Shooter McHoakie
I don't want to trivialize the tragedy that befell the campus of VT today, but I'm starting to get REALLY annoyed with the media trying to manufacture a scandal out of the notification procedures used by the school. As I write this, there's some fatuous blowhard who is yapping about how the e-mail notification was inadequate.
This is beyond a hindsight is 20/20 situation. It's just plain stupid. While Cal is a bit larger than VT, can you imagine alarm bells going off any time there's a shooting somewhere near campus? Hell there was a dead body found in the dumpster of a sorority and I bet very few people even found out about it. The blowhard is yapping about using text messages to warn people. Warn them of what? (Suggested canned text messages: "Duck the bullets!"; "Classes canceled. XOXO Prez."; "No salad bar to any freshman caught shooting. This time we mean it.") There are thousands of people at any one time already on campus. There's very little you can do against a gun. Furthermore, all police had at the time were two dead bodies. Are these idiots seriously suggesting that an entire university the size of a Montana town stop functioning when there is any homicide?
Paula Zahn: "A LOT of students and parents are angry that the university did not immediately go into lockdown after the first shootings."
What? Lockdown? This isn't some high school Paula. They're not little kids. How do you lock down Cal, for example? You can't lock down Downtown Berkeley, West Oakland, or Emeryville any more than you can lock down a college campus the size of VTech. That's just unrealistic. However, I predict that at some point tomorrow we will get an e-mail from Birgeneau detailing Cal's emergency response procedures.
The enormity of what happened is beyond compare. I can only hope no other school or community experiences. You can't try to stop something of this magnitude with text messages. You just can't. Now if people in the classrooms had unfettered wireless access...
This is beyond a hindsight is 20/20 situation. It's just plain stupid. While Cal is a bit larger than VT, can you imagine alarm bells going off any time there's a shooting somewhere near campus? Hell there was a dead body found in the dumpster of a sorority and I bet very few people even found out about it. The blowhard is yapping about using text messages to warn people. Warn them of what? (Suggested canned text messages: "Duck the bullets!"; "Classes canceled. XOXO Prez."; "No salad bar to any freshman caught shooting. This time we mean it.") There are thousands of people at any one time already on campus. There's very little you can do against a gun. Furthermore, all police had at the time were two dead bodies. Are these idiots seriously suggesting that an entire university the size of a Montana town stop functioning when there is any homicide?
Paula Zahn: "A LOT of students and parents are angry that the university did not immediately go into lockdown after the first shootings."
What? Lockdown? This isn't some high school Paula. They're not little kids. How do you lock down Cal, for example? You can't lock down Downtown Berkeley, West Oakland, or Emeryville any more than you can lock down a college campus the size of VTech. That's just unrealistic. However, I predict that at some point tomorrow we will get an e-mail from Birgeneau detailing Cal's emergency response procedures.
The enormity of what happened is beyond compare. I can only hope no other school or community experiences. You can't try to stop something of this magnitude with text messages. You just can't. Now if people in the classrooms had unfettered wireless access...
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 5:32 PM
81 Comments:
Obviously the correct response is to arm the entire student body. You're not going to lock a class in a room and shoot them all if they are packing heat too.
I call that the Berkeley High approach.
Why do you think it sounds so crazy to explore an emergency lockdown system? I think there are viable lockdown strategies for whole cities in major emergencies - a university would be much easier.
And while complaining about lack of notice may be a tasteless ploy by the media to fill the tragedy with talking, it doesn't sound that ridiculous. Imagine getting a text from the campus safety office saying stay away from campus b/c there's a shooter. What would you do? Stay the hell away, right? Sounds good to me.
Yes, there's plenty of issues with spoofing, but it doesn't sound like a crazy system if people got a warning from some source and then checked on TV or a website to see if it were legit.
Armen, my attorneys will be writing to you about your unauthorized use in commerce of the phrase "fatuous blowhard," a mark of origin enforceable under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act.
Permitting a student body to possess guns has been floated before. I remember reading about a heated discussion of the topic at Loyola University in New Orleans, circa 2001. As I recall, there had been a string of assaults and rapes on and around the city-block-sized campus, and a number of students wanted permission to carry loaded firearms on university grounds. The idea never got off the ground, though it gathered some support.
Is it a good idea? Maybe. First, people won’t go crazy and shoot one another if they get guns. Some 40% of American households have registered firearms, and most of those are never involved in crimes. Second, it seems that if responsible adults can legally carry weapons on their persons in public places (as they do in many states), responsible adults who happen to go to college should be able to do the same. Third, I’m not advocating a free-for-all gun exchange or anything insane like that. Stringent provisions, qualification exams, and other safeguards must be implemented. I won’t list them here, but they must regulate not only the carry, but also the storage of the weapon, as well as a multitude of other factors.
As today’s tragedy shows, however, gun control does nothing to prevent some idiot from illegally bringing a gun on campus and murdering people in cold blood. But I bet a single trained, armed, licensed individual would have ended the rampage way before the police got to the scene. Instead, those poor people never had a chance.
Iggy, one of the cable news channels was reporting that the guy's myspace page shows him holding lots of guns. Don't YOU have lots of guns? Anyone break your heart lately?
More seriously to 7:10, let's say you're walking from Strada to Boalt, you get said text message, and you look up and see a BTLJ guy picking people off. You: (a) reply to text asking what to do (b) duck and hide as you would have anyway (c) continue doing the crossword. I mean, on the margins a hyper panicky instant notification that told the entire world where any sort of a crime has been committed MIGHT prevent SOME loss of life, but in a situation such as this, it won't do much.
Very funny. First off, I don’t gratuitously pose with guns on internet sites. That’s just lame. Second, I like to think that I do all the heart-breaking in relationships. I’m just that smokin’ hot and desirable :)
As per 7:10’s suggestion, I think a big Bat-Signal would be best.
Armen, this has to be the stupidest post you've ever written. What happened first thing in the morning was not a "shooting near a campus." It was a MULTIPLE HOMICIDE in an ON-CAMPUS BUILDING. If alarm bells went off every time there was a multiple homicide in an on-campus building then...they wouldn't be going off very often, and when they did, lives might be saved. You write as if people are murdered on college campuses every few days (or, worse, on THIS campus every few days), and we thus couldn't bear the constant distraction. This is ludicrous. Multiple homicides do NOT happen on college campuses regularly, and when they do, yes, the whole school should shut down until police figure out what is going on. In this post-9/11 age, to act any other way is "just plain stupid," to borrow your tactful phrase.
Maybe I'm alone in this, and oh dear God I hope I'm not, but how can ANYBODY think the answer to something like this is more guns??? This is outright insane to me. I mean, I am really at a loss for words.
Anonymous 9:46:
Keeping in mind that criminals, by their nature, will get guns illegally what is your solution?
Before you respond, please understand that I don’t advocate handing out guns to everyone. That’s just crazy.
Well, look, I generally support gun control efforts -- or at least the right of states and localities to pursue them -- but if this guy was using HANDGUNS, it's not clear that more gun control laws (as they are presently envisioned and politically viable) would stop this. There's simply no scenario in America that is going to get rid of HANDGUNS. Lunatics (especially deliberative ones) will always be able to get them.
On the other hand, I still don't know how this guy was able to methodically shoot people for 20 minutes -- and apparently pausing for 30-60 seconds to reload -- and NO ONE jumped him, attacked him, charged, whatever. Maybe I overstate people's sense of composure (or especially mine), but if you realize someone is hell-bent on a massacre, you got to take your chances to stop that when you get an opening. (e.g. Flight 93. Then again, they had a long time on the plane to realize what was going on, confer, and psyche themselves up to act.) And if anyone had a gun in their bag in Norris Hall, that intervention becomes a magnitude of order easier. Still, we need a lot more details before we really know what happened -- or what would have stopped it.
I tend to agree with Armen here. There doesn't appear to be a good reason anyone should have known the shooter would strike again on campus. He might very well have gone to the nearest Starbucks and opened fire. Then what are you going to do? Close all the Starbacks in the city?
In terms of feasibility, the best way to set up a warning system would be to tie it into the fire alarm systems. Instead of one pull lever, you could have a few. One for fire, one for shooters, one for medical emergency. Each one would have a different alarm profile (fire would sound in just that building, shooter all over campus, medical maybe just have a nice voice announcement "if there is a doctor in the building, please come to floor X, room Y). Broadcast is still the best way to reach the masses, that's what the emergency broadcast system is for. Text messaging every student would probably overload the phone system.
9:30 is definitely a troll - good job, but anyone who uses the phrase "in this post-9/11 age" can't be serious.
Sure, we'll never get rid of guns entirely, but we can raise the cost of acquiring guns -- and raise the cost of using one -- immensely: Mandatory background checks, mandatory registration, waiting periods, chips and other technology to track who buys and uses each gun -- all of this can make it harder to buy a gun and harder to hide its use. Yes, if you are determined to kill a lot of people and then kill yourself, none of that will stop you. But that's not the point. The point is that making gun use on average more difficult will stop some of the attacks and reduce their incidence and frequency. And that's a start.
Anonymous 10:09:
What you’re talking about is already being done. Handguns are already prohibitively expensive. There is already mandatory registration, waiting periods, shell casing records, serial numbering, proficiency tests and other things. But that’s not the problem. Legal guns are rarely used in crimes. Rarely, if ever, does a criminal go to a Big5, buy a shotgun, pass the FBI and CDJ background checks, wait 10 days, take delivery, and then go on a rampage. Illegal weapons are trafficked into this country illegally in huge numbers. Even if we were to outlaw guns completely, those guns would keep coming in.
And what of the several hundred million guns that already exist in the country? Many more we don’t even know about? And remember that its not that difficult to make a crude weapon – Afghan tribesmen do it without benefit of electricity or modern tools.
The problem is not legal guns – it’s the trafficked, stolen or makeshift guns that are the biggest problem. Obviously, we cannot outlaw what is already illegal. I think allowing regular people to protect themselves is a feasible option.
Anon 9:46 here. I actually am very much in favor of making handguns illegal (manufacture, etc). Sorry if people disagree, but whatever. Today's massacre aside, I believe that about 9/10 people who try to use a handgun to protect themselves against someone breaking into their home end up having that gun used against them. Sorry I can't quote my source--I read it in one of my many crime and delinquency text books from college several years ago. Also, most murders aren't massacres like today. A more typical situation occurs where some people are drinking, get in a fight, and one person happens to have a gun and shoots the other.
Also, I seriously doubt all "criminals" get their guns illegally. Plenty of people can buy guns legally, and then later "snap" or something, and use that gun to kill someone that they would otherwise not have killed if the gun hadn't made it so darned convenient.
That's all. I could say a lot more, but I am sleepy and lazy. Obviously people will disagree with me, and that's fine. I just think that arming more people is the opposite of what we should be doing. Arming more people is going to lead to more murders. Guns make murder a lot easier.
It should be noted that the university did have a PA system they could have used to warn people off of campus. More importantly, it's not like the first shooting was followed two seconds later by the second shooting. The school could have evacuated between the dorm shooting and the shooting clear across the campus, which as you pointed out is the size of a town in Montana.
As a foreigner, I don't really understand why America is so against strict gun control. Other democracies aren't in any danger of descending into fascism because of a lack of armed-to-the-teeth citizenry.
Australia, for example, has a comparable culture and history but many fewer of their crimes result in fatalities (as a percentage of the total) because of the tight gun control enacted in the wake of a massacre in the 1990s.
If the rest of the world has a gun-control strategy that has been repeatedly proven across many different cultural environments, why does the US persist allowing easy and uncontrolled access to deadly weaponry?
It always amazes me how quickly Americans give up their own freedoms to be just a tiny bit more safe. What are the chances of being a victim of a criminal toting a legal handgun? Slim to none. Just about as high as the chances of being a victim of terrorism, the vaunted bird flu, or Vladimir Putin.
Let’s all calm down. This is America, not Australia or some other pseudo-democratic vestige of the Empire. Here, people have the freedom to make choices. If a minor has the right to terminate a pregnancy, or if a drug addict has the right to have a child, then an upstanding adult citizen has the right to buy an inert metal object after extensive background checks.
Hasn’t the PATRIOT act taught you anything? Don't give up your freedoms.
It's ironic how gun totting maniacs play the "freedom" card when we threaten their ability to carry their precious metal objects of death that are nothing more deadlier pick-up trucks. Some are crazy anti-government maniacs who want to establish a righteous government in Michigan or Georgia. Others, like you Igor, have no problems when our phones are tapped, prisoners tortured, and democratic institutions destroyed. Right. Protect your freedom. One gentle injection of .45 caliber manliness at a time.
Oh, yeah, strict gun control is REAL effective at deterring crime. That's why Washington DC, a place where guns have been banned for years, is among the most dangerous cities in America. And rural Nebraska, where everyone and their mother has a gun, has among the lowest firearm crime rates in the country. THAT makes sense.
Armen:
Half of the country owns guns. Are you telling me you live in a country of "crazy anti-government maniacs?" That's just silly.
Everyone always talks about these "crazy anti-government maniacs." How many of those maniacs are there? A couple of hundred at most? Please. I think there are more "crazy anti-government maniacs" in Berkeley than in the whole of Georgia.
Most of the rest are regular people. Heck, even Diane Feinstein owns a gun. Ooohh, THERE is a "crazy anti-government maniac." Where does she stand on torturing prisoners while tapping their phones?
I'd be more inclined to agree with Igor if a) we actually had and b) the NRA was willing to support, "mandatory registration, waiting periods, shell casing records, serial numbering, proficiency tests and other things." But we don't and they don't. Instead, they start shrieking every time the slightest inconvenience to their 2A right is suggested. But this of course makes no sense as a matter of constitutional theory or common sense. You have a 1A to speak but not to yell fire. You have a 14A right to equal treatment but not if the gov has a compelling interest and a narrowly tailored program. You have a 4A right to be protected from search, but not if the government really needs what it's looking for. I'd support a broad and inviolable individual right to bear arms if the gun-nuts would actually agree that...no gun shall ever be sold to a criminal, and every gun shall be traceable to seller and buyer -- with all the attendant licensing, monitoring, restrictions, registration, training, permitting, and technological innovation such a policy would require. But the guns nuts aren't really interested in that, because they're gripped by an obsession that far exceeds either communitarian or constitutional prerogatives.
Excellent post Igor. You have proven that there is one Californian who owns a gun and who is not:
- A crazy anti-government maniac
- OK with torture in any form
- OK with curbing civil liberties in the wake of faceless, vague, ideological threat (how did she vote on PATRIOT Act though?)
- A man with small penis issues
While I congratulate you on this achievement, I'd like to point out that Feinstein fits another stereotype of gun owners: an uncontrollable desire to interfere with police investigations, compromising the safety and lives of all others. See here at para. 5
I'd also like to point out that in your attempt to *cough* defend gun ownership rights, you have brought forth (a) opposition to warrantless searches and seizures (b) opposition to torture, and (c) Feinstein.
[Insert something witty about how Igor's opposed to each of those three and owns guns. Hmmmmm.]
Do you feel lucky, Armen? Well, do you?
12:59 is EXACTLY right. The gun huggers at the NRA think the 2nd A is the only one free from moderation. That's why they never let a gun case go up on appeal. They know that if the SCOTUS ever hears a true 2nd A case, it will rule that there are reasonable limits to its scope. Just like every other amendment.
Can we also focus on the ridiculousness of some of the news coverage. Maybe it's DS's hatred of 24-hour news sources and their desire to get us any information, not just correct information. A quote from NBC this morning: "This story is moving very fast. We believe he may have bought one gun in Roanoke, but we don't know when. There are reports it was last week. It could have also been last month. Was anyone with him? We don't know." Now, the Today Show isn't exactly known as the center of good journalism, but come on. This is pure conjecture and ridiculous. Let us know the facts when you have them, not before.
DS doesn't want to downplay to terrible nature of this event. On the contrary, as one of the few Virginians at Boalt, and Tech being a school he visited often, he probably feels this tragedy more than the average Boaltie. But, the constant news barrage from any Tech student whose friend knew an engineering student that had classes in Norris later that day and saw some people running across the drill field is unnecessary and a waste of everyone's time.
Also, Armen, a Happy Gilmore reference? A little tasteless.
To those who oppose having guns on campus I point you to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting
Gun control just wont work in America. There are too many firearms already available and the people that want to commit crimes like this are always going to be able to get their hands on them.
igor at 10:19: not to pile on, buddy, but as you point out, many guns used in violent crime are "stolen." It's easier to steal guns when guns are legally owned and sold, and all you have to do is burglarize a house, etc. as for making zip guns, come on, you're just as likely to blow your own hand off, and criminals know this (plus, you can't aim those fucking things).
also, i think there is a great deal of gun crime involving legally possessed weapons. didn't cho buy his 22 legally a week ago?
finally, to 12:21 - your DC argument proves too much - DC control isn't effective when you (or a black market gun dealer) can go 30 minutes out of the city, buy guns legally, then bring them back into the city. because of that, the DC argument suggests that only national restrictions can be effective.
Many posters are calling for mandatory background checks and waiting periods. I agree with you. But please remember that these measures ALREADY EXIST. In California, they are especially strict.
All this talk about whether guns cause crime is pointless. Let's be realistic for a second -- it is absolutely impossible for a national ban on sales of guns to pass. Even if a ban like that DOES pass (and it never will), NO ONE will EVER take away the guns people already legally own. No politician will touch a proposition like that with a 10-foot pole. Even in California, where the types of firearms one can own are SEVERELY limited, people legally own so-called "assault weapons" (currently illegal to purchase), which they bought before the state ban. Gun control statutes are never retroactive because our government does not usually like to take away our property.
That means several hundred million firearms already in people's possession will remain there EVEN IF THE SALE OF GUNS IS BANNED.
So we have to leave magical Berkeley fairy tale la-la land and realize that guns are here to stay. Moreover, we have to realize that criminals will get some of those guns. The real question is, what are YOU going to do about it?
Ah, the wisdom. Because we can't eliminate every single gun from private possession, we shouldn't worry about tougher gun laws. We should allow everyone to have guns, then everything will be canceled out. That sounds like the logic of introducing lizards to reduce the pigeon population, then introducing snakes to eat the lizards, then gorillas to eat the snakes. It's meaningless escalation and a short-term solution. DS won't mention the logic of arming binge-drinking, immature, irrational, prone-to-silly-fight college students with weapons. If that were to happen, yesterday's tragedy would be commonplace.
But that's not the point of this comment. DS listened to Rose Aguilar's Your Call this morning and found hope in UC Berkeley visiting scholar Richard Rappaport's message. He argued we need to step back and not engage in these knee-jerk traditional arguments when tragedies strike. It's far easier to get caught up in arguing about what laws might prevent shootings, or what Tech officials could have done differently, than to take some time and mourn the loss.
DS's proposal: Tech should close campus for a week. No one is allowed on. Send all students (save for those with no where to go) home. Let them be with their families. Media too. Send them back to New York or DC. Force their broadcasts into the town of Blacksburg and off the Tech campus(they'll go home quickly after that, although there is a Cracker Barrel next to I-81, and Cracker Barrel is good). We shouldn't discuss issues until we know facts. Let's not argue about whether tougher gun laws could have prevented this tragedy until we know whether the killer complied with all laws. Let's not discuss whether Tech officials acted improperly in not locking down the university until we know exactly what actions they took.
As much as DS hates the NRA, he wants to praise their website on which this message appears:
The National Rifle Association joins the entire country in expressing our deepest condolences to the families of Virginia Tech University and everyone else affected by this horrible tragedy.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the families.
We will not have further comment until all the facts are known.
This approach is the correct one.
Armen, you are implying Berkeley High students are often armed. Why would you say such a thing? Oh yeah, a lot of Berkeley High students are black.
I personally think the danger posed by thousands of handguns tends to outweigh their utility, but I have nothing to back that up except common sense.
I also don't like the idea of strangers being able to carry something in their pockets that they could very easily decide to kill me with if they are having a bad day. (Though, sure, a person could kill me with a rock, I suppose, but guns make it a hell of a lot easier.)
That said, outlawing guns would lead to a society wherein only the outlaws have guns, and that does not seem like a sound solution to me. Indeed this "problem" of guns does not seem to have any easy solution. No one here has even pointed out the political power of the gun lobby and manufacturers, who are certainly not incentivized to allow their products to be any more heavily regulated than they already are. Basically, I tend to think that it doesn't matter what I think about guns because radical change is just not going to happen. Igor is right about that.
But what I'm more interested in here than the gun control issue, and what no one else is mentioning here is this: why does this keep happening? What is wrong with people that they have this little regard for human life? This seems like a relatively recent problem to me (Texas clocktower guy the obvious exception). It seems like people who used to be content to merely kill themselves are unhappy with the statement that such a minor expression of rage puts across. Nowadays, it's all about how many people you can take with you. Why are we not better at managing our anger, and teaching our citizens (or resident aliens) to better manage theirs?
It is this social ill that saddens me more than any gun law or lack thereof.
Mad J.D., once again you've written a post that I agree with completely. I was thinking of adding a comment about the diminishing regard for human life.
Oh and 4:12, it's actually because they deal drugs in front of my apt. But you know, whatever suits your worldview.
Three things:
1. The only reason people started commenting about gun control, politics, etc was because, I think, of Igor's original comment about how this could have been solved if the students were armed, too. It just seemed a little bit irrational. I personally wasn't going to get caught up in trying to politicize this, but yeah. Had to respond.
2. I thought Armen's Happy Gilmore reference was funny, but I'm not easily offended.
3. Just because it would be hard to do something (like say ban handguns and demand their return, with compensation given) doesn't mean it should be completely out of the question and we should just say "oh hey, that seems tough, so let's completely ignore it and move on."
mad j.d.--I agree that the lack of regard for human life is sad, but I don't agree that it is new. If anything, I think that individual lives are valued much more highly today than they have been historically. I don't want to get into a historical debate here, but suffice to say that the idea of valuing individual life is a relatively recent phenomenon. Our tolerance for death, suffering, torture, disease, etc. has diminished greatly over the centuries.
Of course, all of this just makes the massacre that much worse--it seems like these things shouldn't be happening anymore. But I don't think this happened because of a societal retreat from the supposed "good old days" when there was greater value on human life. It happened because of one disturbed individual with too-easy access to deadly weapons. There's so much blame going around today--on guns, on campus administrators, on society in general. But the blame ought to rest squarely on the shoulders of the "person" who did this.
I agree that the larger, centuries-long arc of human progress evinces less violence and more respect for life. Stephen Pinker had a good article about this in the New Republic last week. The question in why the last 10 years or so has seen a spike in mass killings, especially on campuses. That seems to be a definite trend. And it seems like—precisely because it involves young people—there is some sort of sociological force at work. What could it be? Hypotheses might include the declining stock of social capital, the glorification of violence in pop culture, increased economic volatility, anomie resulting from the routinization of human labor, disillusionment with modernity, an “unrequited desire for women” (Miranda v. Arizona), the mounting pressures of the meritocracy, the decline of the two-parent family, the turn away from a strict disciplinarian model in parenting, the anonymity and outlet of the Internet, which can focus and multiply rage, the use of pills and prescriptions as a substitute for genuine mental health treatment, the cultural trope of nihilism, the transformation and instability of social notions of “masculinity,” the easy availability of guns, the frustrated sense of entitlement of middle-class children, some of this, none of this, what Cho had for breakfast on Monday? It’s a tough question.
For all of you 2d Amendment freaks: check out the coverage of the murder of the Mayor of Nagasaki today. A number of stories are noting THERE WERE ONLY 53 SHOOTINGS LAST YEAR IN ALL OF JAPAN (proportionally, that would be less than 150 in all of the US), 2/3 of which were related to organised crime. Hmm... Sounds like banning guns may actually work. But don't worry, Bush declared today the solution to the US's almost FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND SHOOTINGS A YEAR is to "crack down on people who commit crimes."
I'd like to note that I was not the first to suggest "arming the student body." That was the very first anonymous poster, not me. Also, I DO NOT advocate arming the student body. That's silly. I'm merely saying that a select few individuals could potentially be given the option of legally carrying a weapon. And this, too, in states where concealed carry is accepted.
As to 5:58's Japan comment -- that is a really bad argument. Japan has a low crime rate IN GENERAL, not just with guns. It's a relatively homogenous country, violence is not socially condoned there, and it has BRUTAL prisons. I mean it. Read up on prison conditions there. They REALLY deter crime.
And lastly, Anon 5:58, some of America's least crime-infested areas are awash in guns. Someone gave the example of Nebraska a little earlier. Guns don't have much to do with it. It's a collection of social and societal factors, not the presence of firearms that boosts the crime rate.
And if you think guns cause crime and are really easy to get, I want to know why all of you have not gone out and killed someone? What, aren't those evil guns beckoning you to commit crimes?
4:24, I didn't mean to say that tough issues shouldn't be dealt with, just that my own reaction to this is less political than it is emotional and perhaps sociological. (Although while I'm here, demanding the return of all handguns seems laughably impossible.)
Max, point taken about overall regard to individual life, but see 5:53's honing in on what I was trying to refer to (an alarming shift in the way young people are managing their anger, or perhaps becoming more angry than ever in the first place.) Thanks, 5:53, your comment is food for thought.
I wonder how many people died in Iraq Monday?
Igor, to respond to your last question, I am guessing the vast majority of us (law students) don't own guns, nor do most of us desire to. That's one reason why we haven't gone out and shot someone.
Also, the type of person who makes it into a law school, particularly a top law school, is typically the type that exhibits more self-control, self-discipline, and long-term focus than your average person. All of this in combination w/lack of gun ownership leads to us not shooting people.
re: Prisons in Japan
As opposed to our country club prisons? You don't think the very real threat of being raped and stabbed isn't about as big a deterrent as we could come up with?
10:19, I think you mean our "white collar resort" prisons.
Anon 10:14:
It's good to know that you think that the "average person" lacks self-control, self-discipline, and long-term focus. Hope you're really into pro bono work. I'm sure you can truly sympathize with those low-browed knuckle draggers who didn't get into Boalt. Just remember -- they can't possibly have rights. They're not nearly as perfect as you. You made it TO law school. I am SO impressed!
re: Prisons in Japan
I completely agree that our prisons are horrible. But they don't deter the most violent offenders. And here is why: As we all know, gangs rule the inside of many prisons, and the most brazen, violent criminals get the greatest respect. These guys are not in danger of being raped or stabbed. Instead, they rape and stab inmates who are weaker or who do not have gang affiliation.
In Japan, prisoners are not allowed to communicate with one another in any form. Often, prisoners are even isolated. These conditions make it impossible for gangs to form and for bigger, stronger inmates to prey on the weaker ones. Moreover, Japanese guards are permitted to beat inmates. As you can imagine, the more violent ones usually get punished more severely. Therein lies the deterrent.
I agree. We should get rid of prisons. The only penalty should be summary execution, and it should only be enforced in a randomly selected, secret area that changes on a daily basis.
Igor,
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/tsgtv/index.html?id=Site9&link=TSGTVshlk
QED.
Igor, 10:14 here. Way to COMPLETELY ignore the very, very important word "more." Reread what I wrote. I didn't insult the general public or congratulate myself.
Off topic, but it sounds like UC Hastings was just evacuated because of a copy-cat threat posted on autoadmit.
https://www2.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=33502428&postID=8730913195349156588
Hastings shut down is confirmed here.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/18/BAGT4PB3H66.DTL
I usually try my best to stay away from autoadmit (because it can be racist, sexist and well, just cruel), but it's hard not to when something this horrible happens (see Hastings threat). It seems that some posters are suggesting that the author of the copy-cat threat is a Boalt student.
I hope that Boalt students have judgment than this. I honestly hope that whoever wrote that copy-cat threat is not associted with Boalt.
link to thread: http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=616457&mc=81&forum_id=2
Since I can't edit my earlier post, I meant to say that I hope Boalt students have BETTER judgment than making copy-cats threats.
But the post in question says that he decided not to do a murder suicide until tomorrow. why evacuate now?
It's not surprising that the guy is a Boalt student. We like to talk about how nice and uncompetitive we are but inside we're thinking about how we're "pwning" the "losers" at lower ranked schools. How many would be here if Boalt wasn't such a highly ranked school?
Statement on U.C. Hastings Evacuation
by Jarret Cohen on behalf of AutoAdmit
This afternoon, the dean of the University of California, Hastings College of Law, acting on the advice of the FBI, cancelled classes and evacuated the building after becoming aware of a message posted on the AutoAdmit discussion board. An individual has come forward to claim responsibility for that message, and when the FBI special agent in charge of this matter contacted me I put him in touch with this person. My expectation is that this matter will, from this point on, be handled between the poster, the authorities, and the school.
Looks like one of those types who exhibit "more self-control, self-discipline, and long-term focus than your average person" turned out to be a complete moron. Which of the Amendments do you think made him do it?
I don't know who the poster is, but his contribution to XOXO over the past year has been previously limited to creating threads like "Suggest a good bar in Rockridge." I don't think that he has been involved in any of the offensive or derogatory threads that made the board famous a few weeks ago.
I think it was a one-off example of bad judgment, preserved and exacerbated by the following poster (who incidentally IS responsible for many derogatory posts).
wait...i am confused. the person who started the thread was actually a boalt student?
Thanks to one of your 1Ls I had to miss part of my class right before finals. What's going on over there at Boalt? You guys need some actual grades to keep you busy.
This Hastings blog seems to have the details wrapped-up: http://memoirsofhastings.blogspot.com/
Wow, that is bizarre that is really messed up that it was a Boalt student who made a mass-killing threat. What the heck is going on with admissions these last few years? Also, I bet the student is one of the anonymous rightwing commenters on this blog.
"Also, I bet the student is one of the anonymous rightwing commenters on this blog."
Wow.
It's true. Rightwingers are the only people who ever exercise bad judgment. It would also be correct to extrapolate from this that he mugs old people in the street. Whatever was Ed Tom thinking in admitting these miscreants?
There is a lot of acting out on this blog by conservative students in the anonymous comments. See, e.g., attacks on commencement speaker and BHSA. It is not outside the realm of possibility one of them made the threat. In fact, I think their former actions suggest this kind of behavior is their MO.
Why can't the administration just not admit anyone whose resume doesn't show a strong commitment to liberal values? We have a critical shortage of loyal lefties here.
It's not a right/left thing. Admissions in the past few years have moved more towards higher LSATs, which means it has likely moved away from people with character who would be positive contributors to the social environment. For most people, getting a higher LSAT score requires spending a huge amount of time studying for it. That is time that could be spent being involved in the community and I'm afraid many great people who would not make that trade-off are at Hastings instead of Boalt thanks to the new LSAT focus in admissions.
McWHO!!!!!!!! Wouldn't it be something if it really was him? I kid, I kid. I just checked with him...he's clear. But I love how people ran with the tongue in cheek right wing commenter remark. One man's joke...
To 10:17 (the first):
1. Criticizing BHSA is not like making a bomb threat joke.
2. Since when is "not being outside the realm of possibility" a threshold for accusations?
3. "Conservative" doesn't mean "someone who I disagree who doesn't really belong at Boalt Hall."
Best part, I have actually been asked if it was me. Other than Armen (jerk).
For the record, No. Who isn't in class today? Let the witch hunt commence.
i'm sure many of you have heard about the threat that Hastings Law received yesterday resulting in a lock down. It has now been discovered that the threat was made by a Boalt student. Does anyone know who it is....first b/c I'm nosey and second b/c I want to make sure I'm not anywhere near that person. I'm also a little pissed that Dean E sent an email to Hastings about this and hasn't bothered to inform the actual Boalt student body!
It has to be one of the right-wing shitbags who posts on this blog. Who else at Boalt would post on Auto Admit?
I call XO flame. This blog gets cross-posted there a lot and this guy is just trying to get people riled up.
The last few comments are pretty sad. These are the sort of comments that makes people at Boalt afraid to express their views, unless they're in step with some socialist dogma. Aren't you "liberals" supposed to be tolerant?
At least if you're going to say something like that, have some guts and post your name.
Weak.
Eegs, that's why people are calling flame. Who is going to call someone a "shitbag" on a blog? Someone from the XO message board, that's who.
Anyway, from your posts, I think I am way more liberal than you and I am happy to have you expressing your views. Perhaps someday I'll even understand them!
Thanks, 12:04. You're probably right about it being someone from XO.
I don’t want anyone to think that I’m some sort of nut who opposes any restriction on firearm ownership. I’m not. But I do think that a number of current gun control provisions are poorly drafted and ineffective.
I just found the following video on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U#GU5U2spHI_4 It is a clip of US Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) on Tucker Carlson’s show, talking about a new federal “assault weapons” ban she sponsored. The bill banned firearms that had a “barrel shroud,” among other features. Carlson asked McCarthy to define the term. At first, she avoided the question at first, then admitted that she did not know what a barrel shroud was, and finally took a wild guess. “It’s that shoulder thing that goes up,” she stated. It’s not.
A barrel shroud is otherwise known as a handguard. Many long guns have them, and their sole purpose is to prevent the shooter from being burned by the barrel, which gets very hot very fast. A “shoulder thing that goes up” is most likely the stock, though McCarthys incredible familiarity with technical jargon makes it hard to tell.
The main problem with many of these gun control regulations is that people who know nothing about guns draft them. Too often, the laws address a weapon’s appearance, not it’s function. In California and in many other states, legislatures have outlawed guns that LOOK like the infamous AK-47. For example, a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine AND a pistol grip (a handle like that on the AK) is an assault weapon in California. But a weapon without the handle is not. The weapon without the handle is capable of the same rate of fire, with the same destructive effect and accuracy, but it’s not an assault weapon. Why? Because it doesn’t look like a “bad” gun. I believe the now-expired federal assault weapons ban classified a rifle with a handle and a bayonet as an assault weapon. That’s a little silly, if you ask me. It’s not like there is a national drive-by bayoneting problem.
These is just some of the many examples of ineffective gun legislation. Certainly, limitations on large capacity magazines and fully automatic weapons make sense. But limitations on cosmetic features don’t. And restrictions on safety features like a barrel shroud are not only silly – they’re dangerous. Who would want to go hunting with a guy who burned his hand every time he pulled the trigger?
I’m just going to come out and say it: I’m for gun control. But not the reactionary, ban-everything-that-looks-scary kind of gun control. Gun control needs to walk the fine line between ensuring public safety and protecting people’s Second Amendment rights. People with technical and law enforcement expertise, not sleazy politicians, need to write these laws.
Wow. I guess I'm in the dark because I just learned about this Boalt 1L posting the threat. I don't care if it was a joke, the person should be expelled from Boalt. Liberal, conservative, whatever, this is a horrible thing to do and a complete embarassment to the Boalt community. It may sound harsh, but this person has done more to embarass the school than anything/anyone else. What a sick joke.
In case there is any question about it, let's be clear: Igor is a great right-winger to have around. He's very honest and forthright about his views and always open to debate with others. And he's also one of the most pleasant people at Boalt.
Before we "hang 'em high," let's try and keep in mind the context. The Boalt student didn't send a bomb threat to Hastings; he made a crass and (incredibly) insensitive joke (if you could call it that) on a humor bulletin board. When he realized it could be misconstrued, he deleted it--and got in touch with the FBI to defuse the issue.
Hastings was absolutely right to take any ambiguous, potential threat seriously. And the Boalt student, whoever he is (and I have no idea), demonstrated both great callousness and a monumental lack of judgment. He should face disciplinary action, both for his act and for the consequences for it. But I don't think he should be expelled, and I don't think he should be trounced out of the legal profession.
Armed Miss America 1944 Stops Intruder.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/20/national/a171649D03.DTL
In response to the "wtf" from the Hastings blog that directs here:
the Auto Admit community is full of racists and extreme sexists using various slurs. Liberals, moderates, and most conservatives tend not to hang around such communities. People more toward the extreme right end of the political spectrum often do on the other hand.
Post a Comment
<< Home