So, should the shooter's letters/video/photos be plastered all over the news?

NBC got his package today, and my guess is we're going to be seeing all of it eventually. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand he's getting all this media attention for caving into his murderous impulses. On the other hand, we may be able to learn what to look for in the next mass murderer. How do the rest of you feel?

I hope you are being intentionally funny because I laughed. We've had about 500 years of documented mass murderers who were just ordinary citizens, and I haven't seen the field guide published yet. I don't think one more will tip the scales.

LOL, well.. no I wasn't, but I see the humor in what I wrote.

The truth is there were plenty of folks who thought this guy was a potential problem, but no one could 'do' anything about it.

It is frustrating, but I don't see how we can restrict someone's actions before they actually do something. Pesky Constitution.

That sounds a lot more sarcastic than I mean it to be. I truly wish there were some way we could know which of us is the ticking time bomb.

I know. It really is a major problem. How do we protect the rights of individuals, AND keep the masses safe?

They were saying today on one of the cable news stations that the shooter was heavily into online gaming, with special fondness for those games where you hunt down and shoot your enemy. I'm sure this will open that debate again. I understand he also referred to the Columbine shooters as 'martyrs.' What a notion.

Well you could introduce stricter gun control. It certainly wouldn't stop every future case, but it will stop some.

I don't feel widely publicising his details will make any difference to the next case - it will sell more media because people are ghoulishly nosy.

Possably circulating relevant details to those who could potentially spot the 'next' person might be of use...... but how many inoccents do you want to see accused/blighted instead.

The problem is many people write stories and plays about murder and revenge and seem to revel in the gory details. Many people play first person shooters. Many people are depressed and lonely. Very, very few of them become mass-murderers.

Examining gaming habits or the stories/plays they write is not a very diagnostic feature of mass-murderers in and of itself.

The video is a bit of a red-herring. It was not available before the killings and could not be of any diagnostic use.

As it transpires Cho Seung-hui, had been in the mental-health system briefly and the murders are probably a sad indictment of the quality of mental-health care (and in particular on-going care) in the US, not that it is any better in the UK.

I agree with reading_fox, stricter gun control would reduce a lot of violence with deadly endings. But the US don't seem very intent on it.
It was... interesting? to read someone saying "it's impossible to do anything to hinder these things to happen, the difference is in how we act afterwards".

It is impossible to know who will break through the border and become a mass murderer/murderer (I believe one murder is bad enough). But research done on the subject indicates that those most likely to cross that border has a history of abuse and violence in the family, often having been the abused or bullyed person (physically or psychologically, I'm not necessarily talking sexual abuse here), with parents of adult carers that systematically uses violence as an argument. I'm not able to find the qoutes right now, but more than one report/paper states that a stable psychosocial environment is essential if one want to decrease the murder/mass murder rates.

And to add to what Andyl says about mental-health care; the trends and patterns are the same here in Sweden. Every now and then, and recently more ofte, we have these people doing horrible things because they got rejected at the mental-health ER or got shown the door at some clinic. Two weeks ago a small boy was brutally murderd on an open street in a quiet slumberville utopia/residential area for people rather well off, people saw what happened, a neighbour tried to intervene, but no hope.
Rather a lot of cases such as this, actually - always small kids, preteens, somtimes at the Preschool/day care fence or at a playground or...

It makes me very sad. But I think the documentation etc that could help in devicing strategies to avoid these things happening should not be publicised to satisfy the vultures who revel in misery and disaster.

The only groups helped by showing this guy's videos and messages are the news stations, which will get higher ratings, etc., and other nuts, who will now know that if they do the same kind of thing thing, they'll also become "famous" ...

Well said.

#9 - My thoughts, as well. He's getting exactly what he wanted.

> 11

I take it you knew this troubled young man? And that he confided in you what he was going to do and what he wanted out of it? Otherwise, how do you know "exactly what he wanted"?

Very funny, lilith. Let me clarify.

It's my OPINION that he wanted an audience.

Caution: My posts simply are my opinion, not necessarily the opinion of anyone else. Nor should anyone assume I am making them as a broad statement of fact.

Actually, it's pretty well documented that fame is one of the motivators to do this kind of thing. Most of them are such pathetic humans that they can achieve reknown by no other means and they kill to gain it. Sick, but pretty well accepted. The kind of grandstanding this guy is doing in his videos and the fact that he sent them to the TV news is just another indication of this.

Thanks, Bookmarque. I was beginning to think I'd made some hugely irrational leap in logic by concluding that someone who had reportedly spent days assembling photos, video and written statements to send to a news network between shootings was looking for a little press coverage.

Those who make their living in the media know that sensational death sells. From the little bit I accidentally saw, I find the videos to be very disturbing and a horror to watch. I will not be watching any more of them. My remote control has a "next channel" and "on/off" buttons. To answer the question, NO the videos should not be plastered all over the news. I think the networks are making a huge mistake.

I for one, was very interested in seeing the video. From studying his behavior and the "facts" we have been getting from the media, it seems he was a paranoid schizophrenic. This disease often comes on in the late teens/early twenties. The video pretty much confirmed my suspicion. (Not a mental health practitioner, but a very interested laywoman.)

I think if we can use the information he gave us while in the throes of a paranoid delusion, we can learn more about rapid onset and progression of the mental illness. It isn't all that uncommon: the uncommon part was that he was extraordinarily successful in acting his delusions out.

While that is true, you cannot force a patient to take treatment. I've known 2 diagnosed p. schizos and they absolutely HATED treatment and were known to stop when they felt it was too much. Their doctors couldn't force them to continue. One went after her daughter with a two by four when she went off her meds. She was hauled off to the state hosptal, but that wasn't a permanent solution. For years after that she couldn't work because she was not stable enough. It was pretty sad to see her wasted life.

I agree with messages 6, 9 & 16. Once again, showing this video confirms my belief that the T.V. Networks have no scruples. They are in the business of delivering an audience to an advertiser. Showing the deranged ramblings of a murderer on T.V. , presumably for our 'gratification' (what does this say about us?), is not done to 'inform the public,' but to advance the Networks' bottom line. Not only does this show disrespect to the victims and their families, it is morally reprehensible.

If there is any educational value to this video, let the criminologists and the sociologists study it; you don't need to show it on T.V. to encourage the next nut job.

I also find it curious, as a Canadian, that whenever these mass shootings occur in the U.S. , the issue of gun control always seems to be the elephant in the room that U.S. politicians don't have the moral courage to talk about. As a Prosecutor preoccupied with public safety in my own country, I find this lack of political will, to talk about what is painfully obvious, to be particularily disturbing.

I expect these sorts of tragedies will continue until Americans push their politicians to take a second look at the modern relevance of the so-called 'right to bear arms' in the U.S. Constitution.

What need is there for anyone living in a contemporary, urban environment to own a firearm? If it's the criminals you are worried about, why keep a gun in your house that a bad guy can steal in a break and enter, and, in turn, use to hurt / kill others in a future crime? Even worse, why keep a gun or guns in your house if there is a risk that the bad guy can disarm you and use it against you in a home invasion? Given they have the element of surprise in any crime, if the bad guy shoots before you do, what good is your gun to you?

If you hear somebody breaking into your house, secure the room you are in and dial 911; let the police do their job.

For those who insist on living in the 18th century by viewing gun ownership as a safe-guard against tyrannical government, I would suggest that these paranoid dinosaurs are last people we want in our communities to own guns. These people don't need guns; what they need is a good psychiatrist!

Firearms used by hunters should be locked up in heavily guarded armories. There is no need to keep a hunting rifle in your house, especially if you live in an urban area. Before hunters can sign out their firearms at the start of hunting season, they should be subject to a mandatory psychiatric assessment accompanied by a waiver of any privacy rights to medical and psychiatric records.

If Americans want to stop their children from dying at the hands of rampaging psychopaths, I'd advocate confiscating and banning all guns, except for those held by the military and law enforcement. Over time, as criminals using guns are caught, the number of unregistered guns in circulation will go down.

With these measures, you will probably see the number of firearm-assisted suicides go down too.

Ulitimately, it will be up to the American voter, no-matter what their political affiliation is, to tire of all the killing. Only the American voter can use their franchise to push their elected officials to stand up, to challenge the disproportionately great political power weilded by the National Rifle Association and to say: "Enough!"

I agree w/ messages 9, 14, & 16. I feel sorry for the victims families who are having this salt rubbed into their already huge devastating wounds. This is just my personal opinion.

I agree with imaginelove that the writings and videos Cho left behind should be studied and hopefully there will be something of value learned from this tragedy. I just don't think the videos should be played repeatedly on every news channel. I don't see much benefit to that. Yes, report the facts but visual images complete with the sound track of the insane ravings are a bit much. Those should be for the eyes and ears of the professionals studying the case. Also, if someone I loved and cared about had some sort of mental break down I would not want it displayed for millions to see.

Message 8: Busifer -- I disagree with not showing the video. I don't revel in gore and misery and found the entire incident to be more than sad but I found the video instructional. Here was a young man who, prior to the video, was described as painfully shy, unable to speak clearly to the point that he was actually laughed at when forced to speak, and uncommunicative, hiding under a hat and sunglasses. Then we see a video wherein he speaks boldly, articulately (though not rationally), shows his entire face (even smiling). He looked as normal as most of the people we all see every day! He appeared nothing like he was described. So how can we recognize similar people the next time, especially if they do not try to hide themselves? The public needed to see that he looked normal.

Having said that, when he spoke you could clearly see he was severely mentally ill. I did not see that from previous descriptions of him. The video showed him as he really was; it showed him as no one else ever saw him.

What WAS dangerous was the constant intoning by the media that Cho had committed the largest mass murder in U.S. history. And no one stops to think that won't incite the next murderer to vow "Well I can beat that number!"?

Message 17: imaginelove -- As it turns out, this was not rapid onset and progression of the mental illness.. Statements from people who knew Cho from elementary school show he was always "strange", non-communicative to the extreme, and a loner. He was definitely paranoid but I don't believe he had the characteristics of a schizophrenic, as I understand schizophrenia, unless he was one from early childhood. But there has been no suggestion that he suffered from delusions or paranoia as a child. As you correctly stated, schizophrenia generally begins during adolescence and early adulthood. Most schizophrenics appeared to be perfectly normal and sociable as young children.

In the Cho situation, there was certainly no rapid onset, no "snap". He had very obviously and meticulously planned his spree for many months, maybe over a year, just as Klebold and Harris had done in Columbine.

23>

Remember that after such events the press trawl through the perpetrator's life and they are nearly always described as "strange" loners or quiet, he kept himself to himself. Similarly the victims are always portrayed in glowing terms. Personally I would take all such post-incident statements from those who knew him in early childhood with a large pinch of salt.

Even if he was a loner, was strange to other people, and not very communicative that doesn't necessarily mean he was mentally ill at that time.

#19 and others - the basic point you are missing is that if we allow the government to be the only one with guns, that is the surest route to tyranny I can think of. I personally do not want to become a subject of my government, but want to remain a citizen.

I agree with #19. I'm English. In London a recent spate of shooting and stabbing shows no sign of petering out. Children are murdering each other, sometimes in a pack with extreme brutality - in one case, even in their school uniforms.

I don't trust the government any more than the next person, but not to the extent where I'd carry a gun. I just wouldn't want that responsibility.

ETA: yes, I am emigrating. I've had enough.

#26 - But, where to? To a more rural area? I'm sure there are safer places that London, but I always thought it was one of the safest big cities in the world.

The Netherlands. ASAP. I've been threatening to for nearly two decades. The time is right.

Getting away from humanity and human nature is like trying to get away from sand at the beach.

What a good conversation. I agree that the 24/7 repetition of the video is exhausting & leaves news junkies wondering what eles is hapening in the world, but I did hear that possibly the state of Virginia's magistrate who judged Cho as "a danger to himself" & ordered him to undergo mental health testing should have placed his name in a Federal data bank. If the magistrate failed so did the mental health professional for not placing his name on that list. I don't remember the data banks name, but it is a depository of individuals who under Federal law are prohibited from ever owning a gun. The fact that this information was discussed on a popular news cast between experts just might alert other states' officals to use this tool.

I was most bothered by the media sharing the detail that Cho chained the door behind him. The next nutball now knows how to maximize the body count...

I watch little tv, but caught a glimpse of the video on the web. For me, one positive outcome is that it clearly shows Cho to be a severely disturbed individual, and this will hopefully work against any energetic yahoos taking their vengeance on members of the Asian community. (Our two teenage boys are adopted from Asia, and it's been difficult for me to watch them leave the house this week.)

#31 - I am concerned about the backlash thing, too. So far I haven't heard of any incidents. I hope it stays that way.

The NY Times article today quoted a relative as saying Cho was severely uncommunicative, even with his mother, almost from birth. One of the reasons the family left Korea was because the parents believed a more open society would help Cho. In addition, mental illness is a real stigma in Korean society. It is sad and almost inexcusable that professionals in his elementary school did not get involved and stay involved until Cho got real help; maybe if that had happened, he may have been able to slay his demons or his family would have realized he never should have gone away to college. Instead, he was not disruptive so no one bothered with him.

#25 - So, the other thing making you a citizen is the right to shoot anyone who you percieve as threatening?
Sorry, but this is what most europeans find so strange with the US. To be/feel so alienated & disenfranchised (from society) that owning a gun feels like the only way to defend oneself from the evil government; that is sad indeed.

Despite not owning a gun I feel like a full citizen. The government here, while I don't agree with the current regime, is not likely to attack me or my fellow taxpayers.
Also, organized crime here mostly kill off one another, not innocent bystanders. And the way to counter wrongdoings made by mentaly ill people is not to shoot them. If so we could close all institutions + stop educating psychiatrists and terapeuts - instead we could just kill them as they emerge.

But we don't do that, as we have to view one another as fellow humans, with the right to feel ill or down sometimes. In cases, the illnesses can be "cured" by medication, even mental ones...

In Sweden you can't own a gun without a license, and the firearm must be registred. You have to store it in a secure place (in a safe), and they must be dismantled.
Are we the less citizens for that? Are we decieved by the government?
I don't think so, and we have far less of these freaks wreaking havoc, murdering innocent people.

Message 25: Bookmarque -- I have to agree with #34. We haven't had to worry about our government gunning us down since the Bristish Revolution. I am not including Kent State in here nor police violence, neither of which could have been prevented with an armed citizenry. One of the beautiful things about the U.S. is its general peacefulness, notwithstanding the current demonic Bush adminstration which deserves to have the massive student protests of the 60s and 70s bear down upon it.

Armed professors or students MAY (emphasis intended) have prevented Cho from killing so many but I won't pay for that with the prospect of students carrying loaded weapons to class, nor professors. Mass killings are extremely rare, despite what news coverage allows us to think. But allowing the free ownership of guns is asking for even more individual killings by the careless, the drunk, the drugged out, and the angry. No thanks!

I don't care what Europeans think. And you never know about governments, now do you? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I will not yeild everything and become powerless myself. I don't think that's so difficult to comprehend.

36>

Aren't you being a bit disingenuous? If the government wanted to kill you they could. They have tanks, helicopter gunships, ground attack aeroplanes. Far more men and ordnance than you can ever have. Having a gun yourself gives zero power over your government. Historically at the time the US constitution was written a group of citizens could stand against a small govt. force - the weaponry was equivalent between the two. That hasn't been true for a while.

Also on the obverse side of the coin Europeans tend to trust corporations far less than Americans. We have far stronger data protection laws for example. Strange when you think Thomas Jefferson was one who felt that corporations shouldn't have undue power over the average citizen.

Disingenuous? Nope. Point was missed is all.

Well, if power always corrupts, then so will power attained by owning gun do.
Or?

You either have legislative or other regulating factors set up (to control corruption /mental and otherwise/), or you go by militia or military power. I tend to favour legislation and democracy over militia - far less lives lost and a higher probability for a considered/humane solution...

And I don't care if you care about what I as an european think - it was only a reflection :-)

Thank you #37, for pointing out the very true: If a government wants to kill you - it will - no matter what firearms you have. Unless you are bright enough, like bin Laden, to attract a force that moves you around a lot. Then an entire military system will not be able to kill you. But bin Laden does not stay alive because of his guns. But because so many are willing to die hiding him.

The simplistic arguments are just that: simplistic. A rifleman holding up a gun and protecting his freedom in the wilderness may be attractive to us who remember Davey Crockett and Daniel Boone, and grew up watching wild west shows... but that's not the real world, and it has not been, for a very long time.

Further - if there is a tyrranical government, people will get guns and resist. Look at every country in the Mideast. Technically, nobody over there is supposed to own a gun! It's ILLEGAL.

Sure has stopped them, hasn't it?

The point is this: In countries that are more realistic, there are fewer of these mass shootings. And their governments are not going crazy over them.

But we in America prefer to believe this is Kentucky, circa 1810.

Gotta go kill myself a possum and make some dinner! And I gotta protect myself from thieves and injuns. And maybe up in Massachusetts, uncle Abner will be asked to march and take over Lexington again!

What really gets my goat is when people fight background checks and multi-day delays on the purchase of firearms.

What's so friggin urgent that the gun is needed now? Sheesh.

And why does any citizen need an assault rifle?

#41 - For those pesky varmints who just won't die. ;o)

Sorry, kageeh. I couldn't resist. I really have no idea why anyone would want to own such a thing, but then I have no idea why anyone would watch American Idol, so you can't judge by my tastes.

Message 42: clamairy -- Perhaps there is some relationship between watching American Idol and owning an assault weapon and perhaps there should be one :). Maybe it's Simon Cowell.

A thread of violent misanthropy seems to run through the gun lobby's argument: other people are a threat, I must be able to kill someone if I deem it necessary. In England, anyone holding such views wouldn't get a gun licence, not since Hungerford and Dunblaine.

Despite this, as a youth I knew people who had guns - criminals. Shootings were comparatively rare, however. Police don't routinely carry guns out here in England. However, gun crime is on the rise and so is violent crime amongst young people. The answer is not to arm EVERYONE but to DISARM those who hurt other people, surely?

Then, I'm just a dumb European...*wink.

#43 - Hee hee! You may just be onto something there, kageeh! :o)

#44 - how would you go about doing that exactly? Disarming criminals that is.

44>

That kind of justification would be enough to deny someone a firearms certificate even before Hungerford.

Living out in the country I have known plenty of people who had a shotgun certificate. A number of people had low-power air-guns (either for targets or for pests such as squirrels) as well. However they were perhaps more innocent times - and more importantly well away from highly populated areas. The increased gun-crime and youth-violence seems to be very much an artifice of the large cities from where I sit.

#44 & #47 - Do you feel our gun culture has tainted your country, or is it just a world-wide phenomena? Or is it, perhaps, some combination of the two? Either way, it's a sad thing.
:o(

Well, I've been involved in some council-level discussion about gun crime and its causes, read a few papers, watched a few documentaries, formed my own opinions and still can't come to a conclusion.

There was gun crime in London during the 19th century, life was brutal and violent then and always has been if you're poor. Stabbings were rife during the '50s in London and elsewhere. Violence is always with us as a society. Young people emulating criminals is nothing new; Ainsworth's books on Dick Turpin and Jack Sheppard were the few novels read by working class children in the mid-19th century.

I don't know what the answer is, even after seventeen years working with children and my own tearaway youth to inform me. All I know is that I've had enough watching this generation's antics, both as a teacher and a citizen. I'm not a parent, thank God, or I'd have emigrated many years ago, at the onset of the 'Me' generation.

>48 clamairy:.

Clamairy,

Handguns smuggled illegally into Canada from the United States account for 51 % of all firearms seized in Canada pursuant to police investigations.

Many of the remaining seized firearms cannot be traced because their serial numbers have been removed; the criminals themselves have filed them off to prevent them from being linked to a previous crime(s).

If a seized, unregistered firearm were capable of recounting it's own life's story, I imagine that story would be pretty horrific. I shudder to think about the number of times some of these weapons have changed hands and the number of crimes they have been used in.

I recall a case I prosecuted a few years ago (in a city in Western Canada) in which a revolver was seized from a young offender during a robbery investigation. The serial numbers were still intact. Investigators were able to trace the gun as having been stolen originally from a drug store in Texas in 1950!

We live in US, but have a cottage in Canada. My husband, an American, thought it would be safer to leave his duck gun in Canada (in my cousin's gun safe) than to haul it back and forth. We were very impressed by the training, the background checks, the requirement that I sign off, etc., before he could leave his gun over there. Legitimate hunters have their guns in Canada, but they are trained and accountable. I can't imagine that someone like Cho would have persisted in the approval process, much less survived it!

I should add that thus far that no--well, maybe ONE Canadian duck--has anything to fear! {;>

Message 46: Bookmarque -- how would you go about doing that exactly? Disarming criminals that is.

That's a very good question. I don't suppose we can disarm the criminals who already have guns but we can certainly make it far more difficult for them to get guns in the first place.

For one, give me one good reason why Bush allowed the assault weapon ban to expire (besides the obvious gun lobby and NRA)? What kind of legitiamte game hunter needs an assault weapon? What kind of a homeowner seeking to provide protection for a family needs an assault weapon?

Why don't ALL states follow the same rules for allowing people to legitimately get guns -- with long waiting periods and with license and safety training requirements before a gun can be bought? Why aren't all guns sold with required trigger locks?
Why does the NRA and gun lobby fight against these safety rules?

More innocent people are killed with legally owned handguns than are killed by mass murderers like Cho and serial killers. What does that say?

More innocent people are killed with legally owned handguns than are killed by mass murderers like Cho and serial killers. What does that say?

In the case of accidental death, it says people don't get enough training and don't remain vigilant with gun safety.

#53 - your question "For one, give me one good reason why Bush allowed the assault weapon ban to expire (besides the obvious gun lobby and NRA)? What kind of legitiamte game hunter needs an assault weapon? What kind of a homeowner seeking to provide protection for a family needs an assault weapon?" answered -

The so called ban was based on cosmetic features and appearance, not functionality, therefore had little or no effect on the sale of semiautomatic rifles. It was allowed to expire since these types of weapons are seldom used in crimes and the legislation served no purpose.

The reliability and accuracy of the semiautomatic rifle makes them ideally suited to hunting in adverse conditions. Designed to function in less than optimal environments, rain, snow, dust or mud will not affect their performance. These characteristics are quite valuable to the hunter in the field. Rapid follow up shots can prevent a wounded animal from escaping or suffering needlessly.

In terms of defensive usage, a light recoiling, easily handled long gun is much better suited than a handgun. Lightweight rifle bullets penetrate less in building materials, making them safer for persons in adjacent rooms or homes. In a rural environment, should a homeowner need to fire at a target beyond 5-10 yards, hit probability increases dramatically with a long arm. Shotguns, the traditional choice, are heavy, have large amounts of recoil and require extensive training to master. At short range, the pattern from a shotgun is quite small, necessitating precision aiming, just like a rifle, negating the ‘scattergun’ advantage.

#55 -- Okay, you win. Who knew? But then I don't hunt.

To protect against home invasion (rather rare, in the scheme of things, for a home to be invaded when it's evident someone is home), I use a centralized security/fire alarm system. It was inexpensive and comes with a panic button that automatically calls the police or fire station. Much more effective, personally comfortable, and safer than a handgun.

... especially when considering the fact that the risk for getting shot gets higher when you yourself are viewed as a threat, as you naturally do when showing up armed.

Home alarm systems are frequently problematic in that they are easily bypassed, owners are often numbed by false alarms, and the security systems often take nearly 5 minutes to answer a panic/alarm call and almost 20-30 minutes for a police officer to respond. I know - I accidentally set mine off about once a month. Also, the wireless systems have a problem with the glue that sticks the sensors up - they tend to fall and shatter into a million peices when the weather gets hot.

One specialist in the ATL area suggests a multi-layered home security approach. Have an alarm, but also have a large dog and a shotgun. Then be creative: leave muddy size 15 work boots on the front porch. Put a note to the exterminator asking him to not spray today because your son's large snake got loose in the house and you can't find him. Etc...

Message 58: imaginelove -- You must be one of those people some communities have fines for (false alarms) :). I do like the snake idea though. I should use that.

kageeh - thank God I have land to seperate me from the neighbors, huh. ;) Most of the false alarms are early morning "don't have my coffee or my contacts in and the dogs have to pee and are dancing around me in circles" kind of instances. Either that or one of the cats set off the motion detector...

Are you folks over there living in the ancient "wild" west of 1859, or such?
I am amazed at what you need to keep the thugs at bay!

Here in Sweden crime gangs organized by the russian mob are close at hand, and we have our share of crackheads, psychos, burglars etc. but we manage to get by anyway, without shotguns under our pillows...

I believe it's more of instead of the wild west, we live in cities the size of Sweden. ;) I know that Atlanta and it's metro area has a population of 5.2 million people.

From Wikipedia:

For several decades, Atlanta had been among the most violent cities in North America but in recent years the city has reduced violent crime considerably. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's annual Uniform Crime Report, Atlanta recorded 90 homicides in 2005, down from 151 in 2004. Violent crime in 2005 was the lowest since 1969.

However, in 2005 Atlanta received media attention for the high-profile Brian Nichols manhunt, who became internationally known as the "Courthouse Killer". In addition, broadcast media focused attention on a standoff involving a murder suspect (not an Atlanta resident) who perched himself on top of a construction crane for several days in the upscale Buckhead district. Murders peaked at 271 in 1973, for a murder rate of 58 per 100,000.

Atlanta's police department has been plagued by allegations of police brutality. Recently, Professor Felipe Fernández-Armesto of the history department at Tufts University claimed he was harassed by the police for jaywalking in downtown Atlanta.

I am new to LT and at the risk of sounding stupid I was wondering...
The topic is "So, should the shooter's letters/video/photos be plastered all over the news?" but the current posts seem to all be about gun control. When and how do old topics end and new ones begin? (just curious)

Eh... I believe we are the rabbit-trail type of folks. ;)

#63 - Well that's part of the great joy/sorrow of message boarding. The threads do wander willy-nilly where they will.
:o) :o(
Most of the time it is a good thing. Like in this case, I started the thread, and I am basically amused but not upset that it has ended up where it is. In another week we may still be posting in this thread, but discussing when is the best time in Spring to begin radish planting. You just cannot predict any of it!

#62 - Sorry, I just don't buy that size has anything to do with it...
Europe is quite big and quite diversified, and we still manage to do without guns under our pillows regardless of if we live in Sweden, Spain or Germany (only to mention a few).

I don't know if was intended as such, but using the Courthouse Killer as an argument for gun control isn't the best bet. As I recall, he was a huge guy being guarded by one person who was not his physical equal. The gun was taken off the guard.

Guns under the pillow? Nah, WAY too uncomfortable. ; )

bookishbunny - it is from a wikipedia entry about Atlanta. I think the point was that in a large, often violent city some citizens would feel the need to own a firearm.

Besides, guns don't go under the pillow - that's where the knife goes. The gun is in the nightstand near the dildo.

imaginelove > don't get them mixed up in periods of intense emotional situations....

8)

I'm pretty ditzy and clumsy. I have managed to injure myself with a safety can-opener, plastic string, staplers, keyrings, keys and anything sharp. The thought of me anywhere near a gun gives me a nervous twitch. I find them menacing aesthetically and their potential lethal ability is too much for me.

I think there are over ten million people in London, but I've never been involved in an incident involving firearms. Given the irresponsible nature of those who use weapons and their supposed-ubiquity, it's a miracle more people aren't being shot in London.

>70 readafew: Ack! That thought just made me cringe so hard my knees whanged the underside of my desk.

Although mixing them up in the other direction may be fairly effective; incapacitate the burglar through laughter...

>62 imaginelove: and 69

Atlanta has a city size of less than 500,000 - the metro area is 5.1 million. Most Europeans tend to think of city sizes rather than metro areas. Nevertheless there are eight metro areas in western Europe with more than 5 million population (assuming Berlin has grown since 2003). However even then it isn't a level playing field. According to Wikipedia Atlanta's metropolitan area is 8,376 square miles that is a larger area than Wales. Our cities tend to be more closely packed - for example Sheffield has only 1.8m in its metro area but within 30 miles you have Leeds/Bradford with another 1.6m, Manchester with another 2.5m and Nottingham with another 1.2m.

A UN report finds that homicide by firearms to be around 3.0 / 100,000 in the US. In Germany and Switzerland that is 0.5 / 100,000, Sweden, England & Wales and Ireland it is even lower. It does make me wonder whether having ubiquitous firearms ownership really does make it a safer society.

#63 welcome to LT - If you have the patience to read the whole thread you'll see the discussion starts on topic and around the mid #30s there is an influence of whether or not this could have been prevented... which leads fairly smoothly to gun control.... which in turn leads smoothly to dildo's which in turn leads to raddishes.

Yep its warm enough to plant them here, though they won't be ready for quite a while. ........

Sorry what were we talking about. ?
#71 I live in Manchester - not quite as large as London but still a very substantial city, I've also never been involved with a firearm dispute - neither has anyone I know.

In The Nurture Assumption, Judith Rich Harris discussed the relative influence in children's development of biology, parental rearing, and peers. I remember a Swedish study in which children of criminals were adopted (some a-parents went on to become criminals themselves), and the kids were reared in rural v. urban environments. The most important variable seemed to be where the children were reared. Hope I've got this right, but the theory was that, in cities, there are enough peers that a child can always find a group that reinforces any anti-social tendencies. In rural areas, as in ancestral tribal village situations, children tend to run in smaller, multi-age, both-gender peer groups. Kid-culture is passed on this way. Today our children tend to be in huge schools and to find an even larger group of peers on the net, where they can find like-minded individuals. Thus, the disturbed among us are feeling more free to express their antisocial tendencies. (Great book, BTW--very readable.)

Re: Firearm disputes

Living in Atlanta, I've never been involved in a firearm dispute either. However, I have been in a few situations where I wished I had a firearm in my purse. Once a large man brandishing a knife rushed into my garage while me and my very pregnant sister were having a yard sale. Another time, the car next to us at a stop light in downtown at 3 am was carjacked. Both situations turned out as well as possible, but I dislike greatly being scared.

Holy snap, imaginelove! Thank God you're okay. People are freakin' scary.

Every time I hear of yet another Greenville County homicide, it makes New York look that much less intimidating.

My life hasn't been without violence - far from it. However, the presence of firearms in some horrid situations I faced would have ended in a fatality, probably mine, which would have been bad. I have lived a rather colourful life - bohemian would be a polite way to put it - and have encountered many hazardous individuals in the course of it.

I know an American who shot an intruder and killed him: the ramifications on his life have been incalculable, all of them negative. Like I said above in the wider thread, I wouldn't like to have the power of life or death over anyone, no matter how much they threatened my existence; then, I am an extreme pacifist (or nerdy wimp, depending on your viewpoint!). Despite being a rationalist, I also believe in karma, particularly as regards violence and violent individuals.

Hera, I think your arguments would be good for not forcing people to carry arms. However, it should be up to the individual if they feel feel they can live with killing somebody who is invading their home. A gun-control argument may not even be where you were going with that, though. I really appreciate where you were with your 'bohemian' existence. I've lived on the more 'unconventional' side myself. :) It's hard out there for a woman, armed or not!

Message 75: mdochoda -- I never agreed with The Nurture Assumption until the kids got to be teenagers when peers really do matter more than parents but then the parental strengths come back into position later in the 20s. Kids do grow up, most of them anyway.

However, I do agree with the rest of the Swedish study. I don't know how I would have been had there been easily-accessed Internet groups when I was a teenager. As it was, I never found a soul-mate for my feelings of adolescent angst so I learned to put up with them until I outgrew them. I guess I believe it's really important to monitor what your kids are doing on the Internet to keep them sane and involved in healthier activities and friendships. But sometimes it's a losing battle and all parents can do is pray for thee kids' frontal cortexes to mature.

Wouldn't allowing everyone to carry concealed weapons end up in gun drawing battles? I'm pretty slow to react so I wouldn't last beyond my first gun adventure.

I do not believe it is up to the individual if they carry a gun. If I knew I could risk being shot dead if telling someone to please step off my foot or to not force their way up the que to the ATM or some such I would shut up and hide instead of doing what I view as my duty - assert my right not to b abused or harrassed or whatever.

At a whole a society free of threats on your life is a much easier society to live in, and it fosters a climate where you can say anything; which I think is healthy.

> 82

Agreed. A community where everyone is armed to the teeth breeds tension and mistrust. I believe such a community is just a powder keg waiting to explode.

Would you want to raise your kids in such a place? I know I wouldn't.

If an armed citizenry is needed to maintain social order, you have to question the stability and the social cohesion of that community.

I believe that a society where everyone feels compelled to hold a knife to one another's throat to just to keep the peace (ie. if you don't shoot me, I won't shoot you) is a society on the brink of anarchy.

Then should we outlaw knives, too?

I have spent time with many armed individuals, and have never felt the need to censor myself for my own safety. Some people have said those of who believe in the right to bear arms have an exaggerated sense of 'danger' or 'threat' coming from other people. If that were to be true, then the other side is guilty of the same misconception.

And I certainly wouldn't want to live in a society that treats me, and every other citizen, like a child, then wags its finger and says it's for my own good. There will always be destructive people, and in the emotional wake of their violent actions, it is human nature to focus on the inanimate object rather than the person. Maybe it allows us to detach from the fact that this person was a member our society. Maybe it's to try to simplify what is a much more complicated matter than weapons availability. I don't understand why we do this, but it doesn't seem to keeping the sick, violent people from becoming less so.

>84 bookishbunny:

We all live under governments that impose laws on us. For example, don't assault people, don't sell drugs and don't steal. Are these rules not also paternalistic? If we don't want to be treated like children, why have any laws at all?

Whether or not one finds these rules of behavior childish, they are needed to make community life possible. Without them, society would quickly deteriorate into a state of nature.

Had the VT killer only had access to a knife, do you really think as many as 32 people would have died?

If somebody had a gun and s/he compelled me to do something, I would be wise to comply because guns can kill multiple human targets quickly and at a distance.

If I were one of those poor VT students confronted by an assailant with a knife, at least I and those around me would have a fighting chance to over-power him.

He could have made a bomb. Should we not sell large boxes of nails at Home Depot?

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be some kind of restriction on gun accessibility. They guy was certifiably insane. There is no way he should have been allowed to buy a gun legally. I'm all for background checks and accountability if your gun is stolen from your home due to inappropriate storage. These laws make sense and could go a long way to curbing the gun violence caused by disturbed or criminal individuals.

>85 Autodafe:

I think there's a difference between laws designed to keep you from harming the person or property of other people (i.e. don't assault people, don't steal) and laws designed to keep you from hurting yourself (i.e. wear a seatbelt, don't do drugs). The latter are paternalistic, since they imply that you can't be trusted to make decisions about your own person. I think the former are pretty much within the purview of any government (i.e. keep the citizens from hurting each other) and are therefore not particularly paternalistic.

The murky area happens with issues that don't clearly fall on one side or the other of the hurting others/hurting yourself issue. Gun control's one of these. Clearly, hurting people with guns is against the law. Anti-gun-control people argue that just owning a gun doesn't hurt anyone else, and therefore shouldn't be against the law. Pro-gun-control people argue that owning a gun highly increases the probability of hurting other people, and therefore should be against the law.

>87 fyrefly98:

Your distinctions are artificial.

All laws are paternalistic.

Criminal Law exists for the very reason that the State does not trust our own judgement with respect to our interactions with other people. As a result, it imposes sanctions that it hopes will act as a deterrent for engaging in certain types of prohibited activity.

If all individuals in a community could be trusted not to assault and steal from one another, then the State would not impose consequences for engaging in these sorts of activities in the first place.

Acts of poor judgment by an individual also harm the community. The social cost of an individual's drug addiction is huge. An individual's serious injury or death resulting from a failure to wear a seatbelt expends community law enforcement and medical resources. Whether you like it or not, these seemingly selfish acts do affect and impose costs on other people.

When it comes to gun control, indeed the very existence of guns, there is no 'murky area' when it comes to both individual and public safety. Gun's don't discriminate; they harm whomever has the misfortune of being in front of the barrel, whether it's yourself or others.

The anti gun control argument assumes just owning a gun doesn't hurt anyone else. It does. By virtue of possessing a gun, gun owners are creating a point of access for a determined individual who wants one. If a gun owner can access his/her gun, someone else can.

For example, in home invasion robberies, victims are often assaulted/terrorized to divulge their PIN numbers. They are often confined by one assailant in their home while the other goes to the bank machine to try the number. If the PIN number provided is false, they are beaten until they provide the correct one.

The same technique has been applied very effectively by criminals to get safe combinations from their victims. This essentially renders the safety of any gun cabinet or safe totally ineffective. As long as this condition exists, a gun is just as much a threat to its owner as it is to other members of the community.

And yes, my perspective is paternalistic.

I'm with the bookish one (#86) ... even though the argument is usually positioned as being about gun "control," most people on both sides view the situation as all or nothing ... either we ban guns entirely or we allow just about anyone to get them ... I think stronger, serious controls on who can get them is the best way to go.

Drinking and driving is dangerous, and is illegal, since people still do it maybe we should make drinking illegal.

The one person I know who died (or was even shot) from a firearm, was a suicide (and probably would have succeeded with our without a gun). I had a cousin who was stabbed to death (in Atlanta), and I know several people who've died from auto accidents with drunk drivers.

Most of my family have guns and are familiar with them and thier use. As of today none of us have had problems.

Many more people would be saved with better automobile safty features and training people how to actually drive. The differance is very few people involved in the accidents INTEND to hurt others with a vehicle.

There are always ways to hurt others, bombs are incredably easy to make. I could probably rig up a nail gun to be more dangerous than an automatic pistol or modify a paintball gun to be deadly.

Gun safty training, teaching people to be tolarant, and helping those with real problems would do a lot more to reducing these violent deaths.

added: I have nothing against fairly strong checks on WHO can purchase a gun.

Message 84: bookishbunny -- You're correct when you say no amount of gun control will prevent the Chos of the world but I disagree that strict enforcement of strict gun control laws are signs that the government is treating us like children. I don't remember where you live but it's likely you need a government license to drive a car and you need to register your car every year and prove it with plates. Does that make you feel as if the government is wagging its finger at you? Living in a free society is a privilege and our adherence to its laws are our payment, a small one at that. I have to agree much more with the other posters who say an armed society is a dangerous and unlivable one. I'll take my chances being unarmed before I'll live in that kind of a world where I have to worry about whether everyone around me is sane and sober and doesn't have a hair-trigger temper or a bad day..

Message 88: Autodafe -- You say it all very eloquently!

Message 90: readafew -- Unfortunately, most people are not as civil as you and your family and thus need more controls on their behavior. Each of us thinks we're responsible but obviously, most of us are lying.

#91,

If you read my post carefully, you will see that I agree on having some restrictions. I just don't agree on bans. I don't believe in all or nothing. Life is lived in the gray areas.

> 90

Or make driving illegal. Given the current concerns about the link between the number of cars on the road and global warming, and the fact that Criminal Courts would be out of business if there were no drugs and alcohol, be careful what you wish for ;p

readafew - I feel you! My brother once shot my sister with a paintball gun loaded with bath oil beads at close range. This was in high school but she still knocks him upside the head when she remembers how much it hurt.

Me, I've only shot up a few bazillion paper targets with my .38. My family is almost entirely military/law enforcement and firearms are a way of life. But then again, none of us has ever commited a felony either.

#94 certainly is correct about life being lived in Grey areas. Very little is absolute black or white.

SO after appropriate checks, with suitable delays and storage requirements, sports shooters and hunters; should be able to own a gun or two, of the appropriate catagory. I don;t see where an assult rifle fits into this.

There are few other reasons for owning a gun. Its not an outright ban, it is simply considerably stricter control than the US is used to.

#90 and #93 make some very valid points.

"people involved in the accidents INTEND to hurt others with a vehicle" I'm not sure which is worse. Hurting someone because you meant to, or because you didn't care enough not to.......
Preventable accidents are tragic. In the state of Virginia, the same number of people Cho killed, die from traffic accidents every 10 days. No outcry, no publicity, no care?

In terms of absolute reduction in wasted lives, driving is the no.1 issue by a very very long way.

Who (other than me) will give up their car to save lives?

If you won't - why do feel justified in telling others how to live?

Message 97: reading_fox -- Depending on where one lives and the state of public transportation, driving a car is a daily necessity. Owning a gun for personal safety is not (we hope).

Besides, if you follow good gun safety rules/laws, guns should be stored separate from the ammunition. What good does the gun do you then if you wake up and fine a criminal leaning over you?

I believe people should be told how to live certain aspects of their lives if doing so is for the greater safety of the public, such as obeying seatbelt laws.

My son was at VT, knew the ROTC boy who was killed. I also have a brother who suffers from mental illness. Neither of those things make me an expert on anything.
So...we can't just go around committing people and infringing on their rights. I feel really bad for the shooters family. Dealing with a mentally ill family member is so hard, and most families don't realize the extent of the problem until it is quite out of hand. And every day I am so thankful that my son was not shot.
I think tighter gun controls could be a small part of the answer - but only a tiny part. I am not sure there are any answers to this problem, but I am sick of the media and their uneducated attempts to analyze the situation.
Mentally ill people act in a way that is irrational to everyone but themselves. This boy was obviously very ill. It is sad that no one forced him to receive help - and many people with mental illness do not see themselves as ill and will not accept treatment.
The media should just go back to what they are best at - reporting Anna Nicole news- and letting people grieve and perhaps in time start to heal.