Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, April 23, 2007
Donald Lambro :: Townhall.com Columnist
The lesson of Virginia Tech
by Donald Lambro
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


WASHINGTON -- The question that cries out for answers in the Virginia Tech massacre is, why didn't anyone pull together all of the psychopathic clues about Cho Seung-Hui before he went on his killing rampage?

Those clues have been tumbling out in the aftermath of the worst mass murder in American history by a single gunman. They inexorably lead to one painful inquiry: How could the university system allow Cho to stay on campus and attend classes when so many people knew he was a deeply disturbed, mentally ill young man who frightened students and teachers alike?

An English teacher was deeply troubled by his bizarre writings about death and killings, and his sullen, uncommunicative behavior in class. That behavior reached a point where she came to class to find most of her students absent because they were afraid of Cho, who talked to no one and took pictures of them. His classmates sensed something was very wrong with him.

Another teacher chose to tutor Cho separately, urging him to seek out counseling, which he refused to do. She notified her superiors, but it seems they felt powerless to act, and we now know that no one looked into the senior English major's troubled past until it was too late.

Then more troubling reports of his past came out. He had approached and messaged two women in separate incidents, which they reported to the university security authorities. No charges were filed against him, but he underwent an examination at a mental-health facility following a temporary detention order signed by a judge.

The judge checked off the box that said Cho may be suicidal, but did not check off the box suggesting he could be danger to others. The mental-health-examination documents record that he was "depressed" but did not represent a threat to others or require involuntary treatment.

But the insane rantings in his computer and the menacing, gun-wielding videos and hate writings he sent to NBC News fully revealed a deranged man who foretold of his plans to kill as many people as he could before taking his own life.

"You forced me into a corner and gave me only one option. The decision was yours. Now you have blood on your hands that will never wash off," he said on the video he had recorded, probably long before last week's deadly events unfolded.

These and other signs were there for anyone who took the trouble to examine this man's psychotic past and "connect the dots," the famous line about the trail of clues that led up to the 9/11 attacks on America.

"Every day, every hour, more people came forward who knew that something was deeply wrong with Cho Seung-Hui. Teachers, roommates, classmates from college, high school, middle school -- people knew," reporter Marc Fisher wrote in The Washington Post.

"And people acted. Not all of them, and not all in loud and useful ways, but some who were disturbed by Cho's actions and words did what we would want them to do. They told somebody. And still, here we are. Why?" Fisher asked.

But what could have been done? Well, how is it that when he refused mental counseling, he was allowed to remain in class? Or, for that matter, remain at the university?

University officials have a responsibility to help individual students who are distressed or troubled, but they have a larger responsibility to provide a safe, secure environment for their student body and faculty. Clearly, they failed in that solemn responsibility.

If the events leading up to the slaughter at Virginia Tech sound familiar, that's because the very same thing happened at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., eight years ago. Two teenage killers, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, went on a rampage that they, too, had meticulously planned out. And, like Cho, they had left a computer and paper trail of their deadly intentions.

They "wrote school papers about their plan. They put up a Web site about it.

Harris even wrote in court documents that he was homicidal and suicidal," Fisher recounted. "People knew. Still, Columbine happened."

A special commission is being appointed by the governor to examine how the university handled all of this, what was known about Cho's past and what could have been done that might have avoided last week's massacre.

There are some basic lessons to be learned here. Disturbed students need treatment and involuntary hospitalization, if need be, not just student/teacher counseling. Teachers and college officials need to more closely assess a troubled student's past and understand the signs of depression, bipolar disorders, paranoia and homicidal rage. Excessive writings about killing people need to be taken seriously.

Teachers, counselors and students need to be encouraged to talk to school authorities and health professionals about disturbing behavior, and there must be a system in place to examine and respond to such reports.

The lesson of Columbine and Virginia Tech is that many people knew but no one acted preemptively to prevent this tragedy from occurring.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Donald Lambro is chief political correspondent for The Washington Times.

Be the first to read Donald Lambro's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Sorry, BS
Hindsight is always 20/20.

The guy broke no laws that anyone knew about, so what were they supposed to do? You can't jail someone because they "might" do something, unless this country turned into the USSR all of a sudden while I wasn't looking.


Generalizations drawn from
single occurences have a high likelihood of being flawed.

Agree, DL
Unfortunately it has taken this thing (32 dead) to jog the national consciousness. Change will now be forced on the uni authorities & hefty litigation awaits those if steps fail to be taken upon notification.

The classroom has to be a sanctuary.

People have no businses interfereing with the learning of others, which in this case, was evident.


Obvious
I agree with this 100 percent.

Guns and nuts
Still another question is why this kook was able to purchase handguns? Of course, the NRA has had something to do with that. The "right" of this nutcase to possess firearms was defended by the Vice President of the NRA:

January 11, 2002

Alaska Ruling Starts Debate on Gun Permits for Mentally Ill

A state appeals court has ignited a debate on gun control by overturning a judge's order that a man who says he has a computer chip in his head surrender his gun permit.

The Court of Appeals ruled in November that the Alaska law on concealed deadly weapons did not allow general concerns about mental illness to play a role in issuing permits.

Advocates of gun control say the case illustrates a dangerous accommodation to the gun lobby by the Legislature. Gun owners argue that state laws safeguard their Second Amendment rights and that the public is adequately protected.

The case began in 1998, when the man, Timothy Wagner, entered the Alaska Mining and Diving store here dripping wet and told a clerk that he was trying to soak away chemicals in his body before they killed him. He also said a computer chip had been implanted in his head. Another employee overheard the conversation and called the police.

A background check found that Mr. Wagner had a permit to carry a concealed gun. When an officer asked Mr. Wagner whether he had a gun with him, Mr. Wagner pointed to a briefcase next to him. In it were a loaded .357 and bags of bullets.

Alaska law requires permit holders who have contact with the police to tell officers immediately whether they are carrying concealed guns. In 1999, Mr. Wagner was convicted of failing to do so.

Judge Natalie Finn of Anchorage District Court sentenced him to three years of probation and ordered him not to possess guns in that time. Judge Finn ordered him to forfeit his permit until his illness was ''either cured or improved.''

The Public Safety Department revoked the permit based on Judge Finn's decision.

The department has issued more than 18,000 such permits since 1995. That year, Alaskans were allowed to carry concealed handguns under restrictions that include an age limit and a safety course.

In 1998, the law was amended so that applicants did not have to prove that they actually needed to carry concealed weapons. Also, a question on whether someone was mentally ill or had been treated for mental illness in the preceding five years was removed from a list given to applicants, a change that the appeals court cited in Mr. Wagner's case.


The law requires applicants to disclose just whether they have ever been committed to a mental hospital or found mentally incompetent by courts. ''Yes'' answers are grounds for denying a permit.

''We wanted to remove the potential for arbitrary and capricious decision making on the part of the issuing agency,'' said Brian Judy, liaison aid here for the National Rifle Association.

A spokeswoman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Nancy Hwa, said, ''They are taking away the discretion of local law enforcement to make these decisions in the best interest of public safety.''

Other states with more liberal gun laws, including Texas, Montana and North Carolina, have much stricter standards on mental instability, said Luis Tolley of the Brady Campaign.

In Montana, the law says a sheriff can deny a permit if he has reasonable cause to believe that ''the applicant is mentally ill, mentally defective or mentally disabled.''

North Carolina applicants with a ''physical or mental infirmity that prevent the safe handling of a handgun'' can be denied permits.

Even Texas has a long broad list under mental health, Mr. Tolley said. The restrictions include anyone given a diagnosis of ''a psychiatric disorder or condition'' that is likely to cause impairment in judgment, mood, perception or intellectual ability.

Mr. Wagner has no telephone listing here. He told the court that he was an inventor and designed guns and ammunition.

He has no convictions. After his arrest, the police took him to a state mental hospital. Mr. Wagner testified that he was released after having been interviewed.

The amended law was enacted over the veto of Gov. Tony Knowles, who warned that the bill could allow dangerous people to carry concealed weapons.

The Public Safety Department has taken a wait-and-see attitude in Mr. Wagner's case. He has not asked for his permit back, and no court has ordered it returned, Deputy Commissioner Del Smith said.

''I think Finn was concerned about his behavior, and rightly so,'' Mr. Smith said. ''He made some pretty bizarre claims.''


There are tons of weird kids in college
It's hard to know exactly how all these events played out, and how serious they appeared at the time, without having been there. It seems likely that Cho just seemed like a weird kid to most people.

I remember when I was in college there were TONS of weird kids, angry kids, probably somewhat off-balance kids. There are lots of college students that are angry at the world, their parents, or authority in general. There are lot of college kids who write weird angry stuff in playwriting, or poetry, or short story classes. There are tons of dorky guys who call and message girls who aren't interested in them to the point where the girls get annoyed or freaked out. Most of these kids never do anyone any harm.

I can only imagine how many students would suddenly be involuntarily committed if all it took were being weird, creepy, angry, and uncommunicative. Jeez, in some ways, isn't that the definition of being around 19?

That's not to say that Cho wasn't crazy - just that hindsight is 20/20 and it probably wasn't really as easy beforehand to separate Cho from all the other weird angry kids as it seems to us now.

Virginia Tech Asininity
Why indeed.... because you have three dysfunctional hierarchies:

The School.. where everyone thinks " Oh aren't we pure, aren't we idealistic, aren't we tolearant of diversity?"
With administrators and big domed guys who couldn't think or administer their way across the street.
And they get all of these signs and signals and still send the students into an enclosed room with no protection. We treat animals at the SPCA better than that,,,


The court system.. There is a saying that
" Some men mine for diamonds while others shovel popcorn." The courts do the latter. Hang up your coat and you are on duty and can stop thinking. Kick the ball down the block ... raise problems... stand on technicalities... the little people can lose work to come back next week and... and... no matter how inconvenient or how unjust the results are... you will be here again looking for that big retirent.


The mental health system...

"Yes he does seem a little out of the mainstream with that bag over his head, but with nurture and care and understanding, we can turn him into something, hopefully before he burns the place down."

Which reminds me of the guy who bought a bird that wouldn't speak. The pet store owner says "Let's try something different in his diet: grapes and a dab of peanut butter."

Still didn't speak.

He says" Let's go with Raisin Bran and a touch of vinegar.

Still didn't and he says " Here's one I heard of the other day... Ground lettuce with just a hint of mayo..."

Guy comes in later and says the bird died, but he spoke before he passed on.

Shop owner says" What did he say?"

"He said: 'Ain't you sonovabitches ever heard of bird seed?' "

Gabby
The Cho family is in the country LEGALY. The father is a buisiness owner.
I agree that illegal aliens are criminals and should be treated as such though. Instead of all of the freebies they get.

What a joke
So know, you have to write about butterflies, horses and beautiful white houses so you do not get locked up... What about all those movies and books that are all about violence? You have to be free. The more you hide something the more you attractive you make it.What it has to be done is educate people to resect each other no matter how different they are. And also, get rid of guns... What do you want guns for? THey are only made to kill people. What have happented in VA couldnt have happened, for example, in europe. If a freak is bullied, he wouldnt have access to guns, so would end up by killing ONLY himself or doing drugs.
I know, I know... guns dont kill people, people kil people. Then get rid of uns so people dont kill people so easily! I ruther have a freak in my classroom with a knife than with a gun.How many can he kill with a gun, and how many can he kill with a knife?

DUH
There is no sense to be made of this after the fact. No amount of hindsight is going to bring those people back or stop the families' grieving. Let it alone, already. I mean how many more columns do we have to read with the killer's name, etc...It is a done deal. NOTHING can be changed. Let the familie go and try to find somesort of comfort and strnegth to move forward.

www.vcdl.org
A Virginia gun rights group fought and lost when trying to get Va Tech to allow students (age 21 and up) and professors to be able to carry concealed weapons on campus. A few of the 25,000 students had concealed carry permits (CCW in VA) and wished to carry. We don't know what might have happened if some of these students were carrying on that horrible day but we do know what happened when only a madman was armed.
http://www.vcdl.org has more details on this situation.

English Teachers
One of those English "teachers" was Nikki Giovanni. Go to any one of several web sites and read some of her "loving" poetry.

Jail the Hippies
I went to university in the 1960s. Everyone in every major university at that time was angry, disturbed, violent, ranting and screaming obscenities and blasphemy, taking off their clothes in public, dancing nekkid in the mud and rain, blowing up buildings and screaming that All We Need is Love.

Perhaps if everyone who was at University in the 1960s had been put in Gitmo, the world would be a better place today.

The bottom line being that just because some people think you are weird, that your anger has "no basis", that you dress funny and don't wear make-up and write science fiction instead of bodice-rippers, and that you never go to football games, that does not require your incarceration as a danger to society. Neither does arguing with your teachers or trying to pick up girls that don't want to be picked up. (There would not be a free man in any university town if THAT was a crime.)

My question remains: how did someone who was that illiterate, that terrible a writer, that absolutely stupid, make it to his senior year in ENGLISH? Don't they have any standards at all at Virginia Tech?

Why? YGBSM
This worm bait mo-fo was nothing but an immature envious POS who beleived that his anger entiled him to massacre innocent people and that its source was that the world is not a fair place which was not his fault. Please. In his recorded rant, the dipstick said "You had a billion chances to stop this." Well, he had a billion and one. Also if you start locking people up for mental health reasons, get ready for a sh*tstorm of ADA lawsuits. G Washington U expelled a student because he was deemed to be a danger to campus safety. The student sued successfully. More chilling is the prospect that any statement made in the heat of passion and not necessarily from a desire to harm others could put you in a mental hospital or jail. Who gets to decide? A scary thought.

LESSON #2 SECOND AMENDMENT ABSOLUTES?


The First Amendment gives us all the right to free speech, but it’s not an unrestricted right. I can’t falsely yell “FIRE” in a theater, because it will endanger another citizen’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, when it comes to the Second Amendment, NO RESTRICTIONS CAN BE TOLERATED! Nobody can interfere with MY RIGHT to gun sports and fun. A 15-clip gun – no problem. An automatic weapon – great. I have the right to massacre as many watermelons as I can as fast as I can. THAT’S THE FUN OF IT! I’m a little upset with the NRA. Why aren’t they lobbying to more sport weapons, which will bring new gun sports into existence and new commerce to our great land? Just think what fun Stinger missiles would be. Shooting down drone airplanes for sport – SUPER! We all know criminals can get their hands on these weapons, so why not law-abiding citizens? I’m dreaming of my own nuclear weapon. Maybe I would need a background check and waiting period... but then that would violate ME and MY Second Amendment rights.

Every crime involves 3 factors: the will, the opportunity and the means. Society’s best defense always lies in the means, but NOT here because I got my rights and the h*** with you. Massacring watermelons is ecstasy, pure joy!

To BrianR
You may not be aware of all of the details of his behavior. Some of the pictures that he took of the girls at the school were "upskirt" pictures, which in my State would get him in jail pronto. He also set fire to his dorm on purpose. Either one of those incidents should have been enough to get him expelled from the school and possibly sent to jail.

They certainly, when combined with his various rants, showed a mental problem of sufficient magnitude to warrant close monitoring and denial of the ability to purchase a weapon.

As you can see in my previous writings, I am a full supporter of the 2nd Amendment, however the Constitution made arrangements for these situations with the section dealing with due process. A citizen's rights may be curtailed under due process.

John Citizen
Watermellon make fun targets, but try cans of shaving cream, warmed and shaken. Instant anowstorm. Also, hairspray located near an open flame. Doesn't always work, but fun pyrotechnics when it does.

Smart "Foreigners"
During World War II we imported an "enemy alien" from Italy to head a major physics research program in the United States. It was the one that led to the development of the atomic bomb. Enrico Fermi, being an Italian (we were at war with Italy) was not allowed to have a short-wave radio in his house because he was a native of Italy. (Ref "Atoms in the Family" by Laura Fermi).

Pay attention to the names of the kids who, year after year, win the state high school math competitions. Hint: pretty often, the names are not "Smith" or "Jones".

Intellectual brilliance is worth something, and sometimes it comes packaged in a "foreigner".

Re cost, google VT. It is a state school. Costs are much lower than those of private universities.

Completely Missing the Point
1) Cho was more than "weird". He was, from all accounts, obviously deeply disturbed. Someone who so frightens students and teachers alike, to the point where they do not come to class if he is present, to where the teacher tutored him privately, is a person who is screaming to be extensively evaluated with an eye toward involuntary commitment in a facility that can give him the help or medication that he needs while protecting the public.

2) He was able to buy the firearms precisely because we are so screwed up that we have conceived a mythical right to privacy that covers all areas of our lives, even when the greater good is jeopardized. If a person is under the care of a mental health professional, if they have gone before a judge to determine if he is a harm to others (whether or not he is found to be so) are just some of the factors that should become part of the background that is checked when buying a firearm.

3) Mainstreaming students with mental disabilities is beneficial to no one. This Cho may have been brilliant but he was a distraction in class. Kids with emotional problems are going to naturally feel isolated because it is obvious that they are different and they don't understand why. They are taunted because of their strange behaviors. This only fuels the fires of their irrational and imbalanced anger.

We need to allow for involuntary committment, integrate all information into background checks when buying a gun (sorry, some folks won't like this for a variety of reasons but tell that to the 32 families) and give the mentally ill the care they need while protecting society. When we emptied the mental hospitals in the '70s, we opened a Pandora's box and we are now dealing with the devils we loosed.

Guns and Nuts
It is the liberals that freed the mentally ill in the 60's. Many people who would be hospitalized now are not because they have a right to move about society. BrianR and Baldy hit the nail on the head.

One cannot be put in jail for being nuts. There are those that want to blame this on the NRA. The NRA has zero tolerance for gun crime. It is the liberals in the justice system that allow gun charges to be plead away.

I have also heard some comments, not on this thread, about sending all the Koreans back where they came from. These were good Democrats. When I reminded them of the makeup of my family the comment was that good Koreans like the ones in my family could stay. I imagine that the National Socialists (Nazis) in Germany made the same comments when they started killing Jews.

A good number of the illegals that enter this country are wanted in their own countries.

Gun control advocates will come out of the woodwork now to 'help us out'. Their dream is to eliminate guns and therefore eliminate the problem. A nut will find a way without guns. Besides criminals illegally have guns now. What makes anyone believe that criminals and nuts will not have guns if they are banned?

We have people that are bent on having new laws everytime we have a problem. The problem is that many times the laws that are passed target individuals that are not the problem. A non-lawbreaker with a gun (particularly one that his registered) in his cabinet at home is not a threat.

Regarding Cho it is apparent that they made mistakes with this guy. He should have been put out of the school prior to the shooting for other violations. Perhaps the school trying to retain political correctness decided to not do anything. Perhaps they have a do-nothing-about bad behavior attitude.

Keep your eyes open--- HATE CRIME legis.
"Next Wednesday, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee will move forward its federal hate crimes agenda by a cunning tactic: They will take advantage of sympathy for the victims of hate at Virginia Tech and anger with Don Imus' "verbal violence" against young black athletes. A special hearing is to be held next Wednesday discussing "Rising Crime in the United States: Examining the Federal Role in Helping Communities Prevent and Respond to Violent Crime."

Inevitably, they will conclude that much greater coordination between federal and local policing powers is necessary: The government should receive expanded privileges to prevent and respond to violent crimes in the states. Such federal takeover of states' rights in law enforcement with unrestricted "police state" powers is a huge part of the objectives of the federal "anti-hate" bill. It is now moving forward rapidly in the House and Judiciary Committees and even perhaps to a vote in the House next week. The federal hate bill threatens to end free speech in America, just as similar Orwellian hate laws have done in Canada and many European countries. "

"The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, S. 1105, the Senate version of the federal hate crimes bill, was introduced by Sen. Kennedy and Smith into the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary April 12, 2007."

"The bill H.R. 1592 is still in the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. This pending legislation will:

1. Create a bias-oriented justice system in America, like Canada's, leading to an end of free speech.
2. Unite federal and local law enforcement, helping create a police state."

--National Prayer Network

Note: If you want this stopped, please contact your representatives.

GUN CONTROL INCREASES VIOLENT CRIME
JANET

Do you realize that Britain had an almost non-existent violent crime rate prior to its enactment of gun control laws in 1921? 86 years of increasingly restrictive gun laws have led to massive increases in their violent crime rate (now higher than the U.S.), including murder (lower than the U.S., but rising rapidly).

Crazies and terrorists are usually stopped only after a good guy with a gun arrives on scene. The faster the reaction, the less the damage. There is NO substitute for time. If armed citizens (qualified CCW licensees) including staff and students had been present, the chance of cutting short or even preventing the murders, would have been vastly improved.

In States where "shall issue" CCW has been enacted, the crime rate of the CCW licensees is far lower than the rate for the general population (sometimes lower than police crime!), and their murder rate is almost non-existent. In most of those states, the violent crime rates have declined, and in none of them has there been a significant increase in violent crime.

Other countries experience mass murders, too, despite their highly restrictive firearms laws including total bans. Heard of Dipendra of Nepal? How about Hungerford, UK? Does Beslan ring a bell? Gamil Gharbi of Montreal? Port Arthur, Australia? Rome and Vienna airports? Dunblane, Scotland? Woo Bum-kon of South Korea? Tsuyama, Japan? Hui wasn't even the worst S. Korean mass murderer. That "honor" goes to Woo Bum-kon who murdered 58 people and wounded 35 in 1982.

How would you like a plan that has a 100% success rate in protecting school campuses despite the most hostile possible environment? In 1974, the Israelis decided to arm all their school personnel (and others) and no student has been killed in school in the last 33 years.

Too expensive? Then let the CCW-qualified school staffers and CCW qualified adult students carry handguns on campus, just like they do almost everywhere else in Virginia.

Some claim that "More guns on campus equals more violence" but there is no evidence to support that claim if those guns are in the holsters of qualified CCW licensees. The CCW licensees have a crime rate far lower than the general population in each of the 38 states where "shall issue" CCW has been enacted.

So that is your choice: Enact policy based on blue-sky speculation and guarantee more violence later, or use the best available policies and reduce the damage when the next crazy decides to get his/her revenge on society.

Did you know that the police cannot and will not guarantee your safety--even in gun-free zones or countries? It is a principle called Sovereign Immunity.

Bottom line: Your best defense is yourself.

JohnCitizen
You're missing the point. Our Founding Fathers didn't write the 2nd amendment so that we could hunt or be involved in gun sports. Listen to this short clip of a woman whose parents were killed by a gunman at a Luby's restaurant in Texas, years ago, testifying before Congress. Apparently, many more Americans need to read what our Founders wrote on this issue, as this woman has done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71YpogEUCDI

Janet
Only law-abiding citizens follow laws; criminals do not. VA Tech had been established as a "gun free zone", yet Cho carried guns right on in there. You may believe that if we outlawed guns from anyone besides the government and police, that guns would just dry up. Tell me, has that worked in regard to drugs in this country? No.

You know, Janet, I hate it when innocent people are killed by any means. Not just guns. However, criminalizing the possession or sale of guns will do nothing more than disarm US and take away any means we currently have of protecting ourselves from criminals.

That, in addition to the fact that, Janet, in every single country that has fallen to totalitarianism, the first thing that was done, was to disarm the public. It has happened in country after country. What makes you think that we are immune? This is the real reason why our Founding Fathers wanted us to be armed. If you don't believe me, go check into it yourself.

BrianR
"unless this country turned into the USSR all of a sudden while I wasn't looking."

I guess you weren't looking. Becoming communist isn't a specific event in time. It is gradual. Our country is becoming more and more communist every single day.

As a retired school social worker
for 33 years,I worked with many autistic children of all ages. When I first started as a school social worker we sent our handful of autistic children in our district to a center program in another city. when I retired, 7 years ago, we had rooms for the autistic at every level including two rooms at the high school where I worked. I can't imagine that his school district did not have services offered to him. Such services would have ended some of his social isolation which fostered the continuing anger and would also have taught him socially acceptable behaviors which would have allowed him to mingle more easily with others. A cure isn't possible but there is a likelihood that such services would have altered his most adversive behaviors.

Two laws made this possible
The Americans with Disabilities Act and The Americans with Disabilities Education Act make it almost impossible to expell dangerous students from public school and/or college if they are identified as mentally or emotionally disabled. This is what has turned many of our schools into combat zones. I am a high school teacher. I know what I am talking about. I have had a number of students with whom I would be afraid to live in the same house. Some of these kids will, I am sure, make it to college.

Trust
I just had my eyes opened even wider today as I listened to the news talk radio today. It seems that you can't even trust your neighbors to report a serial killer to the police. A rapper came out and said even if he KNEW a serial killer was living next door to him, he would not report him to the police because he has an " image" to maintain in his profession. How sick is that. I wonder what would happen if one of his family were killed by one and he didn't know who it was. I almost want to say he wouldn't have the right to ask any of his neighbors for information to help capture the perp. He needs to learn that peoples lives are valued over anything else including his worthless career.I mean come on!!!!

VT Massacre
The fall-out from this incident is just beginning.

I predict [and you all know I'm never wrong ;-)] that the Dean and the board of directors at VT are going to suffer some serious consequences regarding their inability to safeguard their students.

Right now it's all about Cho, 24-7. That will change.

VT acts in loco parentis. VT failed in that duty. They declared their campus a "gun free zone" not because it made the campus secure but because it sounded good. It made the brochure for VT look good.

I can imagine liberal parents reading the brochure, trying to select a college for little Gaylord to attend. "Oh, look, VT is a 'gun free zone'! Oh, thank goodness those maniacs from the NRA won't be carrying those evil guns there!"

VT did everything in its power to insure that there were no "rough men standing ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

Hey, Virginia Tech, thanks for nothing!

Autistic people do not "mingle easily"
Its this type of thinking that created this situation. You cannot change how a person's mind ultimately works. Mainstreaming increases isolation because the autistic children are smart enough to know that they aren't getting it and that they are not like the other kids.

My nephew is on the "autism spectrum" and I see it every day. Its really sad to watch him try in vain to socialize when he simply doesn't know how and can't remotely grasp what we take for granted.

Cho was a SYMPTOM, not a cause
". . .was Cho taught to hate? . . . Was his pathology enabled by the PC university? Or to ask the question differently --- was Cho ever taught to respect others, to admire the good things about his host country, and to discipline himself to build a positive life?

"And THAT answer is readily available on the websites of Cho's English Department at Virginia Tech. This is a wonder world of PC weirdness. English studies at VT are a post-modern Disney World in which nihilism, moral and sexual boundary breaking, and fantasies of Marxist revolutionary violence are celebrated. They show up in a lot of faculty writing. Not by all the faculty, but probably by more than half." – James Lewis

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/04/was_cho_taught_to_hate.html

not a gun issue
Let me explain how college judicial systems work, since I was privy to them a few years ago.

College administrators do not like it when students get arrested, as it reflects badly on the school once the media gets hold of the story. With that in mind, issues that they can easily conceal, such as stalking or threatening behavior, and sometimes even rape and burglary, they like to take care of internally. Even if the behavior is of a criminal nature, the judicial administrators often convince the victims to not press charges with the guarantee that the administration will handle the perpetrator. In the early 1990s William & Mary, another VA school, made a big stink when it convinced a female student to not press rape charges against a male student so that the matter could be resolved internally. The same scenario happened again at the same school in 2003. The accused in both cases were tried internally by student judicial council and given suspensions and marks on their conduct record. As no charges were filed, no mark was made on these students' criminal records. The students were given the option to re-enroll at the college after their suspension period expired.

I'm certain the same scenario played out with the VT shooter. His prior behavior had been investigated by the student judicial council, and it sounds like he received a slap on the wrist for some misdemeanor offenses (that any other person not affiliated with VT would have been prosecuted for in a legal court). I'm also willing to bet that the judge who deemed him mentally unstable was not privy to his campus judicial record.

This issue in this case is not the proliferation of firearms, its why this individual was not appropriately punished and restrained from anti-social behavior by both the college administrators and judicial system after he began to display so many red flags. Had his behavior been noted on an actual criminal record, it would have popped up in the background checks (which are thorough in VA) and he never would have been able to legally acquire a handgun. The gun control measures already in place would have worked as intended had not the judicial system broke down.

Not only as a school social worker
did I see autistic chldren's behavior modified, but also as the aunt to two autistic nephews. Of course, on the spectrum some will not respond to services, but many will. Yes, they do not mingle easily, no one ever promised that, but they can be trained to be more acceptable in society, not with a change in the brain but with behavioral conditioning that allows for an appropriate rote response. Autistic children do not know how to act in the way most of us do naturally, but patient repetious training can shape behavior. Services directed at parents can also assist in this effort.

protect
to bloodaboilin: as the parent of a profoundly mentally handicapped child who is now 24 yrs old. I can see your point. I wish there was something profound I could say that would help, but all I can say is you and yours have to protect him as much as you can without impeeding his progress. There are too many idiots out there who would hurt him if allowed either by ignorance or sheer will. God bless you and yours and especially him.

Vic: Well, that's a different story
I wasn't aware of the "up skirt pictures", and that's definitely a crime, so that changes things.

Good to know.

Then the issue becomes one of how that crime was treated. Was it plea-bargained down to a misdemeanor (which still wouldn't disqualify gun ownership)? Was it treated as a "sex crime"?

I think it would be good to know the answers to these questions, as they may indeed raise other legitimate questions.

To Bloodaboilin
Autistic people are not known to be violent. Cho appears to have been a delusional paranoid schizophrenic or, if given some other diagnosis, was clearly psychotic, which autistic people are not. Please don't be scaring people about autistic folks, who have a hard enough time as it is because they find it hard to relate to others.

Definition of Violence?
I am impressed by what I read on townhall. A white male US-born individual who owns twenty guns including assault rifles, accepts no restrictions on his gun ownership or use, refuses to wear a seat belt or motorcycle helmet, refuses to follow traffic speed limits, believes that women and children should be controlled (by himself) using brute force, and recommends US foreign policy via atomic warfare---in other words, a proponent of violence---is on townhall called "a red-blooded good ol' American boy" or "a patriot".


To sedonanman
Have you heard anyone suggest that Cho was not psychotic? I haven't. He sounds paranoid schizophrenic to me. The relations interviewed in South Korea describe Cho as withdrawn and odd even as a child. This fits. If he was schizophrenic, a very long prodrome would be likely to extend back into childhood with the full-flowering of his disease appearing in young adulthood. Look it up.

Psychosis is not caused by college, or by teachers, or by reading. State-of-the-art thinking is that it's caused by brain chemistry. You suggestion that he was driven mad by the literature taught at VT is ridiculous.

To BrianR
The buzz is that the girl did not press charges on the stalking and upskirt stuff. However, intentionally setting fire to the dorm is a campus thing and was not dependent on someone pressing charges. In fact, if I am not mistaken, arson is one of those charges that police will go after without charges from an individual because it shows danger to society in general.

At any rate, my feeling is that given his other aberrant behavior, the upskirt pictures and arson, he most definitely should have met the criteria for either involuntary commitment or at least close monitoring as a hazard to the community. With that in mind he should have been denied the ability to purchase a firearm.

Of course if he didn't have a firearm he probably would have went after his imagined tormenters in a different manner. Probably by chaining the doors shut and applying several gallons of gasoline.

To Lilly
By ALL means I want you to find what you read on TH to be odious. If that is the case, take your offended eyes to another site such as the daily Kos and read their peaceful kumbaya pabulum.

Vic: Yeah, interesting
I'm of the belief that reasons to restrict gun ownership should be very narrowly defined, and again if there were no criminal charges or formal mental issues upon which to fall back, I don't see what could have been done about the legal purchases.

Of course, as we all know, a little investment of time and a few hundred bucks will get you a gun on the street corner of any downtown area. Which makes the rest of the discussion somewhat moot, too.


Ken
"The Americans with Disabilities Act and The Americans with Disabilities Education Act make it almost impossible to expell dangerous students from public school and/or college if they are identified as mentally or emotionally disabled."

Once again, government is shown not to be the answer that so many seek. It usually is the problem.

lilly
Lilly - baby, why don't you go powder your nose and let us grown-ups talk about the issues. Don't worry your silly head about all this, its all too much for you.

Guns and condoms:
Why are the libs so adamant about passing out condoms to stop one shooter, but We can't pass out handguns to stop another?

To BrianR
I am for what ever the Constitution says, and it says that rights can be withdrawn based on "due process of law". That is what should have happened but did not. Now why that did not happen could be the subject of another long diatribe against liberal feel-good legislation like ADA but I will refrain from that here.

On the ability to get a gun through the old "street corner" method, I don't think this individual would have been able to do that easily. He probably would have had to go through an intermediary. Like I said earlier, if he had been defeated in his gun purchasing he most likely would have gone for another method. He had already tried to burn the dorm down once.

Vic: No argument
I'm addressing the larger issue.

To all
I will be back later to answer responses. Got to go out and replace all my tomatoes today now that it has warmed back up.

Lilly
1. Have you looked at the definition of an "assault rifle"? There is no such gun with this name. You know, just like unconstitutional legislation was given a feel good name such, as "Patriot" Act, an attempt was made to demonize a large number of guns.

I see nothing in the Constitution that provides for government to restrict ownership of said guns.

2. Motorcycle helmets? Seat belts?
Why is it government's place to force me to do either? Yes, it may very well be smart for someone to do both, but that should be a personal decision, not a government mandate. What's next, Lilly? Should there be a law against being overweight? How about disagreeing with our government's actions? Where do you draw the line?

3. Controlling women and children by brute force? Of course this is disgusting. However, if you are grouping into this that parents can no longer spank their children, I have to disagree.

4. U.S. Foreign Policy of "atomic warfare"? I believe in peace through strength. In other words, I want us to encourage people to leave us the hell alone by having more muscle than they do. I do not however, advocate using this muscle to overthrow sovereign nations and install puppet governments of our choosing.

So, Lilly, in my book, a patriot is someone who loves our country and our Constitution. In so doing, they do not advocate unconstitutional abuse of power by government, in any arena, whether it be gun control or a foreign policy of nation-building.


Liberty
"Assault rifle" is a term used by the military to define a weapon with selective-fire capability, meaning it can fire in full-automatic mode.

Obviously, civilian versions without the selective-fire capability do not meet this definition; they only "look" the part.


Vic
I agree with your remark about the shooter probably not being able to purchase an illegal gun on his own were he denied the right to legally purchase a gun. He was so socially inadequate I find it hard to believe he could strike a deal for a Saturday Night Special from a corner dealer, much less, locate a corner dealer in Blacksburg. As much as I hate to admit it, had the judicial system not broken down, the gun control laws would've worked as intended.

Slippery Slope
That is a very slippery slope you are standing on the edge of, Mr. Lambro. Among the first victims of Hitler's Holocaust were the "mentally defective" who were involuntarily incarcerated, and then systematically killed.

It is a weighty event indeed to incarcerate a person - even temporarily as the judge did in Cho's case - for any form of mental illness. They are immediately stamped by such an experience - obtaining health insurance becomes more difficult and more costly, for example - and that's probably the mildest effect. Societal prejudice is still huge against those who are so "sick" they have to "have counseling" or "go on anti-depressive drugs".

Your implied solution is to violate a person's privacy, individual freedom, freedom of speech, protection against unreasonable search, habeas corpus -- just go down the list of civil rights.

Your solution might work on U.S. college campuses and in public schools, where students are already stripped of most of their rights (perhaps you can argue some justification for this for students who are legally minors) when they matriculate, and those rights are not restored until they graduate.

Also - minor point - you wrote an article of about 750 words which says "gee, we oughtta do something to detect psycho-killers before they kill" - a waste, therefore, of about 740 words, and breathe-takingly unoriginal.


Look-Alikes, Sound-Alikes, Be-Alikes
The really serious problem with high school and everyone in it is that the one thing stressed is One Size Fits All. Not only Those In Charge but every student is made acutely aware that the ultimate goal of each life is to be exactly like those on either side of him or her. This is enforced by what is commonly called "bullying" -- the rude, unruly, nasty pressure that continually points out to a boy or girl Where He Or She Falls Short. Only Ken and Barbie Need Apply.

The toughest thing any parent who insists on sending her kids to a government hatchery has to do is to explain to her children that high school is a form of prison and their only duty is to keep their heads down and get paroled early for good behaviour. The most damaging thing anybody ever said to a child is that High School is the Happiest Time of Your Life. The people who believe that are the ones that go berserk and kill others and themselves.

Add in just for that extra straw to break the camel's back the Marching Mommies who scream about "Morbid Obesity" to the point that healthy children become bulemic and anorexic, and the lucky teachers who have a 40 student classroom with gifted Barbies on one side and mentally ill Persons of Colour on the other side. You couldn't get money to put that show on teevee.

not in loco parentis
Most colleges and universities don't act In Loco Parentis anymore. In 1969 the US Supreme Court held that students do not "shed their constitutional rights … at the schoolhouse gate" (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731.

And, in a federal appelate opinion in the 70's:

"Our beginning point is a recognition that the modern American college is not an insurer of the safety of its students. Whatever may have been its responsibility in an earlier era, the authoritarian role of today’s college administrations has been notably diluted in recent decades. Trustees, administrators, and faculties have been required to yield to the expanding rights and privileges of their students."

Privacy, freedom of speech, and all the other constitutional rights should be honored for all students - adult citizens, in most cases. Private schools and, to a lesser extent, some public ones, do keep up a certain level of this 'parental authority' by enacting regulations or rules that limit such rights (such as VA Tech's CCW restriction), but the fact remains that academic institutions today do not see themselves as acting in the parent's stead.



I hope some of you liberals are
keeping track of the supreme illogic of the arguments you are making here. Your argument is that it is better to take away ALL of our 2nd Amendment rights than to carefully adjudicate the liberty of a very small segment of the population who are mentally defective. Where is the sense in that?

Also, just because Hitler and Stalin loved to abuse the mental health system by using it to lock up dissidents does not mean that we would go about doing that? In fact, up until the early 60's we did a fair job of putting away mental defectives. The problem wasn't so much who got put away, but what we did with them afterwards. What we did was throw out the bathwater, the baby, the diapers, and everything else associated with them. Isn’t reform great in this country? Heinlein said it best, “there is nothing more dangerous to your liberty than a reform politician.”. (or words to that effect).

Come on!
AudioR10 writes Mentally ill persons of color? If memory serves me just a while ago a woman NOT of color killed her kids by drowning them and by her own admission KNEW what she was doing was wrong. Or maybe you buy into her story of I believe post partum depression. And before you play the race card, I'm caucasion by ancestry.

KristinJ
Let's assume for the sake of the argument that your citation is germane and that VT had no duty to act in loco parentis.

That would also mean VT also had no right to restrict people from carrying firearms on campus.

But, no, you quote an uncited Federal Court of Appeals opinion that schools "have been required to yield to the expanding rights and privileges of their students."


So while the Tinker decision eliminated the loco parentis duties, the schools can still impose rules, regulations, standards etc. as if the duties were still there, but now the rules are imposed voluntarily by the school, regardless that schools "have been required to yield to the expanding rights and privileges of their students."


Do you hold that schools are now required to both observe the students "expanding" constitutional rights, but can also restrict a constitutional right to bear arms?

Your uncited Fed. App. Ct. opinion indicated the court recognized "that the modern American college is not an insurer of the safety of its students".

Since VT can restrict US Constitutional rights, including free speech, on VT property, and absent the duty in loco parentis and absent the duty to insure the safety of students, what do you now say about VT's responsibility in the massacre?

Is it fair to say that VT bore no responsibility for student safety (as the Fed. App. Ct. opined)?

If that's true, then it was up to the students to be responsible for their own safety. The only way possible for a student to effectively counteract the Cho massacre would be to carry a gun. But wait, VT prohibited guns on campus.

So isn't VT saying, "we're not responsible for your safety and won't restrict your expanding constitutional rights, but we will also prohibit you from exercising your responsibility to protect yourself"?

You are very intelligent, Kristin. You can (and should) poke holes in my argument.






Dr. Ron Paul's weekly column
Security and Liberty

April 23, 2007

The senseless and horrific killings last week on the campus of Virginia Tech University reinforced an uneasy feeling many Americans experienced after September 11th: namely, that government cannot protect us. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group still can cause great harm. Perhaps the only good that can come from these terrible killings is a reinforced understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.

Although Virginia does allow individuals to carry concealed weapons if they first obtain a permit, college campuses within the state are specifically exempted. Virginia Tech, like all Virginia colleges, is therefore a gun-free zone, at least for private individuals. And as we witnessed, it didn’t matter how many guns the police had. Only private individuals on the scene could have prevented or lessened this tragedy. Prohibiting guns on campus made the Virginia Tech students less safe, not more.

The Virginia Tech tragedy may not lead directly to more gun control, but I fear it will lead to more people control. Thanks to our media and many government officials, Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a national news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and rugged individualism.

Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?

I fear that Congress will use this terrible event to push for more government mandated mental health programs. The therapeutic nanny state only encourages individuals to view themselves as victims, and reject personal responsibility for their actions. Certainly there are legitimate organic mental illnesses, but it is the role of doctors and families, not the government, to diagnose and treat such illnesses.

Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst042307.htm

Lili, austic people have ...
impulse control issues. That is indisputable. Some impulses are violent, although they are not meant to be. I have seen it more often than I care to recount, to the point where, sadly, I can't have my own children around my nephew unsupervised by me or my husband. At 3, my nephew threw a huge rock at my younger son. At 5, he exposed himself on Christmas day to my older son. This past weekend was a nightmare. he repeatedly attacked my sons, not out of malice but just because it popped into his head. He likes to see the cause and effect of throwing a ball at someone or dumping a pile of leaves. He spins around like a top or screeches out without warning. Whatever words, thoughts, laughs, actions, dances, etc. that are in his head at a given moment get acted out. Its a very complex condition that is hard to diagnose and treat. Loco is right on that behavioral modificaton helps but only to a certain point. The inner workings of the brain can't be remade.

Your other post about "red-blooded Americans" and "patriots" was so filled with stereotypes, talking points, myths and, sadly enough, anger, that it doesn't warrant the dignity of a response. It was silly. I would recommend following the tip of another poster who referred you to the daily Kos or other such talking point site. TH is for serious analysis and debate of the issues of the day.

VT Students Victims of PC

.....Fifty years ago Cho would have been committed to a State Mental Asylum ...today most of the former inmates of those places are wandering among us ...most of them homeless ...ain't PC wonderful .....COLOSSUS

David Mac

.....When VT made their campus a "Gun Free Zone" they had to assume the responsibility for the safety of the students ...and failing to provide a safe environment ...they have to assume the liability for the students who were killed on their campus ...

.....I hope the parents sue them until their gonads turn blue .....COLOSSUS

baseballdoc
You're D*MN right. Also, whatever nuthouse they sent Cho to should be sued and someone jailed for not entering this information into the NCIC.


eastlake joe
Yeah, and the feminazis came out of the woodwork to protect Yates. Not to mention Susan Smith who drown HER kids by driving the van into the lake.

That sh*t broke me heart and she should have been frigging burned at the stake.


ALL
Just posted two essay on shooting to my blog for Lynne who requested it.

Jimmy Carter
The only thing more exciting to a lib, besides sticking scissors into a newborn and sucking out the brain, is to try to use any means possible to restrict our freedoms.


Can't be done, not even close.
If conservatives really think about what it would take to pull together the evidence on Cho, and act on it, they should see that enormous and potentially arbitrary powers would have to be placed in somebody's hands. And that somebody, of course, is government. That's why I endorse BrianR's comment. Cho broke no law; the evidence offered now by people who knew him explains a lot, but it is still not a crime to write weird plays for a college course, or buy a gun, or buy ammo on line, just to begin the list of things we now know Cho did.

So, unless conservatives are now willing to incarcerate people because they might be odd or even crazy and just might do violent things, there isn't a thing that can be done. If conservatives DO want to move in this direction, they show themselves to be the right-wing fascist whackjobs all too many liberals imagine them to be.

reply to Liberty
Re: your "right" not to wear a motorcycle helmet or buckle your seat belt. I've got no problem with you doing either of these things. All I want to see you brave, freedom-loving dudes do is make appropriate financial arrangements to take care of yourselves if you get one of those high spinal injuries that makes you a quadriplegic for the rest of your life. Will you set up a really big healthcare savings account so my health insurance premiums don't go up when you crack up? If you value your freedom, you must expect to take responsibility for it. I don't see any of the no-helmets crowd showing the least bit of interest in putting their money where their mouths are.

Do you know what emergency docs call helmentless bikers? Answer: organ donors.


Baseballdoc
I agree in principle. That was actually my point in my long comment.

Kristin's legal logic fails at a point. An institution that requires a person to attend classroom sessions, but also fails to provide adequate security or conduct due diligence when notified of serious safety issues, has to be accountable.

VT is girding its loins, legally speaking. It's obvious they had a duty to act and failed in that duty.

Gestell
So are you saying that anyone involved in an accident is responsible for increasing your insurance pemiums?

What happens if the biker was wearing a helmet and the same disability results?

Bloodaboilin
BloodABoilin writes: Monday, April, 23, 2007 10:42 AM
Autistic people do not "mingle easily"
Its this type of thinking that created this situation. You cannot change how a person's mind ultimately works. Mainstreaming increases isolation because the autistic children are smart enough to know that they aren't getting it and that they are not like the other kids.

My nephew is on the "autism spectrum" and I see it every day. Its really sad to watch him try in vain to socialize when he simply doesn't know how and can't remotely grasp what we take for granted
************************************************

What does that have to do with this thread? Many of us have autistic chidren, and I absolutely support having my son mainstreamed for academics. If YOU are uncomfortable with it, then the problem is with YOU! Mind your own business. I'm not having my son shut away, and I'm not ashamed of him. You should consider apologizing to your nephews family for your disgusting attitudes.

celticdragon
I don't think gunny is trying to say mainstreaming doesn't work for any autistics. What I get from what he said was it doesn't always work. As a parent you know there are many different severities associated with autisim. I do know of one girl who was mainstreamed and was very traumatised by a couple of punks who if dynamite were brains they couldn't blow their nose. It's not real common but it does happen. This girl lost a lot of the progress she had made so In my very humble opine mainstreaming only hurt in this case
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.