30 Killed In Virgina Tech Shooting

Post Reply New Topic

This campus is a "gun-free" zone, or whatever the correct term is. Even civilians with conceal and carry licenses are prohibited from having guns on-campus. Believe me, if this wasn't the case the campus would either be much safer or much more dangerous. This is Southwest Virginia. We're close to West Virginia. I mean this in the most respectful way I can even if it doesn't sound that way, but we've got a lot of good ol' boys around here. I have a feeling that if guns were allowed on-campus, the redneck swat team would have taken the shooter out long before the cops could even get here.

Once drinking began amongst them, I'd try to get as far away from campus as possible...

I've simply progressed to carrying larger and larger sheath knives. Started with simple folding knives, now I've got one I plan on sticking in my boot. Still probably run the risk of getting in some sort of trouble...but, well, I haven't gone all the way up to carrying a sword yet, so I don't think I'm too likely to get caught.

As for anyone thinking "who brings a knife to a gun fight," well, I'd rather have something on me to defend myself with than nothing.

Just when I thought the news services couldn't sink lower, they're broadcasting Cho's videos and rantings. How lovely, they're showing him vomiting hatred and nonsense ! ! I heard briefly that the families if the slain students are angry over this. I would be too ! !! Someone commits a heinous crime, and then their 'manifesto' is all over the airwaves. It's like they're rewarding his killing. Bloody disgusting. I think I remember magazines printing Kosczinki's (the unibomber) hatred manifesto after his trial. But oh yes!! I forgot, it's NEWS ! ! How do you twist such hatred and utter blather into being NEWS ???

I don't think many people got much more out of it than the realization of just how disturbed Cho was. I still don't agree with the tapes being aired, and I'm sure they were merely aired to get more people watching the news.

Yeh, well I think we can put to rest any questions of him being autistic. He's pretty obviously paranoid schizophrenic.

Sounds more like a simple fact than a thought.

Now, THAT'S not a thought.

Well, I see your point, but I don't see the media as parading Cho's video, but rather as simply airing a major piece of this puzzle. Cho's video is a fact, whether we choose to watch it or not. I do believe that a warning (giving plenty of time to change the channel or turn the TV off) should precede each airing of the video, but as a logical, analytical person, I want all the facts of espeicially a major, real event presented to me. By contrast, I WILL NOT watch horror movies, any any fictional display of violence, which seems to be done in a perverse joy in several modern movies. But when something is fact, I treat it as I would any fact: It may be useful for analysis, though indeed, I shouldn't be forced to see it if I don't want to. But those few who say they never want to see it -- like a certain professor at VT -- that decision seems akin to hiding from the facts. I am just the sort of person who wants every piece of evidence laid out on the table before me. I'm not a fan of someone else hiding this or that fact from me at their discretion. Ask ME whether I want to see it. Don't ask someone else whether I want to see it.

I have a saying: "I would rather hear the most horrible truth, than the most pleasant lie." For me, it's the only way to go.

Last edited by Ragtime on 19 Apr 2007, 11:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

That's pretty much the conclusion I was drawing. He believed the world was out to get him, and he lashed out.

This sounds like a case of a guy simply not getting the attention he needed. If he'd been properly cared for, this whole disaster could have been averted.

I'm not placing specific blame, but it sounds like there's something to be learned from this in terms of how to recognize that someone is severely mentally distressed.

Just saw on Sky News (16.30pm), a psychologist said that Cho seemed to have autism. So its been suggested on TV.

Also, a person posted a claim to WP, that Cho's great-aunt says he was diagnosed with autism as a child. I’d like to see the webpage or other evidence of this.

Also, I have read that his maternal grandfather, Kim, says he didn't speak as a child.

Link: Cho as a Child

Regardless, autism is not a mental illness. At worst, someone could call it a "developmental delay". Now that the videos have come to light, I'm not so concerned if it turns out that he was ever diagnosed or if someone thinks he has autistic traits like a speech delay. The fact that he's rambling on and on in a completely nonsensical manner is not consistent with autistm. He can be autistic AND paranoid schizophrenic, granted. But I think that even the most misinformed NT's don't think of autistic people as violent and delusional. If it turns out he's ever been diagnosed, I suspect that will take a backseat to all the TV shrinks watching the tapes and correctly stating that his rantings are consistent with schizophrenia.

How awful.

He probably tried to beat the record of deaths from Columbine.

The worst thing is that the news media is releasing his manifesto and his videos. This will only encourage others who want to be heard. He obviously was in a great deal of pain and wanted the world to know about it. He was human (in the most primitive way), and all humans feel the need to reach out and let the world know about their pain.

This was simply a more extreme form of some of the posts here that just need to let people know how they feel. Sometimes posters know that there is nothing really that can be said that will help them, but just the fact that someone will hear you will bring some relief. I can understand his pain, but am disgusted with his method of showing it. I tend to take my anger out on myself. Some people take it out on others.

He may have had a mental illness, but maltreatment at the hands of other students probably deeply affected him. On CNN, some girl was talking about how he "wasn't a man", but at the end of her statement she referenced past maltreatment of him at the hands of her friend (mp3 file <a href=http://www.geocities.com/ikeeyebee/hypoc.mp3>here.<a/>)
The words "Ax Ishmael" were probably an inspiration to his despairing life, since Ishmael was the son of Abraham, a well known prophet who "was a wild donkey of a man. His hand was raised against everyone, and everyone's hand was raised against him."
He associated all those in the class as abusers, or rich people (who he apparently hated), and after realizing that who he killed weren't all like those he hated, with the coupling of the police closing in, he shot himself in the head (which apparently he was intending to do anyway.)
The school psychologist was saying "The fact that we don't know what Ax Ishmael means SHOWS how disconnected from humanity he was." That is entirely untrue. Many people have poems, music, movies, or people whom they draw inspiration; for example I draw inspiration from the quote "May the Heaven Smile", because it is roughly synonomous with the meaning of my name.

Please don't flame me for this post, and as a side note, I can't adequately say this in front of my parents, since they are closed minded conservatives who actually YELL at me for saying this.

I thought your post was very well said; I didn't see anything offensive in it. I don't know why people would flame you for it.

I hope you do not regard this as a flame, but merely as a post of disagreement.

I believe the more we talk about HIM the more we lose the focus on what HE DID, most precisely the 32 INNOCENT PEOPLE he MURDERED. Each of them had lives, families, and career goals, but those ended suddenly because some person decided that because he was a victim therefor he had some right to kill.

In all honestly, I think you are reading to much into the fact that he shot himself in the head to assume that he killed himself because he realized the people he killed weren't like those terrible others. Perhaps he killed himself because he was a coward and a psychopath who surrounded, like numerous others in such situation (Heinrich Himmler would be an example on the extreme end of the murder scale) decided that suicide was his only way out.

I am *tired* of hearing of explanations of his maltreatment on the past, or of his mental illness. This insults both those who have been maltreated and those who are mentally ill; and, again, important it takes the issue and makes it about some other then the victims and the sheer horror of what happened. It makes it about US, and OUR issues. "Oh, if only he hadn't been teased like people with AS then he wouldn't have massacred 32 people." Yes, but so what? Human nature dictates that in life things simply are not going to be perfect for anyone, and for some groups they will be left perfect then others, but HE MURDERED 32 PEOPLE! For what? Because he thought he was a victim? He was sad? Angry? What the hell is that?

People like Cho...I don't know. I have no sympathy for a man like that. I don't have sympathy for murderers period, but this man WOW.

Not really related: The Bath School Disaster; this was the worst act of mass murder in school history, in terms of numbers killed. It consisted of three bombings which killed 45 people. The man who did it did so because he blamed tax levy for the poor condition of his families finances. He thought he was the victim. He killed himself and never went to trial.

Last edited by jimservo on 19 Apr 2007, 11:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I basically agree with you. I mean, we are focusing more on Cho than on the 32 he killed. That's human nature, but is that fair to his victims? Of course not. Our finite minds see two groups: Cho, and 32 students. It's therefore much easier to focus on Cho, the individual, than on the 32, the group. It's easy, then, to not conciously see each of the 32 as a seperate, striving individual, hopes, dreams and families included. We don't think: 1... 2... 3... 4..., but simply "32", so that it seems like one thing instead of many -- just one convenient emotional impact.

Also, let me make another very important point. There is such a thing as evil. All the psychological diagnoses may be correct, but, like jimservo said, there are lots of people with the psychological and material backgrounds Cho had, who live with them, without attacking people. So, while psychology is quite valid, it is not the entire explanation for someone's choices. It may support and foster those choices, but there is another element at play, and that element is: irreducable, unequivocal, evil. Think about it -- if that were not true, no one would be punished for anything, ever, because after all, "It's not his fault; his psychology made him do it!" If evil doesn't exist, then the universally-believed-in concept of responsibility must be done away with altogether. Anyone can come up to you, beat you and steal from you, and -- "Hey, it's okay! We're all just psychologically programmed. No hard feelings, man -- steal from me again anytime!" We inherently know that that person is responsible for what he did. So, I think the professionals often get over-eager to put all things down to psychology, or to at least let such implication rest.