« Obama Links VT Shooting to Iraq and Outsourcing | Main | Suspicious Activity at Burruss Hall at VTech »

I blame society

Yesterday, I wrote a very angry piece about the Virginia Tech shooting. As can be expected, it provoked a lot of emotional responses.

Unfortunately, some of them were more emotional than I was prepared to handle. For comments that were too intense, I found I banned fred, nukem high, jack, and civil behavior. In fact, jack was banned three times.

It's partly Kevin Aylward's fault. He is the one who owns this site, and he didn't properly secure the banning rights on this blog.

It's partly Movable Type's fault. They set up the blogging software that runs Wizbang, and they simply made it too easy to ban commenters with just a few clicks. They definitely need to improve the safety measures.

And, I hate to blame the victims, but it's their fault, too. They should have known how some people get very worked up over things like this, and should have taken steps to protect themselves, to make sure they didn't provoke this senseless act.

In the end, though, I find I have to take some of the blame. I was really in no condition to think clearly when I was reviewing their comments.

In light of this incident, I have asked Kevin to temporarily relieve me of my responsibilities as Main Page Editor while I go into rehab. I haven't quite decided what sort of rehab is appropriate for my condition, but as I understand it rehab is the panacea for things like this and in just a few weeks, I will be free and forgiven and able to resume my duties.

In the meantime, I ask for your understanding. Also, if anyone has any way I can get hold of Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, I understand that their forgiveness is a key step in my public rehabilitation...

In case anyone missed the "satire" tag, let me spell it out for you: this is SATIRE. No individual was banned or otherwise harmed in the production of this piece. Do not remove tag under penalty of law. Contents may settle during shipping. Your mileage may vary. Do not operate heavy machinery while reading this posting.


Comments (55)

People would rather blame x... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

People would rather blame xyz than accept we have scumbags who need to be put down. They would rather believe we can child proof the World than actually address these scumbags.

Jay: Rather than banning le... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

Jay: Rather than banning left (or right) wing off the wall comments. I would prefer to see you ban any two bloggers that get into a "pissing" contest over whose is bigger, or the meaning of "is". It seems as if once they get started they are unable to quit hitting the "post" button.

REHAB....lol now if only yo... (Below threshold)
Knightbrigade:

REHAB....lol now if only you had used the other "F" word....ya know............ say HI to Ann for me.

Damn it all to hell!<... (Below threshold)
marc:

Damn it all to hell!

I HATE satire tags. I want REALITY!

civil[mis]behavior should have been gone long ago.

CURSE you satire tags.

(DISCLAMER: This commmet is not meant, nor intended to be satire)

P.S I blame the satirists that write for The Simpsons for my extreme disappointment.

A common thread that one ca... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

A common thread that one can observe running through many public blogs is the impulse to "ready, post, aim."

That is, some (like Jack) spew emotion without doing the least but of research. It wasn't the Bush administration who blamed someone for this tragedy. Predictably, it was Democrats and their flacks.

And animus is present right from the get go with these individuals. Something is under their skin and you're going to have it stuck right in your face.

I hope to God Jack doesn't own a gun.

Unless you drive down the h... (Below threshold)
Candy:

Unless you drive down the highway with an unretrained infant, get out of a limo with your crotch showing and shave your head, I can't take your rehab attempt seriously.

Okay, that's the first step... (Below threshold)

Okay, that's the first step, admitting you have a problem. There's 11 more but it's one day at a time.

That's the first laugh I've had in a couple of days...thanks.

Also, if anyone has any ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Also, if anyone has any way I can get hold of Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, I understand that their forgiveness is a key step in my public rehabilitation...

Not to put you down, Jay, but I think you may not be high profile enough for them. Perhaps you could have a sit down with Oliver Willis?

/ducks

There seems to be no end of... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

There seems to be no end of people willing to disregard/discard the plain language of the constitution. Takes my rights...please, is the Dangerfieldesque call of the day. Unbelievable.

"I would prefer to see you ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"I would prefer to see you ban any two bloggers that get into a "pissing" contest over whose is bigger, or the meaning of "is"._USMC pilot"

Ergo.
There's "pissing" and debating. They're not the same. I like seeing who is first to shift the argument. Wheel their flank for a rear action. Can their center hold? Nope. Which make it a fair system. A "pisser" has his poor reasoning pinned to the undertaker's wall!

Adds DEPTH IMO.

JayTea: I lis... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

JayTea:

I listen to FOX Radio (all day!) so I know: no one was clambering for Don Imus's head like 2 certain Fox programs. Before Obama or Sharpton said a thing, Gibson and Kilmeade were doing the PC cha-cha all over the ballroom floor. DISGUSTING!

Wheel their flank for a ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Wheel their flank for a rear action. Can their center hold? Nope.

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity. WBY

Yeats. (yeah, the clue!)</p... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Yeats. (yeah, the clue!)

Show-off:)

Jay,Thanks for the... (Below threshold)
Matt:

Jay,

Thanks for the laugh!

"Objects in rear-view mirro... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

"Objects in rear-view mirror are closer than than they appear."

Mere words are loosed upon ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Mere words are loosed upon the world.
Electron wracked, and whipped into frenzy,
They're hurled, heavily laden,
Eroding the rock of ages,
And smoothing the shining shore.
======================

Ah well, were we not so pla... (Below threshold)
kim:

Ah well, were we not so plastic, we wouldn't be here.
===============================

"The gunman blamed for t... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"The gunman blamed for the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history had previously been accused of stalking two female students at Virginia Tech and had been taken to a mental health facility in 2005 after an acquaintance worried he might be suicidal, police said Wednesday." (source)

This guy should never have been able to buy a gun. The gun laws need to be changed.

"Unfortunately, some of the... (Below threshold)
Rovin:

"Unfortunately, some of them were more emotional than I was prepared to handle. For comments that were too intense, I found I banned"

NOT TO WORRY Jay.....I'm sure you had a pile of "comment intensity" credits on hand.

Give our best to Britney, J... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Give our best to Britney, Jay.

We'll see you in 28 days.

Lee,This ... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Lee,

This guy should never have been able to buy a gun. The gun laws need to be changed.

I agree in theory, but what you need to take into account is this guy was never commited, he never went to prison, he had no record. There was no little red sticker on his license that said "Accused of stalking two female students"

I'm not sure what change in the existing laws would rectify this problem.

Heh, woops. I just re-read... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Heh, woops. I just re-read your link, Lee. It doesn't say if he was actually committed to the facility though, just that he was taken.

"Objects in rear view mi... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

"Objects in rear view mirror are NOT the objects in front of you.

Please watch where the f you are going."

OK, Lee, I read your link. ... (Below threshold)
kim:

OK, Lee, I read your link. What is the matter in that English Department?
===============================

Lee, quite frankly I agree ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Lee, quite frankly I agree that this Cho should not have been allowed to have a gun. I ask this question: Had he carried one openly would he have been allowed to keep it?
========================================

Lee:I liked you sa... (Below threshold)
jFO:

Lee:

I liked you satirical piece. I just wish you weren't so quick on the trigger when others are satirical.

"It doesn't say if he wa... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"It doesn't say if he was actually committed to the facility though, just that he was taken."

The police had been alerted back in 2005 (this from the same article I linked above).

Cho Seung-Hui had concerned one woman enough with his calls and e-mail in 2005 that police were called in, said Police Chief Wendell Flinchum.

He said the woman declined to press charges, and neither woman was among the victims of Monday's massacre on the Virginia Tech campus.

During the stalking second incident, also in late 2005, the department received a call from an acquaintance of Cho's who was concerned that he might be suicidal, and Cho was taken to a mental health facility, Flinchum said. About the same time, in fall 2005, Cho's professor informally shared some concerns about the young man's writing but no official report was filed, he said.

The second amendment and the current gun laws protected Cho's right to legally buy a handgun.

That needs to be changed.

Lee, so accusing somebody w... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

Lee, so accusing somebody without any proof is enough to take away somebody's Constitutional rights? Accusing somebody without following through is enough to take away their Constitutional rights?
Interesting.
I guess that's a good way to get around the 2nd amendment. Anti-gun people would just hang around gun stores and gun shows, write down some license plate numbers, call the cops and accuse the people of "stalking" them, never actually follow through on it, and that person can never buy a gun again.
That's a nice way to take away rights.

Question for you Lee, is there some way I can accuse you of something so you lose your right to free speech? Just curious.

And no, I'm not saying the guy didn't stalk the girls or do whatever he was accused of, I don't know, but there was no follow up and no criminal record. That's the point.

"Lee, so accusing somebo... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Lee, so accusing somebody without any proof is enough to take away somebody's Constitutional rights?".

In my opinion, the police should have been alerted when Cho tried to buy the gun, allowing them to investigate. If they determined that he had an adequate reason then they would let him buy the gun, fine --

-- but given the history we now know about Cho (and that the police knew at the time he purchased the gun a couple of months ago) I would hope the police would come to the conclusion that he should have been denied his constitutional right to murder 32 people, yes.

It amazes me that the dimme... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

It amazes me that the dimmers cannot come to grips with the second amendment. Alright, let's change it. You have to be licensed to purchase. Also, you have to get a license to voice your opinion on web site, t.v. and other media. The press needs to be licensed before they can print or report a story. Where would it end. Many people have been harmed permanently by words.

The second amemdment protects us from the government. As the other Bill of Rights do. Come to terms with it. It is there and it will stay. ww

OK, Lee, given these set of... (Below threshold)
kim:

OK, Lee, given these set of circumstances, how would you have prevented him from getting a gun. And I noticed you didn't answer my question, would he have been allowed to continue to carry a gun had he done so openly?

Remember, I grant he shouldn't have gotten one. As someone pointed out, his ID didn't come with stickers announcing his stalkerhood. The police didn't charge him. He wasn't committed. He may or may not have taken anti-depressants, presumably as a result of mental health care. He did no overt act that was a threat to himself or others, yet people feared him. How would you have kept him from getting the gun?

I think the police failed, I think the mental health team failed, I think the English Department and the University failed. This guy was not in connection with reality, people knew it, and no one was able to do anything about it. That's not a problem with gun laws. I blame it on society.
======================================

but given the history we... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

but given the history we now know about Cho (and that the police knew at the time he purchased the gun a couple of months ago) I would hope the police would come to the conclusion that he should have been denied his constitutional right to murder 32 people, yes.
He was accused not convicted. As such, the police had no such right.

My scenario for people falsely accusing all gun owners is where your solution leads.

I've got the analogy that fits. In many jurisdictions felons can't vote . So I accuse you of a felony. I never follow through, you are never convicted.
Therefore, following your logic, you can never vote again.
See? We are a nation of laws, not feelings or hindsight.

"I've got the analogy th... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"I've got the analogy that fits. In many jurisdictions felons can't vote . So I accuse you of a felony. I never follow through, you are never convicted. Therefore, following your logic, you can never vote again. See? We are a nation of laws, not feelings or hindsight."

I didn't say he should have been denied solely on the basis of previous accusations, did I?

I said given what the police knew two months ago at the time Cho bought the gun --- specifically the previous stalking accusations (two), his mental health facility "visit", and the concern expressed to the police by one of Cho's professors regarding the violence in CHo's writings, should certainly (in aggregate) have been reason for the police to question Cho on his need for a handgun.

As I said, if after questioning him the police then determined that he had a valid reason for the gun, then fine -- but given these red flags I would hope that he would have been denied.

It all depends on the answers he gave to the police at the time he would ahve been questioned baout his desire to buy a handgun -- and I'll go so far as to say perhaps someone with Cho's history should be required to have a lie detector test and be asked why they want a gun as a condition of getting a gun while connected to a lie detector.

It's fine to have a law that denies all felons convicted of violent crimes the right to buy a handgun. The question is at one point do we draw the line for those who haven't been convicted, but who have shown valid reasons for concern?

At a minimum, Cho should have been questioned by the police about his reason for buying a handgun. He wasn't.

Note to self: accuse Lee of... (Below threshold)

Note to self: accuse Lee of a major felony a day or two before the 2008 elections.

J.

J'accuse!... (Below threshold)
mantis:

J'accuse!

There's no doubt to me that... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

There's no doubt to me that people saw this coming.

Our politically correct, hurt no one's feelings and leave not one out attitude stopped preventative steps from being taken.

"Note to self: accuse Le... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Note to self: accuse Lee of a major felony a day or two before the 2008 elections."

Fine, but make it a really cool felony - like kidnapping Bill O'Reilly and forcing him to be Rosie O'Donnell's maid for a week.

You can't be excused with a... (Below threshold)

You can't be excused with a visit to 'rehab' unless you are a member of a clearly designated (D)emocrat-party approved victim-class.

Failing that you have to humiliate yourself to the point no one ever worries you will ever have an erection again and THEN you can request temporary admission from a leader of a clearly designated (D)emocrat-party approved victim-class.

Imus was failed in spite of his previous contributions.

Lee, you are still avoiding... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

Lee, you are still avoiding the point, he was convicted of nothing. You can't deny Constitutional rights on suspicions. That's one of the reasons America is.
China, Russia, the EU and various other dictatorships are where you get denied your rights based on suspicions.

What we have here is a failure of properly characterizing this guy's mental illness.
Yes, the symptons were all there, but..... what about the hospital where he voluntarily committed himself? The could have classified him as "mentally incapacitated" and he doesn't get a gun. They could have classified him as a "danger to society". They're the mental health professionals, not the State Police.
We definitely have problems with diagnosing and treating mental illness, that's the problem in this case, not the laws on purchasing firearms.

State Police are not mental health officials, they could not have made any such diagnosis.
As far as asking why he wanted it, the answer is, "Because I do." That's all he would have to say. Or are you saying that a murderer would actually say to the police, "Because I want to kill some people."? Since he chained the doors shut, he obviously had at least an inkling of cause and effect.
Sorry, suspicion and non-proscribed activity (voluntarily entering an asylum) are not reasons to deny rights.

"Lee, you are still avoi... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Lee, you are still avoiding the point, he was convicted of nothing. ".

I'm not avoiding your point, I'm making my own point that we should learn from this incident that we can't wait for a conviction.

There was enough evidence of a problem to warrant some investigation when this guy wanted to buy a gun. I'm not saying (for the 4th time) that he should automatically be denied a gun on the basis oif the accusations --

-- but the two accusations of stalking AND the mental hospital visit AND the professor who told the police about Cho's distrubing, violent writings should be ground for an investigation when someone like this goes to purchase a handgun.

Had the police been notified when Cho went to buy a gun this senseless lose of life might have been prevented.

As I understand it, Virgini... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

As I understand it, Virginia State law requires a backrground criminal check when a gun owner buys a gun ...This should be widened to include those who have had some recorded mental illness as well. Plus, I think it would only be prudent if the universities were notified if one of their students, who are on some kind of disciplinary list, buys a firearm. ..Nanny state type regulations, but this shouldn't infringe on any of the lawabiding sane citizens. and at the same time be enough of a nuisance, to make it more difficult for the psychotic homicidial maniacs to achieve their ends.

I do not think I can adequa... (Below threshold)

I do not think I can adequately describe, in words, just how much it sickens me that somone, arguably a human with the possibility of rational thought, would be willing to deny another human's Constitutional and personal rights, simply on the basis of an assumption.

The fact of the matter is that Cho was not convicted of anything. He was not labelled with any of the psychological catchphrases that would disqualify him from firearm ownership (which, as has been pointed out, is a fault of the medical industry, NOT the firearm industry). There was absolutely nothing available for the police department, the store from which he procured the firearm, or anyone else to deny him his Constitutionally-granted right to purchase the firearm.

Maybe if the Virginia Tech officials had listened to his english professor a little more closely when she expressed her concerns over his writing styles and mental condition, this might have been alleviated. Maybe if the hospital to which he voluntarily admitted himself had taken the time to give him a thorough examination, this could have been avoided.

But the very second you have the police force operating off of assumptions, accusations, and "feelings", as opposed to honest-to-God evidence, convictions, and documented facts... well, welcome to 1984 all over again. if you want a nation of Big Brother watching over everyone's shoulders, documenting every possible foible as evidence of "mental instability", go right ahead. Me, I know it for the idiotic nanny-state go-se it really is.

Accusations mean nothing. There was nothing to notify the police of, since he was not convicted of anything, and since the hospital did not feel the need to diagnose him appropriately. End of story.

Or, if you believe differently, what accusation(s) against you do I need to make to have another one of your Constitutionally-protected rights stripped away - namely, free speech? Because, if it works for one, you had damned well apply it to all of them.

Apologies for the double po... (Below threshold)

Apologies for the double post, but...

Of course, Lee is correct on one thing - it is the current laws which caused this atrocity. If the students of VTech had been allowed to arm themselves as some of them are legally able to do (off-campus, though), this situation could have been stopped cold in its tracks... as it has been in the past.

Right idea, Lee. Wrong target.

Veeshir: "Yes, the sympt... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Veeshir: "Yes, the symptons were all there, but..... what about the hospital where he voluntarily committed himself? "

Earlier in the day Wednesday, authorities disclosed that more than a year before the massacre, Cho was accused of stalking two women and was taken to a psychiatric hospital on a magistrate's orders because of fears he might be suicidal. He was later released with orders to undergo outpatient treatment.

Linoge: "There was absolutely nothing available for the police department, the store from which he procured the firearm, or anyone else to deny him his Constitutionally-granted right to purchase the firearm."

That needs to be changed, for obvious reasons. Just ask the relatives, friends, and loved ones of the 32 killed.

How would Cho's precious 2nd amendment rights have been violated by having the police question him on his need to purchase a handgun?

"But the very second you have the police force operating off of assumptions, accusations, and "feelings", as opposed to honest-to-God evidence, convictions, and documented facts..."

- Two stalking accusations
- A magistrate-ordered psychiatric hopitalization
- A professor's conversation with the police about a young, disturbed student who's violent writings gave this experienced professor cause for concern.

The documented facts and honest-to-god evidence is all there for anyone who cared to put the pieces together -- and we deparately need laws that compel the police to investigate in these instances before allowing these types of individuals to buy handguns.

The fact of the matter is that there are still enough Americans who care more about their precious guns then they do the lives of their fellow Americans -- and hopefully, someday, that will change.

"Or, if you believe differently, what accusation(s) against you do I need to make to have another one of your Constitutionally-protected rights stripped away - namely, free speech? Because, if it works for one, you had damned well apply it to all of them."

I'm not suggesting (for the 5th time now) that accusations alone are enough to take away anyone's 2nd amendment rights, UNLESS an investigation reveals it's necessary. We can't wait until AFTER the felony is committed to bar criminals-in-waiting from gaining access to weapons like this.

Surely, if you were the police chief and knew about the two stalking accusations AND the hospitalization AND the professor's concerns you would have investigated before allowing Cho to have a gun, right Linoge?

We need laws that compel the police to investigate further before a gun is purchased by this kind of individual with this kind of background.

- Two stalking accusatio... (Below threshold)

- Two stalking accusations

Accusations mean nothing. I accuse you of murdering my entire family. Good luck with getting a firearm in the future (assuming you would even consider it).

- A magistrate-ordered psychiatric hopitalization

Which resulted in the complete lack of a diagnosis. Means nothing.

- A professor's conversation with the police about a young, disturbed student who's violent writings gave this experienced professor cause for concern.

Which was ignored, and amounted to nothing.

Of course, the word "nothing" sums up your "argument" quite nicely.

I love your phrasing of "this kind of background"... it brings to mind a quote by a certain Martin Niemoller. *shrugs* I knew it was senseless to try and debate with you, as such, you win, and enjoy.

Sadly Jay, you are beyond r... (Below threshold)
Joe:

Sadly Jay, you are beyond rehabilitation. Because, upon your return, you will still be espousing the same "same old, same old" tripe that you produce in truck loads, such as Israel is faultless, Palestine is bad, Massachussets is a renegade and backwards state, Democrats are evil, I dont know much about the law but; Wikipedia learned pieces of history and that old chestnut, a particular favourite of mine, the self congratulatory, I am such a great writer!

Run on sentence.====... (Below threshold)
kim:

Run on sentence.
============

Lee knits cheerfully to the... (Below threshold)
kim:

Lee knits cheerfully to the rumble of tumbrils.
==============================

He was later released w... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

He was later released with orders to undergo outpatient treatment.
He was taken there, not committed. There's a huge difference.
Your point appears to be that the State Police should have done something. As you yourself have noted, he was in a mental institution and they let him go, he was undergoing outpatient treatment.
You wrote A magistrate-ordered psychiatric hopitalization.
No, it was a magistrate-ordered psychiatric evaluation. The psychiatrists let him go.
So the professionals at the psychiatric hospital let him go and you want the police to overrule their diagnosis? That's.... interesting.

This is a failure of the mental health system.
There were many hints that he was crazy. The class he was kicked out of because most of the other students refused to attend because he was there was one major one.

You seem to think the State Police should be arbiters of mental health, that's not their job.
That's the whole point.

I understand that you feel that something has to be done, okay, I can understand that. But.... creating a police state isn't the answer.

"So the professionals at... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"So the professionals at the psychiatric hospital let him go and you want the police to overrule their diagnosis? That's.... interesting.""So the professionals at the psychiatric hospital let him go and you want the police to overrule their diagnosis? That's.... interesting."

I keep forgetting that the reading comprehension level of many conservatives is at grade-school level, so no matter how often I repeatedly say:

there was enough evidence for the police to investigate further

and

the stalking accusations alone are not reason enough to deny him a gun, but are reasons enough to investigate further...

You morons just don't get it, and keep waving your stunted limbs with such stinging rebuttals such as "means nothing". My, that's a thoughtful and reasoned response.

Anyway, we all know that in America the gun lovers still outnumber the relatives and loved ones of senseless killings such as this, so there won't be a change anytime soon -- but someday you children will have to put away your toys, and this country will be better off when that happens.

Lee, I have made effort to ... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

Lee, I have made effort to not insult you, nice way to prove that you got nothing by resorting to insults and calling me a moron because I disagree with you. I'll show you how to call somebody a moron, an idiot and more. You point out exactly why they're a moron. It also helps if your example of why they're a moron doesn't prove that you're an idiot.

My reading comprehension was greater than yours by the time I was in 4th grade.

Your reading comprehension is poor and your analytical skills are non-existent but your willful ignorance skills are excellent.

Where did I say the police shouldn't investigate further?

The professional mental health workers let the guy go. What you are suggesting is that police should be arbiters of mental health.

You obviously are in favor of the police deciding for us exactly which Constitutional rights we get to keep.

How about you move to Cuba or better yet, North Korea and see how that system works?

And as a further esample of your moronity whereby your accusation proves you to be the moron
the stalking accusations alone are not reason enough to deny him a gun, but are reasons enough to investigate further...

That's why they sent him to the hospital to be evaluated you moron.

As for this
Anyway, we all know that in America the gun lovers still outnumber the relatives and loved ones of senseless killings such as this, so there won't be a change anytime soon -- but someday you children will have to put away your toys, and this country will be better off when that happens.

You really are an idiot par excellence. Our Constitution has allowed our nation to excel beyond all others ever but you want to get rid of the second most important part of it, according to how the Founding Fathers felt, as can be seen by the placement.

I will say one thing, we've lasted far longer than they expected. They figured morons, ignoramuses and willfully-ignorant fools like you would have screwed things up long before now.

The funniest part? I am pretty well armed. If we both lived in New Orleans during Katrina and you knew me, you would have been knocking on my door to protect you.
Moron.

Poor reading comprehension ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Poor reading comprehension equals: "The professional mental health workers let the guy go. What you are suggesting is that police should be arbiters of mental health."

Where did I suggest they should? I didn't - I said the fact that he was admitted should have been reason enough (combined with the stalkings and the professor's concern) to investigate further. I never said that the police would or should be determining Cho's mental health status --only that they should have, given all of those flags, investigated.

That has to be the forth or fifth time I've repeated this - and thank you for demonstrating my point about the poor reading comprehension levels of you morons, so I"ll stop there.

As I said, I'm bored with badminton - why don't you go ask your mom or dad if they'd like to weigh in on this issue, Veeshir - because you just can't keep up?

Maybe you and your mental midget minions are suffering brain damage from the gun cleaning fluid you huff (just for fun, of course)? I'm really at a loss as to how anyone can be that dumb.

And for the umpteenth time,... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

And for the umpteenth time,
they did "investigate further" when they took him to the hospital and the professionals let him go.
I know, you think they should have re-investigated what had already been investigated when he tried to purchase a gun.

I'm sorry, I expected you to be an adult but all I got were insults for my trouble.
I won't bother with you again.

"they did "investigate f... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"they did "investigate further" when they took him to the hospital and the professionals let him go. "

What I've been saying -- all along now -- is that laws should have been in place to compel them to investigate (on the basis of all of those red flags) when he tried to buy the gun.

We needs laws in place so that when Cho attempts to buy a handgun it should have triggered the investigation by the police, and I'm sure a reasonable police chief would have decided not to let this guy have a gun because of those red flags.

In other words, we can have laws that don't infringe on Cho's right to own a handgun unless local police -- weighing all of the evidence they have before them -- decided he shouldn't. How is that a problem?

If that had taken place here - if the police had denied him the right to own a handgun based on the stalkings, hospitalization, and professor's concerns --- would you have stood up 2 months ago and and defended Cho's right to buy a gun, knowing the evidence that the police used to deny him the gun? I expect not.

Lee, you're a crass authori... (Below threshold)
kim:

Lee, you're a crass authoritarian. Your government peering at you shouldn't be any problem for you. The law would have tagged him had he been admitted to the psychiatric hospital. The doctor made a mistake, because this organized psychotic fooled him. It is almost impossible to prevent all acts of madness.
================================




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy