Did Liberalism Cause Virginia Tech Shootings?

[Bullypulpit]

I find it deplorable - and have written so in a prior column - that liberals immediately exploited the tragic massacre at Virginia Tech University to promote their crusade for abolition of gun ownership. They chose to politicize this calamity even before the murderer was identified.

Yet, unfortunately, they did just that. They did so in the most loathsome manner possible by blaming Republicans, the NRA, gun owners, and conservatives. People like Democrat Congressman Jim Moran, New York Times columnist Michael Daly, and other, similarly vile people, immediately assigned blame to gun laws and gun ownership as if they somehow knew, unqualifiedly, that this was the reason.

Just as unfortunate as the misinformation campaign by the aforementioned, is the fact that it now creates the obligation, among those who know better, to respond with the truth. Indeed, a response is absolutely necessary lest it seem that what the gun control zealots are saying is true.

It is ironic that liberals want to blame conservatives and Republicans for the Virginia Tech disaster. Indeed, far from being a validation of liberal policies towards gun ownership, the fact is, the Virginia Tech catastrophe, is quite the opposite. What happened in Blacksburg, Va., on Monday proves that liberal policies have, once again, failed to protect the innocent.

The first evidence that liberal ideas either contributed to, or were the cause, of the VA Tech tragedy is that of the very words of the murderer, Cho Seung-Hui. A videotape and some writings he made before, and during the killing spree, which he sent to NBC, revealed his motivation. Among his reasons were his resentment of "rich kids," and their "Mercedes," their "golden necklaces," their "trust funds," their "debaucheries" and their "hedonistic" lifestyle.

This hatred of the "rich" is right out of the leftist and liberal Democratic Party philosophy of class warfare. It is they who are always demonizing the wealthy - claiming they want to starve the poor, or send the poor to war for oil so they can profit from it. Democrat leaders like Charlie Rangel, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean, among others, routinely portray the wealthy as greedy and evil.

The second substantiation that liberal concepts caused the massacre was that the murderer, despite having a history of criminally insane behavior, was not incarcerated. Almost 18 months ago, a Virginia court order, dated December 13, 2005, stated the murderer "is mentally ill and in need of hospitalization, and presents an imminent threat to self and others as a result of mental illness..." He was taken by police to a psychiatric facility, Carilion St. Albans Behavioral Health Center, where the next day Dr. Roy Crouse, a psychiatrist found that he was "mentally ill," yet did "not present an imminent danger to himself/others" and did, "not require involuntary hospitalization." (This is contradicted by another form signed by a Judge Paul Barnett which states the murderer is a danger to himself, yet recommends outpatient treatment).

The killer was represented by an attorney at that time. This was a requirement established "civil libertarian" attorneys. Indeed the "danger to himself or others" sole criterion for involuntary hospitalization is the direct result of the "civil libertarian" philosophy of not placing mentally ill people in institutions. Indeed, "civil libertarians" are quite proud of the fact that they changed these laws. They rejoice that they caused millions of mentally ill people to roam the streets and make it difficult for them to be arrested. This was essentially codified by a 1975 Supreme Court ruling.

The third proof that liberalism was responsible for the Virginia Tech carnage was the leftwing policy that Va. Tech's campus was a "gun free zone." Guns were not permitted to be carried on campus. Consequently, the students were unable to defend themselves and kill the murderer.

Compare this to Pearl (Mississippi) High School, Vice Principal, Joel Myrick, who in October 1997, realized that a 16-year-old student was killing students. Myrick went to his vehicle got his gun and returned in time to stop the killer. Myrick, by doing this, was in violation of the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990.

Ironically, eight months before the Virginia Tech student killer was able to walk out of psychiatric facility, in April 2005, another VT student was disciplined for carrying a gun on campus. A VT spokesman said, "We think we have the right to adhere to and enforce that policy because, in the end, we think it's a common-sense policy for the protection of students, staff and faculty as well as guests and visitors..."

An armed VT student or VT students might have prevented the slaughter just as Joel Myrick did at his Mississippi high school

Liberals need to be very careful if they want to use the Virginia Tech incident to validate their ideas because, if anything, it disproves them.

They also discredit themselves by claiming that nearly all studies disprove that guns are used in self-defense. This is patently false.

The May 1997 National Institute of Justice report titled, "Guns in America; National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms cited two studies that furnished significant - if divergent - numbers for defensive gun use.

The National Crime Victimization Survey data concluded that guns are used about 108,000 per year for self-defense. The National Survey of the Private Ownership of Firearms determined that people defended themselves with guns 2,500,000 times per year. Philip Cook, the director of Duke University's Public Policy Institute and a member of the apolitical National Consortium on Violence Research, states that the actual figure is somewhere in between these two.

Whatever the actual figure, the fact is that while there are about 10,000 gun homicides each year, there are more people who use guns to protect themselves. It is also worth noting that federal government data states that about 15 percent of murderers have a prior homicide conviction and that about 65 percent have a prior felony arrest.

Michael P. Tremoglie is the author of A Sense Of Duty, available on Amazon.com. He can be reached at [email protected]
http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=18238693&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=6

Somebody's been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz and Michael Savage-Weiner. Nothing like blaming the victim. These losers pick one phrase out of this poor sick bastards ravings and use it to blame the victims. EXCUSE ME! NONE OF THESE PEOPLE DID ANYTHING TO DESERVE THIS. RUSH AND HIS FELLOW TRAVELERS DEFAME THEIR MEMORIES WITH THEIR BULLSHIT! IF RUSH, NEAL AND MICHAEL ARE SUCH MACHO-RAMBO TYPES, WHY AREN'T THEY IN IRAQ SINGLE HANDEDLY TAKING DOWN THE INSURGENCY? WHY DON'T THEY JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP!

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I think what is truly interesting is. The campus was a gun free zone.
This contributed to cho-sun wei ability to easily many people. Now the question is, did the policy of no guns enable cho-sun wei?.
did the policy of privacy enable cho-sun wei?

Are these liberal or conservative policies?
does it matter?
how do u solve the problem?

would allowing students to carry weapons help or hurt the situation on college campuses overall?


My personal feelings are: more and more gun control laws would not help, it would be a feel good measure. I truly believe in my humble opinion, that enforcing the current gun laws we have would help, and we should remember how easy it is too illegally get guns, oh, and if you were president what would you do, about guns, college and school shootings?

Thanks

 

[mattskramer]

I think what is truly interesting is. The campus was a gun free zone.
This contributed to cho-sun wei ability to easily many people. Now the question is, did the policy of no guns enable cho-sun wei?.
did the policy of privacy enable cho-sun wei?

Are these liberal or conservative policies?
does it matter?
how do u solve the problem?

would allowing students to carry weapons help or hurt the situation on college campuses overall?


My personal feelings are: more and more gun control laws would not help, it would be a feel good measure. I truly believe in my humble opinion, that enforcing the current gun laws we have would help, and we should remember how easy it is too illegally get guns, oh, and if you were president what would you do, about guns, college and school shootings?

Thanks

No one can say what would happen if? The debate continues. If students were allowed to have guns on campus maybe so many deaths could have been prevented – perhaps not. Perhaps there would be gun accidents by students playing with their guns. Perhaps there would be gun-related suicides by troubled students with easy access to guns on campus. It is hard to predict possible unintended consequences. I’m not certain about any solution being perfect.

 

[Diuretic]

Yeah, babe...show me the fucking ropes!!! Thanks in advance...any time someone can impart wisdom to me...I'm more than willing to at least listen!

LOL - you're okay!

Just don't call me "babe" - I'm a bloke

 

[Diuretic]

And you most likely wouldn't like my sense of humour...it's quite wicked. (lol!!)

- let 'er rip!!

 

[Diuretic]

Of course I am very different from Spikes...but then, I am still alive. I didn't stick a needle in my arm and kill myself like he did. Yes, what a waste...he did have so much more to offer to the world than all of us combined. Still...he's dead. Personally, I don't think my posts are any worse or better than any of the other blathering's I've read here regarding this subject. The fact is, some deranged 23 year old decided to take the fate of 32 (mostly) students into his own hands...was is inspired by liberalism or simply because he was a crazy son of a bitch? Does it really matter???...the fact reamains that these people are dead. The only solution I know of is to post metal detectors/x-ray machines in all dorms and classrooms (like the court houses have). Let's face it...even Spikes, in all his grandiosity, wouldn't be able to make sense of this. Having spent 24/7 with him for many years, however, he would have, no doubt, come up with something, right or wrong.

Firstly - I hope this isn't inappopriate, but I'm sorry for your loss. Don't kick my arse, I'm serious.

Secondly - re Cho. I'm no shrink but I think it's reasonably clear that Cho was nuts. I also think he got himself into such a mental state that the only thing he could do was to ease the mental pressure on himself by killing those he saw as his tormentors. He may have killed particular individuals at first (in the first killings) but then he knew he was a dead man so he went out and took out anyone who remotely resembled the stereotypical tormentor.

 

[Diuretic]

I've read a lot of garbage about how if VT had allowed students to carry concealed that it would have all been over. That is utter bullshit. Utter bullshit.

Some commentators mistake their fantasies for reality. Real life isn't a John Wayne movie.

I don't know what sort of training CCW permit holders get. I would imagine it has to do with gun safety which is fine. But I would imagine that CCW permit holders aren't trained to deal with armed offenders. I would think - yes I'm hypothesising, hop in and critique me later - that the reason a CCW permit holder seeks to carry is for personal protection in public (no problems) or for home protection (again no problems). I would think that CCW permit holders are not trained to deal with nutters engaged in massacre.

Remember the cop who took out the shooter in the Utah mall a while ago? Trained to do it. He made sound tactical decisions and showed a ton of courage in doing his duty. Don't forget that that cop had a particular mindset brought about by training and by years of experience on the job oh and his sense of duty. Any other CCW permit holder would have been quite able to sneak out but the cop wouldn't and probably (psychologically) couldn't. What he did do was react as he was trained.

If the students in VT had been carrying there would have been more than 32 dead. The foolhardy would have rushed at Cho. Do you know how close you have to be to kill someone with a handgun? If someone has a handgun and is shooting people then you use a rifle and take them out. You do not rush up to within six feet of the offender. You are more likely to be killed than kill him. I've seen comments suggesting that a bunch of VT students should have done the "let's roll!" from United Airlines Flight 93. Bullshit, complete and utter bullshit. How the fuck is anyone going to get organised enough to, when Cho is shooting people at point-blank range, some of them so terrified that they would have been paralysed, pull a "let's roll!' on him. The only thing that would have worked like that is a, "fuck, let's get out of here!".

So next time I read where someone is flapping their gums about the VT students being allowed to carry on campus, in particular anything from that fucking piece of shit Limbaugh, I am going to hop in and flay them mercilessly.

It is plain bullshit, utter, utter bullshit.

 

[myth]

LOL - you're okay!

Just don't call me "babe" - I'm a bloke

Well...yeah, I call guys/girls "babe" if I'm fond of them...it isn't gender specific, you know!! (hahaha)

Personally, I think students being allowed to carry weapons on campus is so not a good idea. I remember my college days...too much stress, too little time, guy problems (you know you blokes DO drive us crazy at that age)...I don't at all mean to make light of the sitch at vt, but I could see all kinds of students going balistic and taking out half the student and faculty population! Hell, I've already witnessed it in Chapel Hill with the crazy guy (I'm damn sure his name was Wendell something or the other...or maybe his last name was Wendell)...oh, and year before last when the equally crazy dude ran his SUV into the quad at Chapel Hill and tried to take out as many peeps as possible!! Spikes thought that was the most hilarious thing he had seen in a while...one of the most liberal, "tolerant and diverse" universities in the country was attacked by a "would be" terrorist...have to admit, I did see the humour in that one...but, I digress...no, students (no matter how "old" and mature we think we are at 18-22 years of age) definitely don't need guns. Not sure what the answer is...may not be one, at all...and I am pro 2nd amendment rights...just, not so much on college campuses. Hell, I can think back on a person or two I may have been tempted to off if we could have legally carried guns in college. Okay, not really, but the thought would have definitely crossed my mind...

Oh, also...Diuretic...I think it was you that I did the cuckoo emoticon to...sorry, I'm practically legally blind and didn't see that was what he was all about...truly sorry!!...I'm getting glasses here in a couple of weeks!!

 

[red states rule]

I've read a lot of garbage about how if VT had allowed students to carry concealed that it would have all been over. That is utter bullshit. Utter bullshit.

Some commentators mistake their fantasies for reality. Real life isn't a John Wayne movie.

I don't know what sort of training CCW permit holders get. I would imagine it has to do with gun safety which is fine. But I would imagine that CCW permit holders aren't trained to deal with armed offenders. I would think - yes I'm hypothesising, hop in and critique me later - that the reason a CCW permit holder seeks to carry is for personal protection in public (no problems) or for home protection (again no problems). I would think that CCW permit holders are not trained to deal with nutters engaged in massacre.

Remember the cop who took out the shooter in the Utah mall a while ago? Trained to do it. He made sound tactical decisions and showed a ton of courage in doing his duty. Don't forget that that cop had a particular mindset brought about by training and by years of experience on the job oh and his sense of duty. Any other CCW permit holder would have been quite able to sneak out but the cop wouldn't and probably (psychologically) couldn't. What he did do was react as he was trained.

If the students in VT had been carrying there would have been more than 32 dead. The foolhardy would have rushed at Cho. Do you know how close you have to be to kill someone with a handgun? If someone has a handgun and is shooting people then you use a rifle and take them out. You do not rush up to within six feet of the offender. You are more likely to be killed than kill him. I've seen comments suggesting that a bunch of VT students should have done the "let's roll!" from United Airlines Flight 93. Bullshit, complete and utter bullshit. How the fuck is anyone going to get organised enough to, when Cho is shooting people at point-blank range, some of them so terrified that they would have been paralysed, pull a "let's roll!' on him. The only thing that would have worked like that is a, "fuck, let's get out of here!".

So next time I read where someone is flapping their gums about the VT students being allowed to carry on campus, in particular anything from that fucking piece of shit Limbaugh, I am going to hop in and flay them mercilessly.

It is plain bullshit, utter, utter bullshit.

There have been many cases where private citizens have STOPPED shooters from killing more people by shooting/or holding the suspect until the Police arrived

There is nothing wrong with law abiding citizens carrying a gun and protecting themselvs and others

If up to libs, the only weapon people woudl ahve against criminals is harsh language

 

[Gunny]

There have been many cases where private citizens have STOPPED shooters from killing more people by shooting/or holding the suspect until the Police arrived

There is nothing wrong with law abiding citizens carrying a gun and protecting themselvs and others

If up to libs, the only weapon people woudl ahve against criminals is harsh language

You were doing fine until you just couldn't help yourself and toss in that last, unsubstantiated allegation.

I know plenty of liberals who are gun owners.

 

[red states rule]

You were doing fine until you just couldn't help yourself and toss in that last, unsubstantiated allegation.

I know plenty of liberals who are gun owners.

Not in the liberal media pushing the anti gun stories, and your run of the mill anti gun nuts that get the coverage

 

[mattskramer]

There have been many cases where private citizens have STOPPED shooters from killing more people by shooting/or holding the suspect until the Police arrived

There is nothing wrong with law abiding citizens carrying a gun and protecting themselvs and others

If up to libs, the only weapon people woudl ahve against criminals is harsh language

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press01112007.html

States With Higher Levels of Gun Ownership Have Higher Homicide Rates

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. Of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman, et al) It would appear that, rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.

 

[red states rule]

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

 

[red states rule]

British Gun Crime up 242 Percent; Post Says 'Laws Seen As Curbing Attacks'
Posted by Ken Shepherd on April 24, 2007 - 13:06.
Update below jump with related items from NewsBusters.

This morning, NewsBusters contributing editor Dan Gainor brought this Washington Post article to my attention:

"Britain's Gun Laws Seen as Curbing Attacks"

But the problem is that while anti-gun activists recited those talking points in Post foreign service correspondent Mary Jordan's April 24 story, the empirical evidence shows otherwise.

The number of crimes in which a handgun was used in England and Wales has risen from 299 in 1995 to 1,024 last year. Offenses committed with all types of firearms, including air guns, have also increased.

That's an increase of 725 gun crimes in 11 years, a 242 percent increase. Britain already had strict gun control before the 1996 Dunblane, Scotland, school shooting, and in 1997 both Conservative and Labour governments pushed through fresh gun control legislation banning small caliber handguns.

Jordan did note that gun fatalities are down at just 50 deaths in the U.K. last year from 55 in 1995, yet Jordan carefully inserted a caveat earlier in the same paragraph.

"According to government statistics, the number of people killed by guns has essentially stayed the same, with dips and spikes, as before the 1997 gun control laws went into effect," she wrote.

"Dips and spikes?" Perhaps like the spike in total homicides in England and Wales in the years following the 1997 gun laws? Homicides peaked at over 1,000 in the 2002-3 survey period. The number has since fallen to just above 1997-8 levels.

What about the oft-repeated meme that gun-free Britain is much less violent than the United States? Jordan doesn't raise that meme per se, but neither does she compare apples to apples. Has Britain historically been less violent, more violent, or similarly violent per capita to the United States? Jordan doesn't say.

The better comparison, in fact, is if Britain has become more or less violent since the 1997 gun laws.


The notion that it's become less violent doesn't wash according to data from the British government.

What about "possession of weapons." Surely arrests for illegal weapons is on a downward trend, right?

Wrong.

Related Items:

ABC News Trumpets UK's Handgun Ban

Lou Dobbs Notes Flaws in Gun Control

MSNBC.com Cites Unlabeled Anti-Gun Activist

ABC Poll Finds Twice as Many Blame Culture Over Guns, But 'World News' Spikes It
Howard Fineman to Democrats On Guns: 'You Gonna Do Something Now?!'


http://newsbusters.org/node/12267

 

[mattskramer]

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

I think that with more guns there is less crime but I also think that with more guns come more accidents. I think that people should be allowed to own guns but I think that there should a few rules, required training, and tough punishment for negligent gun owners, etc.

 

[Superlative]

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

Do you have any studies or books to add that arent 12 or 13 years old?

 

[red states rule]

I think that with more guns there is less crime but I also think that with more guns come more accidents. I think that people should be allowed to own guns but I think that there should a few rules, required training, and tough punishment for negligent gun owners, etc.

No disagreements with you on those points

I cannot understand why anyone would think "A Gun Free Zone" would prevent what happened at VT, and how they can say one teacher or stundent with a gun would not have made a difference

 

[red states rule]

Do you have any studies or books to add that arent 12 or 13 years old?

The principal is still true

If the criminal thinks you may be armed they may not commit the crime

Look at England - the facts speak are there

Libs bellow how England is the model for gun control. It is if you are the criminal

 

[Superlative]

The principal is still true

If the criminal thinks you may be armed they may not commit the crime

Look at England - the facts speak are there

Libs bellow how England is the model for gun control. It is if you are the criminal

Principals aside. Some facts change in 13 years.

Is it because everything more recent doesnt fit your agenda?

or havent you found anything to back you up on your right wing websites?

If you wait long enough you will find it.

Im sure right now, right this very second someone is compiling statistical evidence to be applied to the right wing agenda. yaaaaaayyy

and surprise! there will also be stastics and evidence for the left. booo.

 

[Gunny]

Not in the liberal media pushing the anti gun stories, and your run of the mill anti gun nuts that get the coverage

So if you KNOW that, then why aren't they anti-gunners or some such label instead of trying to sell it as "libs?" It just makes YOU look ignorant.

I imagine there are more than one or two sepcial interest gorups tied to the democrat party that are despised by your average liberal the same as there are special interest groups tied to the Republican party that IMO do nothing but drag the party down.