and I stand by my choices. (On the drug issue, my opinion is that if one wishes to burn a hole in his brain, he should feel free to do so and live with the consequences. The current drug enforcement money can be redirected to pay for his treatment and funeral.)

Police and soliders shoot civilians not only because they are suspected of having guns but also because police and soliders can get away with the shooting. "I thought he had a gun" is an easy excuse often used even when the suspect is shot in the back. A 14-year old girl and her entire family was murdered, were they suspected of having a gun? If this can happen once, it can happen again, even if it is their "own people." Who is to say what a "mistake" is? A police can make a mistake by shooting a civilian that should not have been shot, maybe the VA killer made a mistake too by intentionally or unintentionally going crazy. The problem is bigger than the 32 victims.

If the issue is making it illegal to obtain a gun, the killer did not care that murder is illegal, I'd imagine that he would not care breaking another law to somehow get a gun. He does not fear the loss of his own life, what can deter him? He can join the military and get a gun that way. If t he issue is the reduction of the loss of innocent lives, then I do question the effectiveness of this entity based on its past records. If the issue is the the public, by pouplar demand, wish to have a gun control law despite its effectiveness in whatever the public's goal might be, then I wonder why the second amendment should be singled out of the bill of rights for a questionalbe end result.

But I do agree that the public will forget about this issue and move on to events such as summer clearance sales in due course. I admit that I have only questions and no answers. I give my highest regard to the ones with answers and solutions and I hope that they will take the answers and solutions beyond mere discussion.

[Jun]

This article is the best reflection I have read so far about the whole tragedy. I don't always like this columnist, but here what he says is almost exactly how I feel --

(From Salon.com)

I'm mentally ill but I'm no mass killer
Will people with schizoaffective disorder be lumped in with psychotic murderers?
By Cary Tennis

Apr. 23, 2007 | Dear Cary,

To many, the shootings at Virginia Tech are another senseless tragedy perpetrated by a mentally unstable person. This is doubly depressing for me. Not only is the specter of over 30 innocents killed by one individual depressing, but because I, too, am mentally unstable, I fear I will suffer even more stigma after events like that.

My official diagnosis is schizoaffective disorder, which, I am told, is a mild schizophrenia combined with a mood disorder. I currently take two medications for my condition and see a counselor, along with a doctor for my prescriptions. I wish I could say I got help as soon as my condition developed. From college onward, I have, on and off, behaved badly and hurt some people.

So I feel some sort of empathy with the shooter. Like Cho Seung-Hui, I've written some disturbing things, spent time in a mental institution, and been accused of stalking women. (Although looking back, it could be one of my delusions, since everyone involved has denied any accusations.) But then again, I am quite different from Seung-Hui. I'm not hostile to most people, I don't like guns, and the most violent I ever got was putting someone in a headlock. I've apologized to those whom I've hurt and for the last five years I have been trying my best to keep from hurting another human being.

My question is, though, shouldn't that count for something? Fighting to remain reasonable and pleasant is a hard thing to do when your moods are nearly uncontrollable and your perception of reality is skewed. Yet most of my old friends and acquaintances are still angry with me. When I run into them, few will greet me and most just respond with a cold glare. At times it seems like people are going out of their way to glare at me. So when a tragedy like Virginia Tech happens, part of me feels it will just give people more reason to hate me.

I know I should expect it and for most of my life I've been dealing with the stigma of being mentally ill. My father was never shy about showing his anger to me about behaving "oddly." In high school, I was known as the strange kid. Worse was the psychologist who said my attempts at self-injury were a "narcissistic effort for attention" and screamed at me for "accusing" a priest-coach of forcing players to strip to their jock straps and wrestling them. (Which was true and, by the way, the priest in question has since confessed to raping teenage boys.) I also realize that my behavior, even now, isn't easy to deal with. But that doesn't stop the hatred and anger from hurting.

So I wonder, is most of my life to be filled with anger, fear and hatred because I am mentally ill? Will I be lumped together with monsters like Seung-Hui?

Unbalanced but Trying

Dear Unbalanced,

You are thinking about what happened at Virginia Tech.

The worst thing of all, the hardest to fathom, the most infuriating but the most important, is this: It literally means nothing. It is random, senseless, incomprehensible. We wish it meant something. It would feel better if it meant something. We try hard to manufacture something that it can mean. But it stubbornly means nothing. Literally, it is a sign of nothing, the nothing that surrounds us, the nothing we must face, the implacable end we come to.

The fact that it means nothing is the worst thing about it. We can make up meaning, and we must. But we must know we are making it up. We make up our faith. We make up our rituals. We do what we have to do to live with it without going mad.

All the while, our impossible burden is to live with the nothingness that it means. Let us try to do that with dignity and grace. Let us try not to take shelter in illusion. Our illusions are manifold, our rituals abundant. It helps to lay wreaths. But there is no safety from madness.

The universe is random and cruel. Death will come. You can't know the hour.

So live in the world now, as it is.

That is the bottom line, my friend. You have to live in your world as it is and in order to live in your world as it is you must find peace with yourself. To find peace with yourself you may need to spend your whole life taking your meds and seeing your doctors, praying, digging vegetables, swimming upstream in the river, walking alone through crowded streets, brandishing a neutral face in alleys of consternation, paying in cash, sitting zazen with the master, making your therapy appointments on time, forgiving yourself for past transgressions, expecting nothing in return, rising at the same time every morning and never missing a pill, never skipping a meal, sleeping your allotted hours, keeping your hair combed and your clothes clean and your shoes shined, exercising regularly and saying please and thank you, remembering birthdays, paying the rent on time.

These are the things we do to get us through. Our thoughts fasten on drama like candy. We churn and churn about events beyond our ken. Meanwhile we work on the motorcycle, hoping for another hour of sunlight.

There's not a whole lot else you can do. Your thoughts will soar and dive. You have a disease of the mind. It is controllable. But it is not curable. It will have outbreaks like eczema. You take your medications and live a life of moderation. You treat people with as much respect and even-handedness as you can muster. The rest is out of your control. Occasionally you may have to go into the hospital for a while. But you will come out again. You will have good days and bad days.

What people think about all this is beyond your control. More than that: It is none of your business. What people think is their own concern. What they think of you, what they think of me: It's none of our business what they think. Let them think what they think. Their thoughts are their world. Our world is here, the waking every day, the arising from troubled sleep, the difficult interactions at the hardware store, the creeping sensation of omnipotence, the unreality on the subway. That is our world, the world of the half-sane, half-dreamer. We barely know what we ourselves are thinking. If you think you know what other people are thinking, that is your disease. Your disease is your delusion. You cannot know what people are thinking. You cannot read their thoughts on their faces. You cannot hear their thoughts.

You can believe that you can. You can say that you can. But that is your own mind telling you things.

People will pass you and give you dirty looks. They are limited in goodness. They are limited in forgiveness. They are not holy. They are just people.

They will go on the Internet and say whatever they want. That does not make it true, or meaningful, or useful. People go on the Internet and blab blab blab. Blah blah blah. Wah wah wah. Primitive, primitive, primitive. Monkey screams. Jungle sounds. Tribal dissonance. Parrot squawking.

They can say you are crazy. They can say I am crazy. That does not make it true or useful. Meanwhile we put one shoe in front of the other, making a line in the sand and following it, day after day, through the weird storms.

You and I, we are just nameless travelers. You have your problems and I have mine. You have your burdens and I have mine. The world is crazy. It always has been. What can you do? Imagine you are living in Beauvais, north of Paris, in the 12th century. A builder needs some help. Go help him build a cathedral. It takes your mind off. You cart the stones up the hill, you get paid at the end of the day.

That's how we get by. We find things to occupy us. In the end, a cathedral is built. But nobody knows your name. Nobody even knows the name of the builder.

[Jun]

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，

I'll have to say this point is a little weak. It had been pointed out long time ago that issues such as gun control obey the wooden barrel theory, whereas the shortest staff around the edge determines the maximum capacity of a barrel - similarly, the state with the weakest gun control policy determines how easy guns can be obtained in the country. With DC surrounded by states like Virginia where a one-hour drive and one-minute background check are enough to get you a gun, the strict gun control policy within DC actually does mean much.

You are right. My original argument was not realistically valid. DC is georgraphically small and it is not too difficult to obtain illegal weapons from nearby Virginia. One can still get in trouble with the law but that's little deterence for violent and hardened criminals.

It would be more valid to compare a country that prohibits gun ownership (eg, China, Japan, Singapore, certain European countries although without reseach I can't give you an example) with a country with libral laws for gun ownership (eg, US, New Zealand). Nevertheless my point is the extent of gun control laws, all by itself, is not a significant factor in the risk of violent deaths for innocent people or deaths over all.

[Jun]

Effectiveness like fairness is in the eyes of the beholder. I do not see it as an absolute standard but rather a relative one. I think the entity will be as effective in distributing gun ownership as it is in doing everything else, such as counting votes and giving tax breaks.

My point is: I don't see the logic in arguing against stricter gun control or gun prohibition laws because one believes the government will be ineffective to enforce it. "Don't pass the law because the government will be ineffective in enforcing it." The government has never been absolutely effective in enforcing anything, but some enforcement is usually sufficient to accomplish some results and make the world go around. Gun control, in this argument, seems no different from other laws and regulations.

I don't necessarily support stricter gun control or prohibition on the basis of this Virginia Tech massacre, but I just disagree with this particular argument.

Whether I am a libertarian or an independent or an alien is merely a label, and feel free to choose the best label that seems suitable.

I did not intend to label you as anything. If I gave that impression I apologize. My point was that I have a certain respect for libertarians who stick to their principles and are certainly no hypocrits, unlike most others who just want to bring out nice-sounding principles whenever it fits their purpose. I admire their honesty, even if I often disagree with them on certain issues. Hypocrisy bothers me a lot more than being wrong.

A police can make a mistake by shooting a civilian that should not have been shot, maybe the VA killer made a mistake too by intentionally or unintentionally going crazy. The problem is bigger than the 32 victims.

OK, I must admit you have lost me here. My original point is that, for a private citizen, having concealed weapons is hardly meaningful is protecting oneself against potential police "mistakes." I believe an ordinary citizen who is not involved in violent crimes could increase his or her chance of being killed by the police by carrying a gun.

If the issue is making it illegal to obtain a gun, the killer did not care that murder is illegal, I'd imagine that he would not care breaking another law to somehow get a gun. He does not fear the loss of his own life, what can deter him?

Practicality and convenience and the delay between crazed impulses and actual action?


I do not think prohibition of gun control is relevant in this particular incident. But my reasons are different.

[21grams]

I question the entity's effectiveness on this particular issue because it relates to the bill of rights. It certainly is a personal judgment based on a balancing test, like all balancing tests - if the second amendment needs to come out of the bill of rights, and the tenth amendment where "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the STates respectively, or to the people" needs revision, then I expect an equally powerful result. Other issues such as tax collection, has been delegated to the federal body and I have no consitutional right to go against it. I don't take a strong position on federalism, but to the extent that the basic foundation of this country is deeply rooted in federalism, I have concerns for taking constitutionally granted power away from the people.

On the other hand, making the bill of rights to be the first ten amendments minus one and half will hopefully keep the Supreme Court busy and maybe they won't have to step in during their spare time to help with vote counting.

I think guns are like Louis Vuitton handbags, some people think it is an absolute necessity whereas I can careless about either one. My reasons or my views are not important at all on any issue and no one gets anywhere (myself included) by agreeing or disagreeing with me. If I want the "bell" part of of the bell curve to agree with me, I'd pick a position that is in the middle of the bell curve. If I desire mere agreement with my point of view, I'd pick a simple yes or no answer.

Innocent lives are lost daily due to intentional voilence. But if the public decides the 32 lives are all they care about, then I guess I have no reason to disagree. My mere hope is that whatever one's position is, if the person really cares about the issue or any other issue, he should go beyond mere discussion. My position on this issue is not that strong at all (if we can get over the constitutional hurdle), but I do want to present the complexity of the issue as I perceive it, to the people who want to go forward with a solution. Of course, complexity is in the eyes of the beholder as well. To some, nothing is complex, whatever it is, they call god on their direct line for a perfect answer.