Deadly shooting at US university

[skywalker]

Christian Terrorist?

After all he was a christian Terrorist but media dare to call him one since he wasn't muzlim.




Cho's metamorphasis
What does it mean? "Ax Ishmael." Sources close to the investigation say those words were written on Cho's arm as he went on his murderous rampage. "A. Ishmael" also appears to be the name on the return address of that package sent to NBC.

Ishmael is, of course, a major character in Christianity, Judaism, and a founding figure in Islam. In his rambling videotape to NBC, Cho mentions religion and Jesus time and again, seeming to somehow blame his state in life, at least partially on religion.

As an English major he could have picked the name up elsewhere. In Moby Dick, that great tale of obsession, the narrator is Ishmael. A popular series of inspirational books feature a wise gorilla by that name.

What some criminologists say really matters is not what the name means but that Cho appears to have created some sort of alter-ego for himself. Like the fictional Travis Bickell in the movie "Taxi Driver," they say, mass killers often take grand steps to change themselves before they strike.

Roommates say Cho was lifting weights and got a very short haircut in the weeks just before the shootings. It now appears he may have been developing a new name as well. This metamorphasis, psychologists say, can be essential: the killer has to break utterly free of the real world, and his own, natural identity before he can act.


-- By Tom Foreman, CNN Correspondent

 

[Buffalo Roam]

MetaKron

Yeah, Buffalo, they make that choice like they choose to bruise up and bleed when you use them for punching bags.

And the rational in your statement? everybody was walking on egg shells around him, he was the one doing the punching, he was the one who was keeping everyone out, and in the end it was he who caused the bruising and bleeding, no I have no sympathy for him, at any point in his egoistic, self-centered life he could have reached out and found help, there isn't a Campus, Town, City, County or State that doesn't have multiply outlets for seeking help, but he couldn't face the fact that he was the center of his problems, and that is a plane fact that the worst problems in our lives come form inside our selves, and no matter what we do until we admit that fact the problems will continue, that is why when we move to get away from our problems they always reappear in our lives, because they are in us and we take them every were we go, It wasn't the Rich Kids, It wasn't the Teachers, it wasn't anyone out side of Cho Seung-Hui who was the problem, and to avoid having to recognize that fact he killed 32 innocent victims, so self centered and egoistical was he, that he blamed 32 innocent people for his own failings.

 

[Bells]

The blame rests solely on the shoulders of one man. Typical liberal moral relativism, always asigning blame everywhere but where it really belongs.

Indeed.

Now can someone please tell me one thing.

How in the world could someone who showed clear signs that he was mentally unstable be able to legally purchase a gun? I understand the only requirement he would have had to face in regards to his mental stability was to tick a 'yes or no' box at the 'are you suffering from a mental illness' question. He obviously ticked no. Why is that the only means to check his mental status when purchasing a gun? Why isn't there a test which one would have to take to ensure that lunatics like him do not get such easy and legal access to semi automatic guns?

Now this man was able to purchase 2 semi-automatic weapons. He had been reported as being a stalker twice, however no charges had been laid. His behaviour had been reported as being strange and a bit crazy. So how did he manage to purchase 2 semi-automatic weapons? How many red flags must be waved before people take notice?

So where does the blame lie? With him? Definately. But the blame also lies with society for failing to act earlier when all the warning signs were screaming out for attention. The laws are to blame as they allowed him to legally purchase 2 guns without having to face any form of psychological tests. It is very easy to lay the blame solely on the crazy killer. Doing so takes away the fact that the support of gun laws in the US and the defence of said laws allowed him to purchase the damn weapons in the first place.

In Australia, we had the Port Arthur massacre. After said mass killings, the Australian Government banned the sale of guns. The result? We have never had a mass shooting since that day. Telling isn't it? No one is saying it can't still happen again. But at least now a crazed individual can't just walk into a store, show his drivers licence, tick no when asked if he suffers from a mental illness and walk out with a semi-automatic weapon 10 minutes later.

In the US, you have had several mass killings over the years. I wonder if guns had been banned after Columbine, whether this lunatic would have been able to so easily access the two semi-automatics he bought in a store and then shoot the 32 people and himself as he did? But you are so obsessed with your right to bear arms that you fail to see what is right in front of you. It is telling that there have been so many calls to allow everyone to carry a concealed weapon as an attempt to stop something like this from happening again. Yes, that's the answer isn't it? Arm everyone, including young and at times emotionally unstable individuals, that will solve it. Maybe instead of banning your blessed guns, bullets should be banned instead.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

dixonmassey

Are you
a) fly
b) God? (I'm not sure if there is a one though)

Only in those cases your revalations will hold water.

Basically, you suggest to conform to the rules and run a rat race (planning for self-defense, of course). If one doesn't conform or if conformity does not bring cherished goodies, one is a loser deserving .... (not much in any case). It doesn't come to your successful , planning 24/7 for self-defense, mind that a "loser" may think just the same about you. You've conformed, you've gotten close to the trough, disregarding everything and everybody, = you are soulless genetic waste, deserving no life. Just try to turn tables around once in a while.

Again a bunch of psychological Bull Shit, and the fact is I am one of the biggest non-conformist around all you have to do is look at my post to see that fact, I revel in non-conformality, and do you look both ways before you cross the street? do you avoided hitting another driver who does something stupid on the highway? do you walk around a ladder on the side walk? do you get your immunizations? do you see your Doctor for check ups? in you life how many thing do you do to keep your self from harm, is that paranoia? no it is prudence, you don't go into a park in New York City after dark, or any other big city, is that paranoia? or just prudence? to live requires being aware of the dangers around you and weighing the course of actions that you take through out the day to avoid injury or death, for your self and your loved ones.

ps: I have been there

 

[Carcano]

How in the world could someone who showed clear signs that he was mentally unstable be able to legally purchase a gun?

The same reason why morons who dont know the location of any country outside the US are allowed to vote for the most powerful office in the world.

Americans want UNconditional rights.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Bells

Now can someone please tell me one thing.

How in the world could someone who showed clear signs that he was mentally unstable be able to legally purchase a gun? I understand the only requirement he would have had to face in regards to his mental stability was to tick a 'yes or no' box at the 'are you suffering from a mental illness' question. He obviously ticked no. Why is that the only means to check his mental status when purchasing a gun? Why isn't there a test which one would have to take to ensure that lunatics like him do not get such easy and legal access to semi automatic guns?

Because in the sixties the Democrats in the Congress passed laws that made it almost imposable to put some one like Cho Seung-Hui in treatment, and to keep him there, it violates his civil rights to do so, (and with those laws they released 100ed of thousands of mentally unstable people on to the streets, you can't even force a person in treatment to take medication), and until you have a court ordered commitment, he has the rights and freedoms of any other citizen, so there was no record of him being unstable, and there was no way for anyone to have him committed, check the laws, there was no way to commit him, or force him to seek help, until he did something that would bring him to the attention of the Court.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Indeed.

Now can someone please tell me one thing.

How in the world could someone who showed clear signs that he was mentally unstable be able to legally purchase a gun?

That's a good question. No one wants to give guns to the insane. I thought the Brady Bill required a background check that includes checking mental instability. There's probably a problem with health privacy rights not allowing doctors to release information (such as the fact that this guy was a nut job).

Banning guns is really not an option in the US. The right to bear arms is in the constitution, and enjoys great popular support. Our founders believed that an armed populace was the last defense against tyranny.

So since we can't ban them, why not make sure the good guys are armed?

 

[Bells]

So since we can't ban them, why not make sure the good guys are armed?

And how exactly will the US determine who the good guys are?

After all, Cho Seung-Hui would have been deemed a "good guy" because he ticked the 'no' box when asked if he suffered from a mental illness, had no criminal record and had sufficient ID.

Banning guns is really not an option in the US.

Why not? Many countries have taken the steps, why can't the US?

The right to bear arms is in the constitution, and enjoys great popular support.

Maybe it was time the Constitution moved forward with the times and was interpreted to suit modern times and modern situations. After all, I doubt the founding fathers ever envisioned madmen storming schools and killing innocent children (eg Columbine and Amish school) and people in universities. Do you honestly think they would have put that clause into the Constitution if they had?

As for support.. so what the majority want, the majority should get because it is 'popular'? Maybe instead of only going for the popular vote, the Government of the US should go for what is good for the country and its people.

Our founders believed that an armed populace was the last defense against tyranny.

Do you honestly think that is applicable today?

There's probably a problem with health privacy rights not allowing doctors to release information (such as the fact that this guy was a nut job).

The way I understand it, there was no record of his mental instability. I don't think the gun seller even checked. After all, he did tick the 'no' box. Now this was an individual who had had several complaints about his actions and stalking made to the police. No charges were laid and he was recommended for counselling.

Police, in Virginia, had a while back completed a test of gun shops and whether they even checked for ID. Amazingly enough, many did not even bother doing a background check before selling weapons to undercover police officers (this was in the news here in Australia last night).

If the US is so adamant about its pro-gun laws, maybe more stringent tests (psychological, etc) and checks should be made to ensure that people like Cho Seung-Hui cannot walk into a gun shop and legally purchase two semi-automatic weapons.

 

[dixonmassey]

Our founders believed that an armed populace was the last defense against tyranny.

Militia was thought as the last defense, not armed populace per se. Besides, 200 years ago, weaponry of an army and weaponry of the militia (and individuals) were quite commesurable. Today, using anti tyranny pro gun argument is ridiculous.

 

[dixonmassey]

Gun owning is the last illusion of "being in charge". It has mainly therapeutic effect. Drugs are not free. Leviathan State subdued human dust otherwise.

 

[valich]

Guman sent "Manifesto" to NBC. Arrived an hour too late. Would've arrived earlier if he had put on the correct address and zip code. This would've sounded an alert. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18169776/

 

[madanthonywayne]

Militia was thought as the last defense, not armed populace per se. Besides, 200 years ago, weaponry of an army and weaponry of the militia (and individuals) were quite commesurable. Today, using anti tyranny pro gun argument is ridiculous.

The militia was the body of all free men.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Why not? Many countries have taken the steps, why can't the US?
Maybe it was time the Constitution moved forward with the times and was interpreted to suit modern times and modern situations. After all, I doubt the founding fathers ever envisioned madmen storming schools and killing innocent children (eg Columbine and Amish school) and people in universities. Do you honestly think they would have put that clause into the Constitution if they had?

Yes, I do. Thomas Jefferson said the tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of patriots and tyrants.

The constitution should not be "interpreted" to mean something other than what was intended. That is a fraud. To change the constitution, you must ammend it. Ammending it requires a 2/3 majority of both housed of Congress and the approval of 3/4 of the state legistlatures. Damned near impossible in todays world.

 

[Carcano]

The militia was the body of all free men.

Where is this written in the constitutional amendent?

 

[dixonmassey]

The militia was the body of all free men.

Not really. Besides, some founding fathers thought
a) standing army = tyranny
b) Private banks minting $ = tyranny

Founding fathers and Bible have lots in common. One can pull out verses he likes, forget others and spread tonnes of BS to show that namely his compilation is truly God inspired.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Where is this written in the constitutional amendent?

As the Court of Appeals recently ruled, the bill of rights is a list of individual rights. Every other right listed there is an individual right. Why should the 2nd ammendment be any different? Furthermore, why would we need an ammendment to allow the government to form militias?

 

[Carcano]

As the Court of Appeals recently ruled, the bill of rights is a list of individual rights. Every other right listed there is an individual right. Why should the 2nd ammendment be any different?

Because the 2nd amendment isnt about individual rights. It refers to maintaining a militia, as an organized military force of free citizens.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Because the 2nd amendment isnt about individual rights. It refers to maintaining a militia, as an organized military force of free citizens.

Not according to the court of appeals, the supreme court, or the founding fathers. But if you say so.....

 

[Carcano]

Not according to the court of appeals, the supreme court, or the founding fathers.

If the founding fathers had meant as you say, they would have worded that ONE sentence differently.

 

[TW Scott]

And how exactly will the US determine who the good guys are?

After all, Cho Seung-Hui would have been deemed a "good guy" because he ticked the 'no' box when asked if he suffered from a mental illness, had no criminal record and had sufficient ID.

Actually the application for buying a weapon has no such little box as it would be pointless. However a background check is made. the backgorund check of course only catches court ordered psychiatric treatment as in this nation the assumption is that if a person voluntarily undergopes treatment that tehy desire to be better and therefore should not be punished for something they are trying to control.

Besides I say arm everyone. Those who don't want to don't have to, but I think after the first few weeks the world would be much safer if everyone was armed and trained in how to use it.

Why not? Many countries have taken the steps, why can't the US?

Well, it is part of our heritage first of all. Second it is an amedment and making or reprealing one of those requires more support than an initiative like that could generate. Finally we see the results of other countries, only the criminals benefit from disarmament.

Maybe it was time the Constitution moved forward with the times and was interpreted to suit modern times and modern situations. After all, I doubt the founding fathers ever envisioned madmen storming schools and killing innocent children (eg Columbine and Amish school) and people in universities. Do you honestly think they would have put that clause into the Constitution if they had?

Actually I am positive they would and they would probably make it damn clear that they expected law abaiding citizens carry everywhere. Imagine if some had a gun and stopped Cho earlier...could have saved many lives. Yes of course that isn't 100% guaranteed to work, but then again making sure we're all unarmed is 100% certain to make us sitting ducks.

As for support.. so what the majority want, the majority should get because it is 'popular'? Maybe instead of only going for the popular vote, the Government of the US should go for what is good for the country and its people.

Hmmmm, interesting thinking there. I believe they call that a dictatorship. I'll pass and keep the system that has formed the mightiest and richest nation the world has ever seen.