http://news.google.com/

WASHINGTON, April 16 (Reuters) - At least 20 people, including the suspected gunman, were killed in a shooting rampage at Virginia Tech university on Monday, police and university officials said.

This is the reason, all adult males should carry a handgun!

Yee-Haw, it's the Wild West! That's the ol' spirit, Nwokie! Whar's my shootin' iron, dag nabit?

Ladies, us men folk will pertekt ya!

Edselehr, if one student had been armed, this tragedy could have largely been averted.

How can I say that? Because it has been effective before, although the biased anti-second amendment media won't tell you that:

http://www.gunowners.org/sk0302.htm

If you check your history, there was much less violence in the "Wild west" than in the eaastern counterparts.

Like today in Israel or switzerland where every adult male is required to have a weapon. They dont have to carry them, but they have to have one.
Basic rules
http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/ccw/gunfight_rules.htm

yeah, the guy packing a gun attempts a quick draw and misses, meanwhile, all the other armed males either 1) accidentally shot themselves, 2) accidentally shot someone else 3) committed a crime with an easily avialable gun 4) lost their gun 5) gun got stolen 6) left gun out and found by kids 7) you get the point.

"Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves."

"There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent."

From:

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

The evidence is clear: The more guns that are possessed by law-abiding citizens, the less crime.

Herb

You're backpedaling Nwokie. You said "All males should carry a handgun" then you say "required to own a handgun but don't have to carry them". Which do you support? If they are not required to carry it then what's the point? Why only males?

It's a very macho sounding policy, but starts to fall apart when you look at it closely.

I said I think everyone should carry, and I pointed out 2 countries that at least require you to own them.

But i am willing to be reasonable and only require everyone to be able to carry, and exempt those with criminal or mental records.

"If they are not required to carry it then what's the point?"

It doesn't matter that much, since the crooks don't know who's packing. As stated above:

"[Concealed handgun laws] reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves."

Not every one needs to carry. Just enough to make the bad guys uncertain. As it is now, people in school situations are sitting ducks.

Herb

Herb writes:
if one student had been armed, this tragedy could have largely been averted.

Or, it could have been a lot worse, if an inexperienced shooter wound up shooting innocent people and missing the attacker. Don't assume that everyone who can carry a gun can shoot like Clint Eastwood in the movies.

Andrew

I'm amazed how some people can turn a tragedy like this into a political discussion so quickly. Sad, sad. Let's think just for a minute of a world where college students are armed. What type of activities take place on a college campus, or dorm, or fraternity house? Hmmmm.

32 students are dead!! How about a few prayers Herb?

No wonder people on this board want no part of your kind belief system. The last thing you show is compassion..if ever.

Thanks for the perspective, Chris. At this time the number of people lost is 33. Like the deaths of people anywhere, but especially the deaths of innocents, I grieve for them and their families.

I'm sorry about the glib tone of my first post here, but I understand Nwokie's first response. When we hear about something like this our first thoughts are often, "How could this have been prevented?" And thus goes the discussion.

This morning I visited with teachers at Springwater Trail in Gresham, where the shooting took place last week. All are well, lockdown drills worked as they were intended, life goes on. The dark cloud of the tragedy it 'might have been' still looms in everyone's minds. The biggest concern of the staff was not about security, but about community: how did this student's pain and anger get missed? Springwater is an alternative school with only 165 students, so you would think the grapevine is working well, but apparently not well enough. In short, they want to work on proactive solutions to the problem, not reactive solutions.

BTW, even if everyone at STHS was "packing heat" that likely would not have deterred this shooter, who was a distance away in the bushes with a high-powered rifle.

I was eating pizza at a pizza parlor today and I overheard a young guy talking on his cell phone about how he was buying a handgun this weekend. He was talking really loud and I thought to my self "Carrying weapons is not the answer, if every guy goes out and buys a gun we will have A TON of unintentional deaths and guns will be used on people just out of anger. As far as what I read from the article, the shooter at the Campus of Virginia Tech did not go to school there.

"The last thing you show is compassion.."

Wrong. Before you point fingers, how compassionate is it to allow this to happen again by keeping the status quo?

The bad guys know people in this situation are vulnerable. Compassion is caring about the dead AND protecting the living.

Herb

I doubt this tragedy could have been prevented. If you have done any study of these types of crimes most people can't believe what they are seeing and then simply do what they can to get out of the way. Even if a few students had hand guns I doubt seriously they would feel compelled to try and take this guy down. It's a surreal situation and most people who are not trained in these kinds of situations choose not to "stand tall." They want to survive.

There are families that are hurting, in shock, disbelief, and angry. This hurts us all Herb but instead of prayers you started playing politics.

My heart aches.

Herb- It saddens me, as a Christian, that you've gone this route on this event. I would hope you would take time out from politics and just be compassionate. An armed society is not the answer. I would hope you would take time to pray for the families, instead of condeming the people who promote non-violent solutions.

IMHO, this is what happens when our government is not working for our best interests.

Is it any wonder people are acting out? We've got a leadership, corrupt to the core, flaunting it and so far getting away with it! Unjust war that will lead to unjust social costs, lies, legislating morality, stealing, handoffs to private corps, etc...

It's not pretty.

On top of all that, we've a far more aggressive culture, both parents working, kids shoved in day care, high pressure tests, etc...

I've been around escalation before. It's not the answer. Going back to the core basics where everybody can get a fair shake, live their life as who they are, not what others want them to be, and do it under the authority of people that actually fucking matter and who present role models we all feel good about.

That's the answer.

Pack the guns in, take them all, does not matter.

If somebody wants to go and do a shooting, guess what?

They are gonna go and get that shooting done, unless they are terminally stupid.

This whole event is horrible, but I fear the same exploitation we saw out of 9/11. That gift is still giving!

I sure feel bad for all of us. But I'm just not gonna go for the "nobody is safe, better arm up" BS that's already out there. Either we have the courage and strength of character to live solid lives, or we don't. Those younger among us will see our example and live accordingly.

Events like this happening again is up to us, and only us.

"I would hope you would take time to pray for the families..."

I have.

We're all grieving the death of innocent young people at the hands of a madman. I simply believe that self-defense is permitted and different decisions can provide a different outcome.

Prior to His crucifixion, Jesus revealed to His disciples the future hostility they would face and encouraged them to sell their outer garments in order to buy a sword.

"...he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36

Evil is real, people and even the police admit they simply can't be everywhere. There is good reason our founding fathers codified the 2nd Amendment.

Jesus approved of self-defense. You guys want to go pacifist, fine. Many disagree and choose to fight evil with other, equally Scriptural methods. Don't judge me. I haven't judged you.

Herb

That's right Herb....
We've heard your battle cry....


Kill em' all and let God sort them out.

Or was that DUHbya??

Classic Trixter.
No answers and a fact-less void.

Herb

Beano, your statement;Carrying weapons is not the answer, if every guy goes out and buys a gun we will have A TON of unintentional deaths and guns will be used on people just out of anger. is EXACTLY what the anti gunners want you to think.

However, it is completely wrong.

The rate of gun crimes committed by lawful gun owners is very low. In states that have passed Right to Carry laws there have been decreases in violent crimes (a criminal's worst nightmare is an armed victim).

In your statement you say "if every guy". I understand it was a guy talking on the phone making the statement about buying a gun and you are probably using the term generically, but about 25% of Concealed Carry Permits are issued to women.

Here are a few links to check out;
http://utahshootingsports.com/usscstudy.htm

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3574822.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/concealed_weapons_in_the_wilde .html

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200311%5CNAT200 31118a.html

http://www.krtraining.com/KRTraining/Archive/WSletter.txt

There is a bunch more information to support this. Of course if you go to groups like the Brady Campaign they will try and convince you otherwise.

This was a terrible situation that could not have been avoided by passing any more gun control laws.

Herb-it absolutely amazes me that you view Jesus with a sword in hand. Show me in scripture where Jesus uses the sword on someone?

From Eugene Peterson's The Message: Matthew's account of the story of the betrayal scene: "One of those with Jesus pulled his sword and, taking a swing at the Chief Priest's servant , cut off his ear. Jesus said 'Put your sword back where it belongs. All who use the swords are destroyed by swords.'

I do agree evil is all too real. But your pious stance and misuse of scripture I find deplorable and divisive.

The second amendment didn't stop Columbine or today. A madman bent on destroying lives made a choice this morning, as did the madman who took the lives of those Amish children.

Even if every one of us had a gun you would still see this kind of tragedy I'm afraid. I'm afraid you would see more.

Glad to finally hear you're praying for what happened today.

Chris, I have to agree with the first part of your statement Even if every one of us had a gun you would still see this kind of tragedy I'm afraid. I'm afraid you would see more. However, I respectfully disagree with the second part of it.

Most gun violence is not committed by lawful gun owners and no matter how many gun control laws are passed, the criminals who are bent on violence will always have access to them.

There will be a lot of "arm chair quarterbacking" on what caused the gunman to go off this morning. I wonder if the real reason will ever be known.

I wonder if there were any signs leading up to his actions and if he had a history of violence.

Skybill-No problem with your disagreement. I appreciate the links and the information in your earlier post. But I am going on feelings more than fact to be honest. I know it's not the best way to come to a conclusion but for now it's what I am using to deal with this tragedy.

"Show me in scripture where Jesus uses the sword on someone?"

Since you asked, not only did Jesus encourage his Apostles to carry a sword for protection, but he used a cat o' nine tails to drive religious types out of the temple.

Jesus is full of love and compassion, but He's also no wimp when overcoming evil is called for.

Herb

"Of course if you go to groups like the Brady Campaign they will try and convince you otherwise."

I think the Brady Bill is misunderstood.

I own guns ... and firmly believe in second amendment rights. That said, if it means that I have to wait a week to get a handgun to make sure that someone who SHOULDN'T have one doesn't get one, I am willing to wait.

The bad guys who want to get a hold of illicit firearms will continue to do so no matter what the law is. Firearm ownership is all but illegal in England, it is VERY regulated and next to nobody owns a gun, yet crimes using a firearm are at all-time highs, with a higher rate of armed robbery and burglary than in the United States. All that taking guns from law-abiding citizens does is make them more vunerable because they cannot protect themselves, and give the bad guys an edge because they illegally obtained their firearm.

I feel horrible for the victims and families and the Virginia Tech family.

Herb- Once again you have taken the words of Jesus and made literal what is meant as metaphorical.

First off Luke is the only gospel writer who has this passage. New Testament scholars would call a "Special Luke" entre--meaning it was from a source not shared by the gospel writer we know as Mark (considered to be the reference both Matthew and Luke had available to them), or by the writer we know as Matthew, nor was it likely from the source both Matthew and Luke appeared to draw from, known as Q from the German word quelle or source. The Q document has never been uncovered, but it is so obvious that the writers were working from a common source that scholars consider it a given that it existed at one time.

Let me quote from the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, written by Catholic scholars, which was published in 1990 but was considered the finest biblical scholarship in the early 90s.

"This passage is proper to Luke and anticipates his story of Paul in Acts and justifies the way missionaries operate in Luke's communities. In changed and hostile circumstances they cannot abide by the regulations of 9:1-6 and 10:1-11. [v35] purse, knapsack, sandals: The actual reference is not to the sending out of the apostles in 9:3, but to the sending out of the 70 (72) disciples. [v. 36] from now on: A new time within the era of fulfillment is dawning. Hostility will be the church's bedfellow. Jesus has told them so. Sword: The reference to this destructive weapon must be taken in the total context of Luke-Acts and the immediate context of vv. 38, 47-53. Since Luke narrates in his Gospel that Jesus not only preached love of enemies (6:26-36) but also lived that teaching (9:51-55; 23:34), and since he narrates in Acts that Paul and other missionaries never use swords, he cannot mean by "sword" here a lethal weapon. Since in v. 38 Luke depicts Jesus' disgust with the disciples literal understanding of his words in v. 36 and since he reprimands the use of a sword in 22:47-53 and even heals the wounded person, Luke cannot mean by "sword" here a destructive weapon. Rather "sword" is symbol for crisis. A paraphrase of the latter part of v. 36 is: Sell you mantle and buy trouble."

Herb your conservative and at times, (not all the time) black and white interpretation of scripture takes out the real meaning, which is deeper and more profound. By just accepting Jesus words at face value you totally miss what Jesus is really all about.

"Herb-it absolutely amazes me that you view Jesus with a sword in hand. Show me in scripture where Jesus uses the sword on someone?"

Herb can't do it...but attempts a dodge with:

"Since you asked, not only did Jesus encourage his Apostles to carry a sword for protection, but he used a cat o' nine tails to drive religious types out of the temple."

Where's the actual scripture, Herb? Not just the ones about the apostles, but also where Jesus ACTUALLY holds or uses an assualt rifle, a sword, a cat o' nine tails, or even a rolled-up newspaper.

Go ahead, we'll wait...

When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"

John 2:13-16

Lucky you, Herb! Chris already located it, unless you have your own special black-and-white bible or other source...

P.S. Chris, thanks, very interesting!

Herb- when does a whip look like a sword?

Herb
Once again you total misunderstand the setting. Yes Jesus is pissed off!! But look who he is pissed off at.

Anger when used properly can make a point. This is not an act of war and the passage never indicates he hit's anyone, but he destroys property.

"Herb- when does a whip look like a sword?"

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't put words in yours:

"Show me in scripture where Jesus uses the sword on someone?"

"Since you asked, not only did Jesus encourage his Apostles to carry a sword for protection, but he used a cat o' nine tails to drive religious types out of the temple."

Herb

He didn't drive "religious" types from the temples, he drove away what would be known today as "scalpers" who were selling items for sacrifices at prices above market value.

It was a case of the wealthy taking advantage of the poor, which Jesus protested.

Herb back to you.

Herb you have yet to answer where Jesus uses a sword to strike someone.

You chose to use scripture using a whip, which was a nice dodge of my initial question.

Saveitnow-Spot On!

Will there be prejudice(sp.) or hostile towards Asian-Americans in the US since the shooter was an asian immigrant?

Here's the thing that gets me, people in the south want the rest of the country to think they are god-fearing, moral, decent people. However, look at the majority of the massacres that have happened in this country. Where have the happened, the south. The news listed the three worst massacres in US history and they listed this one and two in Texas AND most school shootings have come out of the "moral" south. It's the reason I have such a problem with people like them wanting the rest of us to think THEY are the moral compass of the country. Bible and family doesn't seem to help down there either.

I think today, the idea of an Asian person being a "bad guy" in our society causes so much cognitive dissonance that there will be no long-term prejudice. The guy who stole thousands of pairs of panties was also Asian, yet despite as much publicity as that case received, I don't think that the reputation of Asian immigrants was injured.

My own bias in this issue is that I am speaking as somebody who grew up in schools where many of the top students were Asian. The stereotype of Asians that I grew up with is that they were all highly talented and that they came from families and a culture that drove them all to success. They were people to be looked up to.

"The stereotype of Asians that I grew up with is that they were all highly talented and that they came from families and a culture that drove them all to success."

Sadly, this can be exactly the kind of pressure that drives people to do things like school shootings.

Herb- FYI; I would not be opposed to legalizing the carrying of a cat'o'nine tails. I'd like to see a crazy person take out 32 people with one of those.

Assault rifles, glocks, etc, those are another matter.

Warner-

Never take a knife [or a cat-o-nine-tails] to a gun fight.

And rather than hand-wring, what we need are a few more cops like Dirty Harry. We've gone soft and have surrendered to the bad guys.

Herb

Herb I have this image of a Jesus poster that might be in your bedroom that has Christ wearing an American flag bandana, knife or short sword in his mouth, fully loaded side arms with the phrase underneath that says, "Love each other or die!"

As cool as that poster sounds...Naw, not really, Chris.

You know me well enough by now to realize that while I may be a tad conservative, I'm not over the edge.

However, a poster that says "Jesus Loves You And He's Not A Wimp" might be more appropriate for me.

"This is the reason, all adult males should carry a handgun!"

Nwokie, do you fear some lady might want to shoot you for being sexist?

For those of you saying at least professors should be allowed to carry guns, look back into history where professors have been the ones to crack.

A University of South Carolina libertarian professor went crazy a few years back, took over the president's office and killed himself.

Yes Herb I can actually see your poster idea in your bedroom, or on a bumper sticker.

Anyway....any luck on that scripture I was asking about earlier?

You mean the New Jerome Bible Commentary?

I'm cautious of liberal Catholic views and am more of a King James guy, myself. However, several other mainstream translations can be OK, I guess.

Herb

I wouldn't mind your comments on the New Jerome Bible Commentary, but I am also looking for the scripture reference to Jesus actually using a sword against someone.

Here is my diagnosis of the killer at Va. Tech.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, (4th ed.) (1994) American Psychiatric Association


Diagnostic criteria for 301.20 Schizoid Personality Disorder


A. A pervasive pattern of detachment from social relationships and a restricted range of expression of emotions in interpersonal settings, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:

(1) neither desires nor enjoys close relationships, including being part of a family
(2) almost always chooses solitary activities
(3) has little, if any, interest in having sexual experiences with another person
(4) takes pleasure in few, if any, activities
(5) lacks close friends or confidants other than first-degree relatives
(6) appears indifferent to the praise or criticism of others
(7) shows emotional coldness, detachment, or flattened affectivity

B. Does not occur exclusively during the course of Schizophrenia, a Mood Disorder With Psychotic Features, another Psychotic Disorder, or a Pervasive Developmental Disorder and is not due to the direct physiological effects of a general medical condition.
Note: If criteria are met prior to the onset of Schizophrenia, add "Premorbid," e.g., "Schizoid Personality Disorder (Premorbid)."

Funniest comment yet:

Herb: "While I may be a tad conservative.."

A tad???

Yeah, a tad.

I guess I'm somewhere between Richard Nixon and Dirty Harry. Ok, Ok, that makes me kind of a lefty, but maybe I'll improve with age.

Herb

Herb the comedian. Actually I'm kinda liking this side of you.

Herb, we're waiting. You've been asked several times so quit trying to change the subject and dancing around being all cutesy.

Either admit you're wrong and apologize to Chris, or show us your proof. Is either option just too hard for you to do?

I never said Jesus used a knife. Re-read the post. I said he encouraged the use of a sword for self-defense and did use a cat-o-nine-tails to drive certain evil-doers from the temple.

Let's go to the tape:

---------------------------------------------

Author: Herb
Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 6:21 am


"Show me in scripture where Jesus uses the sword on someone?"

Since you asked, not only did Jesus encourage his Apostles to carry a sword for protection, but he used a cat o' nine tails to drive religious types out of the temple.

---------------------------------------------



If that post makes me wrong, then fine, I'm wrong. Feel better, now?

Herb

Another Herbism that needs clarification:

"You can't make this stuff up"

What he really means is "You can't, but I can".

Hypocrite.

Let's see YOUR proof!
Or is it simply about name-calling?

Herb

My proof? I don't have any, I defer to Chris who knows what he's talking about, in a kind, sensible and compassionate way, the way I expect Jesus would do. He also backs it up with sources.

Somehow I just don't see Jesus as this "Soldier of Fortune" type of guy, as you seem to do.

Herb:
"Don't judge me. I haven't judged you."

Yeah, right, whatever...

Herb I'm not trying to make me feel better. I am just asking for clarification on scripture. You chose a scripture passage that you thought would suffice. Your interpretation of that passage is simply not in line with the life of Jesus, thus the "sword" is metaphorical.

Let's take that same passage and continue it:

(RSV) John 2:18-21 "The Jews then said to him, 'What sign have you to show us for doing this?' Jesus answered them, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' The Jews then said, 'It has taken forty-six years to build up this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?' But he (Jesus) spoke of the temple of his body."

Jesus used metaphorical language all the time. He wanted people to think beyond themselves to see that in Him there is more to life and that he was the connection to the Lord of the universe.

Herb I believe many of your interpretations of scripture are watered down. Jesus was not arming his disciples literally with swords, he was letting them know that a crisis was happening and be prepared to follow him to the cross.

So the question stands. Where in scripture does Jesus lift a sword and strike someone?

"I defer to Chris who knows what he's talking about, in a kind, sensible and compassionate way, the way I expect Jesus would do."

Amen!

I'm for the defense of 2nd Ammendment rights, but I am beside myself at the comments at the beginning of this thread that "all adult males should carry a handgun." I hope that this was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. If not, that is a disastrous idea: ALL adult males includes:
1) Men who are not properly trained in the use of guns for self defense
2) Men who have a predisposition to crime or psychotic behavior
3) Men who are careless and would allow criminals and children access to their gun
4) Men who have physical disabilities that would prevent them from effectively using a gun for self defense (i.e. blindness!)

Some 10 years ago, I was living in a neighborhood that was about 1 1/2 miles from the site of a tragic carjacking in which the carjacker forced the driver and his passenger (a teenage couple) into the trunk of the car and then proceeded to push the car into a lake! When I heard this piece of news, I thought that having a gun would be a good idea. Unfortunately, I was too busy and too lazy to research the local gun laws and to enroll myself in a self-defense class. I therefore did the responsible thing given the circumstances and did not buy a gun.

Thought this was interesting. Turns out there was a worse school disaster (though not a shooting), 80 years ago in Michigan.

Va. Tech not the worst in horrific history of school massacres

By LISA HOFFMAN
Scripps Howard News Service
2007-04-16 00:00:00

The massacre at Virginia Tech University Monday ranks as the worst such mass college killing in American history. But it is not the deadliest rampage at a U.S. school.

That terrible distinction belongs to the horror that befell the Bath Consolidated School in Bath Township, Mich. nearly 80 years ago.

On May 18, 1927, school board member Andrew Kehoe went on a rampage apparently triggered by his anger over a property tax that had been levied to build the school. Blaming the tax for pushing his farm into foreclosure, Kehoe killed his wife and torched his farm buildings. He turned next to the school building, where he had surreptitiously hidden dynamite over several weeks, and detonated the explosives.

When rescuers arrived, Kehoe drove to the school and detonated a firebomb he had with him in his car, killing himself and the school superintendent. Most of the 43 others killed in the bombings were children.

Here is a look at other mass killings at American schools:

"I therefore did the responsible thing given the circumstances and did not buy a gun."

(In a Dirty Harry voice): You're a good man, Alfredo, and a good man's got to know his limitations.

Again.

Chris, Jesus did not use a sword, but encouraged that the Apostles carry one for defensive purposes.

Jesus DID use a weapon similar to a cat-o-nine-tails.

Jesus is not a sissy and fights evil head on.

Herb

Alfredo, you made me think again about how "...all adult males should carry a handgun"

I wonder why he thinks just the "males" should? Okie, are you afraid of us babes and PMS or what, you flaming Okie sexist? I even got me some big ones locked up in the safe...

Again,

Herb, Jesus is not actually saying to the Disciples to carry an actual sword. That is where your misinterpretation of the passage is wrong. Jesus is being metaphorical, which of course you missed....again.

Why would Jesus, whose life was lived never using an actual sword ask his Disciples to do so?

You seem to have at your spiritual core the need for some kind of macho Christ figure. When Jesus dealt with evil, and I mean real evil he was tempted. He fasted. He took a few blows from Satan. He used his words and the power of God in his life to deal with the real evil.

You said Jesus DID use a weapon, and I told you how he used it to destroy property and not people. You seem to think Jesus holding a weapon, a whip, is a sign of Heavenly power thus justifying the use of force on non-property, like people.

I simply don't know the Jesus you worship because it doesn't look like the Jesus in the bible I read about.

Chris, sure it's comforting to think of Jesus only in one-dimensional terms, and that He was all hugs and kisses.

Yet again, His own words say otherwise:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

One can try to make Jesus say what they want. I have no dog in this fight other than to follow Truth.

Herb

Herb, I'm a biblical neophyte, but even I can tell that in the above passage "sword" is a metaphor for the conflict that will arise even in the closest of relationships as followers of Jesus adopt his "radical" positions. The "sword" Jesus bears is Christian Truth, and in his day and age this was not a message of peace but of confrontation, as the old beliefs are challenged.

(But hey, what do I know?)

The more guns there are, and the fewer controls we have on them, the more violence we will have.

I think gun ownership is totally ok. I also think strong education and ongoing efforts to set solid social norms needs to be a part of the equation.

And Chris Rock has convinced me making bullets both expensive and traceable would do us a whole lot of good.

Edselhr- You couldn't be more right.

Herb- I knew you would bring out your old faithful scripture which you have tried to slide by on in the past. I think you have a sword fetish.

Jesus was hardly one-dimensional. When you call yourself the Son of God and then do earthly healings and miracles, I would hardly call that one-dimensional. Making Jesus some kind of warmonger is simply blasphemous.

Thanks Chris (Hey, I *nailed* Matthew 10:34-39! Boo-Yah!!)

Missing - You've touched on what I think is the key disconnect in this gun discussion. The pro-gun side argues that there will be less gun crime (and perhaps less crime in general) if there were more guns out there, and some statistics prove out that argument. The anti-gun side contends that there will be more gun violence and more gun deaths, and they too have stats to prove their point.

I think both might be correct. More guns in society may very well reduce gun crime. But it makes perfect sense to conclude that more people will be dying in society, and the additional guns out there would be the cause. The pro-gun position assumes the only evil that can come from guns is their use in a crime. But what about accidental deaths, suicides, and hair-trigger "self defense" killings?

With suicides in particular, 57% are with a gun. And suicidal individuals who have access to guns are at the greatest risk of impulsive, unpredictable suicide.*

It's a complex issue. The two sides seem to break out thusly: is your priority to stop crime, or save lives?

*http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/52/8/999

Herb said>>>>>
Classic Trixter.
No answers and a fact-less void.

AND

Herb IGNORANTLY said>>>
"While I may be a tad conservative.."

The first one fits you to a "T" Herb and for the second statement.... OMG! WTF! You have got to be kidding us???
TAD?
Understatement of the YEAR!!!!!

Herb...
When you start stating facts and your posts are LESS void get back to all of us.

Have fun with that.....

I'm sure everyone that is in favor of eliminating private gun ownership to save lives, is also in favor of a nation wide 35 mile per hour speed limit.

And how about banning "risky" hobbies, such as mountain climbing, sy diving etc.

After all that would save more lives.

Sy Diving?

Does that have something to do with the President of the Hair Club for Men?

And I've never been forced to go climbing if I didn't want to. Even with a banana in someone's pocket pointed at me.

You'd be scared of me with a gun, Okie. "You took my parking space at Hooters? You're gonna pay, sucka!"

Put away the straw men, Nwokie. Not a single comment has advocated the elimination of private gun ownership. The argument (again) is with your comment about arming every able-bodied male, which is equally extreme but in the opposite direction - along with being unrealistic and disturbingly sexist.

This discussion is looking for some kind of solution in the rational middle and you keep pulling it to the fringes.

Actually, my idea was in keeping with the 2nd amendment. Adult males who are legally allowed to own firearms, which exempts the criminal and mentally ill.

Speaking of which the killer, probably wasnt legally supposed to have a weapon, as he has a history of mental illness. Unfortunatly so called privacy laws prevented this from being known by the gun seller.

As to sexist, the military still exempts women from combat arms positions, as do all th emajor militaries of the world.

I need to apologize for taking this thread and hijacking it for personal purposes that could have been better dealth with on another thread.

I have copied and pasted an aritcle I read by the Rev. Jim Wallis of www.sojo.net that is poignant and simply needs to be shared. With more and more information being released about the killer and the discussion on this thread, this article reminded me that sometimes silence speaks loudest. Here's the article:

The shooting deaths of 32 students and staff of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia, is the latest example of the senseless violence that seems so often to enter our daily lives.

In the midst of the shock such events bring, it is difficult to know what to say.

So, I was moved by an editorial in the Los Angeles Times this morning:
IN THE BIBLICAL Book of Job, the anguished hero is visited by three friends who attempt to comfort him by drawing airy and sententious lessons from his agonies. Of course, they end up adding to his troubles; Job endures not only the real pains of grief and sickness but the indignity of having his suffering milked for rhetorical effect.

If only it were true that Monday's mass murder on the campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University was the kind of tragedy that moves us to quiet reflection. In fact, the shootings that killed more than 30 people and wounded nearly 30 others occasioned a blizzard of hasty conclusions, instant position-taking and the rehashing of old arguments. For the sake of the dead, for the sake of the living, and even for the sake of honoring this grim milestone — the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history — we should remember that there are times when silence is the best response.

Events like these are almost impossible to react to sanely. A group of people you don't know have been killed in a senseless crime. Too young to have established much of a past, they've been robbed of present and future; the weight of the offense, the rotten meaninglessness of it, makes it awkward not to have something to say.
The editorial notes that there will be discussions about gun control and other political issues, but concludes: "There will be time for both in the days to come. But now is a time to respect, quietly, the tears and the pain of this terrible event."

Along with the rest of our country and the world, all of us at the God’s Politics blog send our condolences and prayers to the families and friends of those who died, and to the entire Virginia Tech community. We pray that the comforting presence of God will be felt in the midst of this unexplainable tragedy.

Israel?

Israel does not assign women to combat arms,
Women receive some combat training, as they do in our army, but are limited to combat arms training and logistics.

Israel has women tank crewmen, but they are in training roles, they are not assigned to combat units. In the early 90's for a very brief period they tried it, and quickly decided it was not the thing to do.

Nwokie: "As to sexist, the military still exempts women from combat arms positions, as do all the major militaries of the world."

But we're talking about civilians. Are you suggesting that we militarize the general population?

And, although the military may bar women from carrying firearms, the Second Amendment does not.

Wow. It is an interesting study in mass reaction. Let's see, our first thought is, "where is my gun?" not "good God, those kids!" Then, we play the "WWJD" card without recognizing that he would have befriended a mixed-up kid. Yeah, prevention, what a concept.

Nobody asks why Bubba didn't tell Bubba to tell Bubba for two hours when there were two dead kids in a dorm. Shootings are never quiet. Who here has actually witnessed a shooting? Or heard gunshots in their neighborhood? Or had a gun pulled on them? Yeah, all three, and fucking scary. You told someone the first second you could right? Yeah, I did too.

Then, we examine the shooter and speculate. Hmmm. Perhaps it was race, sure yeah, those Koreans. Hooray for bigotry! This is why we chase a Korean panty sniffer for months while a White rapist and murderer runs free. Perhaps it was his breakfast cereal. Perhaps it was his religion. Oh, bingo, what do almost all violent lunatics have in common? I know, it is true, but it is not completely to blame.

All of the victims, and I include the shooter among them, were essentially sentenced to death by an institution that ignored every warning. Tragedy is a team effort, but not all participants know they are in collusion until it is too late. It seems that every dastardly deed has an overture, but sometimes, few folks pay attention.

Professors, classmates, and acquaintences all come out and say, "hey, he did this..." or, " he wrote that" and, "I did say something, but you know..." This seems to be true in so many of these cases. "He was quiet and kept to himself..." is an all-time classic and usually is the biggest clue of all.

Feeling cornered and alone makes every animal on this planet violent and unpredictable. Too bad we still can't learn basic animal behavior and understand it. Those kids would still be alive if they were not repeatedly betrayed by the institution, and eventually, law enforcement.

In a tragic way, the survivors have been taught the most important lesson of all: The system does not need you. It does not care if you live or die. You are a cog, know your place, be efficient and die with a few dollars left. Friendship, love and emotional growth is entirely up to you and your family. We cannot help. We only deal with tangible and measurable results. Good luck.

Mrs. M. -- I wonder if Sy has a merkin? I guess one would have to dive to find out.

Chris -- You have been consistently thoughtful and compassionate on the topic. Thank you.

After my rant, to be fair, Virginia Tech does have some programs in place, like this one:

http://www.stopabuse.vt.edu/

Unfortunately, these types of programs are merely window dressing if faculty, administration and students cannot have open dialog about what they observe. There is no reason to make a police state when the student body can simply know each other. It may require more than than the usual study, suds and screwing, but I think the effort would be worth it.

A true militia is supposed to include all adult males.
Now people are blaming VT on the killings, The only person at fault is the killer.

Thank you for your in-depth assessment, Doctor Okie.

Your welcome.

;=)

I think that enough time has passed that the people who would have had contact with the killer are going to be doing the 20/20 hindsight thing: "We knew something wasn't right with that guy. We had been seeing the signs. Why didn't we do anything?" Some of the signs are mentioned in the following story: http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=6388965&nav=menu191_10_2_2

I didn't have a chance to watch the video on NBC. However, I did hear a brief clip played on the radio, in which I think that Cho was expressing his anger and hatred toward wealthy, popular students (when I was in high school, we called these people "preps"). It was also mentioned that the violent nature of Cho's creative writing had attracted the attention of school adminitrators at Virginia Tech, but somebody dropped the ball on providing counseling to this guy before he flipped out.

So some one should turn Stephen King in to the authorities, because of his violent stories?

How about Ann Rice?

The examples of Cho's violent writing that seem to be getting mentioned in the press are two plays, "Mr. Brownstone" and "Richard McBeef" that were written for a playwriting class. Cho also got kicked out of a poetry class for writing poems that were so violent and intimidating that they spooked the teacher. Edward Falco, Cho's playwriting teacher (not the Rock Me, Amadeus guy), makes some interesting observations in the CNN story linked below. For instance, why would a student who could barely speak choose to major in English?

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/vatech.professor/

From Falco's comments, I think that the main difference between Cho's work and that of horror writers like King and Rice is that Cho's writing contained "rants" that made it obvious that the purpose of this writing was to serve as a soapbox whereupon Cho could air his anger and frustrations.

Interesting question? Should the govt be allowed to arrest someone, who exhibits the traits of a mass murderer, although they havent actually done anything?

How many traits would that have to be?

Should someone others find "scarry" be banned from school, from work?

Yes.

Two.

Yes. And message boards.

This evening, I heard another report on KPAM about how Cho came across to classmates and faculty. It was pretty obvious to his classmates and faculty that something wasn't right. Cho almost never spoke. He would often put a question mark after his name on class assignments. He was referred for psychiatric help at one point, but nothing more could be done because he hadn't committed any illegal acts. I think that this guy obviously "fell through the cracks."

This is a very tricky question because how could the "traits of a mass murderer" be legally defined? There is a tradeoff here between not letting people like this slip through the cracks and protecting people's rights to express themselves in ways that society might find a bit odd.

By the way, as a high school student, my younger brother once triggered a visit by social workers to our home. I think that the reason for this visit were some stories with violent themes that he wrote for an English class. In one story, a deranged student hunted down and killed a social studies teacher using a gavel from her classroom. If you had known the teacher, and you read the story, you would have probably (and correctly) concluded that it was meant as satire and not as a death threat. The story devoted a lot of time to poking fun at some of that teacher's idiosycracies, and the killing was performed in a rather slapstick fashion. However, my brother's sense of humor proved too dark for some people.

P.S. The other story was a parody of _The_Thread_That_Runs_So_True_, in which the main character from that story tries his hand at bringing about world peace. He does this at some kind of summit (like a UN convention) by asking the delegates from the two feuding nations to fight each other with the goal of the delegates realizing that fighting is pointless. However the delegates get so fed up with this guy's touchy-feely ideas that they gang up on him and toss him out of a window, killing him.