ë²„ì§€ë‹ˆì•„í… 새학기 ì‹œìž‘..ì‹ ìž…ìƒ 역대 최다 ë“±ë¡
by BOB RECOTTA Published: Monday, April 16, 2007 10:42 PM CDT rrecotta@the-leader.com BLACKSBURG, VA. | Sara Marchese was studying alone in her dorm room lounge when the quiet Monday morning was shattered by an announcement over the Virginia Tech public address system. "There was 10 minutes straight of sirens," said Marchese, who is in her freshman year at Virginia Tech after graduating from Corning East High School. "Everyone in the hall was on their cell phones. We got an e-mail about the shooting. That's when we flipped on the news." Shortly after the first alarm sounded, an emergency message came over the campus' PA system. "They said it was a state of emergency, with the message repeating," Marchese said. "They told us to stay inside and keep away from windows. It was the first time the PA system had ever been used." Peter Marchese, Sara' father, received the news about the campus shooting from a message his daughter left on his answering machine. "Even on the answering machine, you heard the loud speakers going off," Peter Marchese said. "Since then, she's been in communication every 15 to 20 minutes." Sara Marchese said the mood at the college changed as the body count rose. "I was locked in with me and two good friends," she said. "When the count went from one to 20, everyone's jaws dropped." Marchese said, during the lockdown, she and her friends kept a close watch on the television news. When the three-hour lockdown ended, the atmosphere around the campus had changed. "We just went down to lunch," Marchese said. "Everyone's really down. Everyone's in shock. It was weird going in dining halls and seeing heavily armed police officers. The news was playing in the dining hall. That's not going to put a good mood in anybody." Peter Marchese was surprised such violence could explode at someplace like Virginia Tech. "When we went down to visit, it was a nice, quiet, quaint town a lot like Corning," Peter Marchese said. "This could happen to anybody." Classes at Virginia Tech have been canceled today. Marchese said she might come home for a couple days, but the violent incident hasn't changed her view of the campus. "I feel so safe here walking around," Sara Marchese said. "The place I work is a half-mile away. When I get off work at 10 or 11 p.m., I feel safe walking at night. That's why this was really shocking. It was just a fluke." -- Original Source: Corning Leader Daily http://www.the-leader.com/articles/2007/04/17/news/local02.txt Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5
Editor's Journal: Virginia Tech Shooting Hits Close To Home; The True Character Of A Generation Is Revealed
BY RICHARD McCORMACK richard@manufacturingnews.com On Thursday afternoon April 19, three days after the shootings at Virginia Tech, my wife and I put our dog in the car and headed south to visit our son, a senior engineering major at the university. As we drove four hours from Washington, D.C., through the Shenandoah Valley, I imagined what it must have been like for the parents of the slain children taking that same drive just a few days earlier, calling repeatedly to their children's cell phones, silently ringing: leaving messages you'd never want to hear. So thankful was I to the Lord that it wasn't me having to take that drive in a state of panic and delirium. As we approached Blacksburg, I missed the exit for Main Street, a quicker road to my son's apartment. It bothered me. I was tired and anxious to get there and I had added another five minutes to the trip. I sighed and continued for another couple of miles to the main entrance to Tech. I had not expected to be on campus -- anticipating a route that bypassed the school to my son's townhouse. We took a right turn onto campus, drove a quarter mile past the visitor's center and approached the big "VT" letters on the left of the road. And I shuddered. Here we were, suddenly at the site of calamitous pain and bloodshed, the uninterrupted focal point of the global media for the past three days. It knocked the air out of my lungs. I struggled to take a breath. My chest constricted; speechless, dizzied. These events -- Columbine, Waco, Jonesboro, Oklahoma City, 9/11, the Washington sniper, the Amish elementary school, the Iraq war and now Virginia Tech -- are no longer an aberration but are defining the new American culture: one of unfathomable loss of innocents at the hands of suicidal maniacs. What nightmare awaits us next? We drove slowly through the quiet campus, feeling beat up from the week's events. We arrived and hugged our son and his roommates. They are all incredible people; struggling with the incomprehensible, but maintaining a sense of humor, one of them hilariously mocking the killer's idiotic video performance. Thank God for the youth of today. Our politicians, business leaders and academicians should stop castigating them for being indolent or ill equipped for the future, because they are neither. In the days following the tragedy, the students at Virginia Tech defended themselves with the utmost rectitude from a second wave of snipers -- this time the press corps -- and they gallantly rallied around their beloved university, around each other and around their embattled leaders. In the face of despair and in a state of shock, they showed us the future of our nation: one of hope, inspiration and tolerance. I have three children, ages 23, 22 and 18. For 23 years, I have resented criticism about the deplorable state of our youth and our educational system. There are an incalculable number of extremely bright, energetic and infinitely talented, motivated children and young adults, none of whom have ever been "left behind." Need evidence? Only 12 percent of the applicants to MIT were accepted for the 2007 school year, or 1,533 out of 12,433. "It was very, very hard to select such a small number of students in such a large and stellar applicant pool," said former MIT dean of admissions Marilee Jones. Or how about Stanford, which sent letters of acceptance to 1,715 of the 23,956 applicants, 7 percent. Even a huge school like Virginia Tech received 19,000 applications for a freshman class of 5,000. Read the obituaries of the fallen Virginia Tech students and you know how much worse off the world will be without them, and that is only 32 students in a school of 26,000. Our children have been flailed by politicians and armchair critics and pundits, self-fashioned smarter-than-anybody-else people, none of whom were in my house as my children stayed up until 1:30 a.m. on weeknights completing their AP history papers, studying for tests in calculus, physics and chemistry, writing stories on deadline for the high-school newspaper or -- this very night -- reading "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. And it wasn't me pushing them, either. They did it on their own. It is time for the critics to shush up. We have put a lot on our children: the real-life specter of a calamitous death at the hands of madmen; a seemingly terrorized future with regards to a "generational" global war on terror; the specter of an ecological catastrophe; and enormous budget and trade deficits that they will have to pay off someday, somehow. And dare not mention the cost and sacrifice involved in providing and getting an education today. Our society has pulled the rug out from under them. They're on their own, yet they exude a collective and refreshing sense of optimism and confidence. The burden of the war in Iraq is also falling squarely on their shoulders. Our young soldiers are courageous and heroic. Their entire generation will be carrying the scars from this conflict for the remainder of their lives together. No other generation is currently carrying such a heavy load. Yet do you hear them complain? Ever? If you need to experience the future of this country, to gauge the character of our youth and the inspiration and hope that they provide for mankind, then log onto the Virginia Tech Web site and watch the convocation that was held the day after more than 170 bullets were shot in four classrooms. President Bush's benediction was among his finest showings in six years. Watch the event through to the end, for the final minutes capture for eternity one of the great moments in American history. When the Earth is waste and void, when the darkness is upon the face of the deep, the human spirit does prevail. At the end of the convocation, after the grieving students have listened to the adults, they get to have their collective say -- in a cathartic, unplanned and exhilarating 30-second burst of energy; a release of unfathomable tension and grief; a redemptive moment that burns itself to memory. As my wife observed, it is as if they were opening the gates of heaven to their fallen peers. Thank you young Hokies for showing us the true character of your generation. We needed that. You will prevail. http://www.hokiesports.com/convocation.html -- Archived with permission of the author. Original Source: Manufacturing and Technology News, April 27, 2007, Volume 14, No. 8 http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/07/0427/art1.html
Richard McCormack (editor@manufacturingnews.com)
EDITORIAL - Media exploits killer's manifesto
By: STAFF EDITORIAL Posted: 4/20/07 Just days after the tragic shooting at Virginia Tech, NBC made the inappropriate decision to release videos of killer Cho Seung-Hui angrily ranting about the reasoning behind his crimes. Cho had sent a package that contained 43 photos, 28 video clips and a 23-page letter directly to NBC headquarters in New York during a break in his shooting spree on Monday. After NBC first released the shocking "multimedia manifesto" on the NBC Nightly News broadcast, 24-hour news networks quickly followed suit, constantly showing the disturbing video excerpts and photo clips. The media's release of Cho's photos and diatribe gave a deeper look into the mind and motivations of the killer, a decision that has had a great ripple affect across the country. While NBC stands by its decision to release the material, we believe the choice was made too hastily, without much thought or sensitivity for the families of the victims of the shooting, who have only had days to handle the emotional effects of losing their loved ones. Forensic psychiatrist and ABC News consultant Michael Welner appeared on "Good Morning America" yesterday to discuss the troublesome consequences. "This is a social catastrophe," Welner said. "This is perversion...[Cho] needs to create and produce his own picture in order to give himself a sense of power. Nobody saw him that way...that's why he set this up and he did this to achieve immortality." Welner's argument is logical. This footage does not present the public with any deeper knowledge about the crimes and, for that reason, it is not at all newsworthy. Instead, showing the video is a disrespectful and insensitive action toward the Blacksburg victims. Furthermore, the broadcast footage gives the fame-seeking Cho an audience and a stage where he can attempt to justify his crimes. In other words, it gives him exactly what he wanted. The problem is that 24-hour news networks have the unsettling habit of overeagerly reporting breaking news before having time to reflect upon the consequences of their coverage. NBC and other media outlets are pressured to constantly search for exciting and stimulating material to put on the air and as a result, they neglect to spend time on research and deliberation. That's what went wrong here. Cho's video collection was treated as news gold and was broadcasted without enough forethought. NBC and the other news networks had an obligation to act more responsibly. The videos and photos should have been carefully investigated before they were broadcast. Someone should have sat back and reflected upon the material and the negative repercussions that could follow. Unfortunately, our media tends to do this kind of thing all the time. As soon as we turn on our televisions, we are bombarded with news tickers, terror alerts and breaking stories that are blown up and emphasized to the extreme. Networks play on fear and paranoia to attract viewers, giving us shocking and reactive spurts of material that only serve to rouse our emotions. Instead of focusing on being the first to get the scoop, NBC and other media outlets should concentrate on thoughtfully investigating material before putting them on the air. -- Original Source:The Pitt News - April 20, 2007
EDITORIAL - Va. shooting cause for reflection
By: STAFF EDITORIAL Posted: 4/17/07 Many news outlets are calling it "the deadliest shooting rampage in U.S. history." For us, yesterday's shootings at Virginia Tech were a horrible tragedy, and they're also a reminder for all of us to examine our own campuses. We join college students across the nation in extending our condolences to the families and friends of the Virginia Tech students who died yesterday. Certainly those students were in the forefront of our thoughts and in the background of our actions today. Shock will diminish and the bleak reality of this heinous event will become clearer in the days to come. It's too early to know many of the important details of the shooting, but we do know that this will have an effect on college campuses across the country for years to come. Many students watch or read the news and wonder if their own campuses would be able to handle a similar situation. We also wonder if the communication methods in place now are capable of keeping us abreast of developing situations on campus - not all of us have PDAs and BlackBerrys. Certainly, entire university communities are going to be looking for answers from their own administrators about safety measures that are in place and how they'll be augmented to better handle potential future emergency situations. In the hours after the shootings, it seems as if many are quick to blame Virginia Tech for the shootings. After a thorough investigation into Monday's events is completed, Tech might receive criticism for its handling of the shootings - it might not. But as is the case at most campus, you do the best you can - universities and colleges aren't necessarily responsible for the actions of disturbed people. They certainly can't check every single person at every single door in every single building on their sprawling campus. They have to maintain security on campus while striking a careful balance with civil liberties. Chancellor Mark A. Nordenberg, in a statement to The Pitt News, said "We offer our heartfelt condolences to the friends and families of the victims and stand ready to be of assistance to members of the Virginia Tech community in any way they would find helpful." And we hope that the college community in Blacksburg will be able to find solace in the offers of condolences from people across the world and be able to recover from an event that has already affected so many, from the victims to their families and to all of us who watch the television and read the stories online and ask: Why? There has never been an act as violent in college history, and we hope that the future does not hold anything more tragic, but instead a chance to work with members of the community to make sure that we minimize the chances of this ever happening again. -- Original Source:The Pitt News - April 17, 2007
Editorial: Absolute campus security impossible, but UM moving in right direction
By:Anonymous Issue date: 4/20/07 As reality sets in after the shock of Monday's terrible shooting at Virginia Tech, another issue has already come up, which we all would do good to address immediately. The issue, of course, is campus security. One can debate for hours whether or not Va. Tech's administration did enough to protect the students that fateful morning, but there is no question students should be protected. College campuses are like their own little world-they are microcosms that, quite simply, operate on their own plane. University students and faculty operate on their own schedules, through their own methods, based on their own values and with their own sets of characters, players, movers and shakers. Considering this, it is easy to forget that college campuses are not actually physically removed from the world and, as such, are at least as vulnerable to the dangers, sorrow and violence that go with it (perhraps even more so, due to their open and accessible nature). Thus, a dilemma: Adding too much security, or restricting movement, would eliminate the openness and warmth of campus grounds, severely detracting from the atmosphere and choking the general freedoms the university environment is supposed to facilitate. At the same time, it was this very openness that helped enable Cho Seung-Hui to not only kill 32 students, and eventually himself, but also to have the time to mail one final message to NBC in between the two shootings. Unfortunately, as much as is done to bolster security, one must come to the realization that there will always be people driven over the edge and this type of crime is, realistically, unpreventable. As long as firearms exist, so will disturbed people who will want to and be able to use them in terrible ways. However, it is possible to minimize the damage caused by these types of shootings in many ways. Thankfully, the university has taken all the necessary steps at this time to reevaluate and update their security plans. One area in particular is commmunications. The importance of communicating with students and others was made starkly clear in Blacksburg Monday and UM should be applauded for looking into every means available to notify students in a crisis situation. Overshadowing most of the other methods is the hope that all students will register their cell phone number on MyUM in order to receive instantaneous alerts, via a recording and hopefully soon by text messaging. But this plan is wholly dependent on the students' participation. The Hurricane would even go so far as to say the university should require students to submit a number, with special exceptions for those without cell phones. A campus-wide PA system would be highly effective, as well, similar to those in the dorms. As the affected and the nation start to heal, it is time to also look forward and do what we can to avert another tragedy of such proportions. It is not an easy task, but the above suggestions are a good start at making our campuses safer, while not compromising -- Original Source:The Miami Hurricane - April 20, 2007
April 27, 2007 By Editorial Board It is a tough line to walk: simultaneously respecting those affected by tragedy and reassuring the community in a time of crisis. This year has seen numerous examples of the administration's sincere efforts to negotiate that line with the handful of student suicides and most recently with its response to Stanford students on the Virginia Tech shootings. But in each of those cases, we wish the administration would have spoken directly to all of us, or in instances in which they did, perhaps spoken sooner. An unknown number of classmates have taken their lives this year with no acknowledgement at all by the administration. Last week, it was more than 24 hours until we received an official response to the Virginia Tech tragedy. Undoubtedly, many factors go into the process for announcing a death in the community or responding to a tragedy at another school. In phone and email conversations, Director of University Communications Alan Acosta and Vice Provost for Student Affairs Greg Boardman said that the issue of family privacy rights should not be overlooked. While Acosta acknowledged that "there are a number of things you have to do right away" when dealing with tragedy, we don't understand entirely how the University's support network of Counseling and Psychological Services, the Bridge Peer Counseling Center or the Office of Religious Life assists students who are merely trying to determine if the rumor of their classmate's death is true or not. This year alone, rumors of numerous suicides plagued the student body, and in those times it was hard to find a student who really knew the truth of what was happening at Stanford. Boardman's email to the student body the day after the Virginia Tech shooting was appreciated. Students needed to hear his support — we just wish it had come a little earlier. Those who live and work here expect Stanford to be there for them. The student body was never notified after some suicides. We do not expect a front-page story in the Stanford Report from the administration, but we do hope for a brief message to acknowledge a friend has passed away. Comments on this article: Stupid editorial - 4/27/07 What exactly is the editorial board asking for? The administration to send out mass e-mails detailing every aspect of a community member's death? The Stanford News Service already acknowledges (in a tasteful way!) Stanford community members who pass away. Maybe it was a slow news day today, but the Stanford Daily needs to realize that a student death is a rare occurrence, but if one does occur, the utmost sensitivity is required and respect for the families should be a top priority. This is obvious to everyone but those intrepid Daily writers? We need to remember that these are very private, delicate matters and families might not wish to broadcast all kinds of details to the world. That is perfectly understandable and, absent any danger to campus safety or any other issue that might require the immediate attention of the campus at large, there is no reason why the widespread dissemination of all details surrounding a particular death ought to be required for Stanford News Service. The following line from the editorial is particularly ridiculous: "This year alone, rumors of numerous suicides plagued the student body, and in those times it was hard to find a student who really knew the truth of what was happening at Stanford." So the paper is basing this whole editorial on rumors? What evidence does the paper have that a particular death was never acknowledged by the administration? Sometimes it seems like the Stanford Daily editorials are written hastily and with little regard for common sense. Re: Stupid editorial - 4/27/07 I totally agree that this is a stupid editorial. The Stanford Daily was recently criticized for a long delay before they reported the death of Mo Morsette. And even when they did report it, it was not the top story of the day. It looks like, after some soul searching, the editorial board has decided that Stanford Administration is to blame, because the administration doesn't acknowledge student deaths quickly enough. After all, if someone doesn't tell the Stanford Daily that there's a death on campus, then how are they supposed to know? It's not like they're a NEWSPAPER with JOURNALISTS who are supposed to so FOOTWORK before they print stories. Daily is grasping at straws - 4/27/07 The Daily's editorials have been going downhill for quite a while now. This one is perhaps one of their worst ever. What exactly is the benefit of criticizing the administration's response to the VT massacre? Brave Editorial - 4/27/07 Stupid Editorial, it's your kind of overly sensitive, well-meaning but ultimately silly thinking that lets Bush get away with banning the media from soldier's funerals. I can understand respecting the family's privacy, but Mo Morsette was also a fellow member of this community - I would expect a complete investigation into what led him to take his own life, not in the interest of airing dirty laundry, but in the interest of helping other people who feel the same emotions that plagued him. This school is an intense psychological environment filled people whose incredible intelligence often dovetails with complete social maladjustment - it does not reflect well on Stanford to sweep things like this under the rug in the interest of "privacy." -- Original Source: Stanford Daily - April 27, 2007
Permissions granted by James Hohmann Editor-in-Chief The Stanford Daily <jhohmann@stanford.edu>
By: Posted: 4/18/07 As expected, even before tears were able to dry, and before the reality of the Virginia Tech tragedy could really set in, officials began discovering details about what happened Monday morning. Yesterday, Americans saw the face of the shooter -- the first step in putting the pieces together in this country's deadliest shooting. And with that name came information about Cho Seung-Hui's troubled past. He was taking medications to treat psychological illnesses, according to an April 18 New York Times article. Pieces that Cho had composed for a creative writing class contained violent material, concerning one professor so much that she had passed the work onto police and other officials. Reports about Cho's criminal tendencies spurred much speculation about why it wasn't addressed before he caused nightmarish destruction. It also inspired security leaders and university administrators across the country to meet and discuss how to improve campus safety. The Boston Police Department met with administrators from surrounding universities to review their own security procedures. One of the biggest things that came out of Tuesday's conversation was the need to find potentially dangerous students and pluck them out before they follow in Cho's footsteps. While officials are correct in holding these meetings because safety is so important and relevant to consider, this sort of psychoanalytical prevention must just be the very start of security discussions. Leaders were merely addressing the most important evidence that had come from the Virginia Tech case at the time. But when more specifics come about what enabled the gunman to strike twice, leaders must try to never repeat whatever mistakes police made Monday. It is unrealistic to think school counselors can identify potential mass murderers within enormous student bodies like those at Virginia Tech, Boston University, Northeastern University and many other colleges. Afterall, not everyone who writes disturbing material about death in an English class is a possible criminal. The reality is that the two murders at West Ambler Johnston Hall were not preventable. However, it is possible that if students had known of the first shooting almost immediately after it happened, fewer might have been shot two hours later at Norris Hall. But until all the details of the shootings surface, it will remain unclear what could have been done. After the first shooting, police began tracking the boyfriend of the female victim, but during their pursuit, the second series of shots were reported at Norris Hall, according to the Times. University officials cannot completely improve security based on unknown errors. Monday's massacre must be put under a microscope. Police need the closest possible look at everything that transpired on the Virginia Tech campus to learn what went wrong, what could have been prevented and what was unfortunately inevitable. Only when all of this is revealed will officials know how to improve university security. -- Original Source: The Daily Free Press - April 18, 2007
By:Anonymous Posted: 4/19/07 When a chilling multimedia package containing 27 video clips, 43 still pictures, a 23-page document and one audio clip composed by cold-blooded Virginia Tech murderer Cho Seung-Hui arrived on NBC's doorstep at Rockefeller Plaza yesterday morning, the station's editors faced a difficult decision. They held in their hands a firsthand account of Cho detailing his twisted motives. With such information comes tremendous responsibility. NBC had the power to shape public perception about the deadliest shooting in U.S. history. But should it provide viewers the valuable details they deserve while giving the gunman the publicity he clearly wanted? It had to be an incredibly difficult decision to make, but on its "Nightly News" broadcast, NBC aired video clips, pictures and words from Cho's package. And the broadcasting corporation handled its reporting as tastefully and tactfully as it could have. Before even thinking about putting the information on the air, NBC contacted the FBI so investigators could begin looking at the vital material. NBC executives understood that it is more important to contribute to the case than it is to immediately post breaking news. But NBC also understood the public has the right to learn as much as possible about the killer. Most will never understand Cho's motives, but everyone deserved to hear them. If NBC knew details but didn't expose the pertinent ones, it would not have been doing its job. Before releasing any footage or sound bytes, though, Brian Williams made sure to preface the broadcast by saying the station knew it would be "airing the words of a murderer." And NBC had to be careful when doing this. If people who share Cho's beliefs think a violent rampage can warrant mass exposure of a killer's message, airing an overload of footage could inspire copycat actions. Cho's actions themselves mimicked past rampages. In his statements, Cho made reference to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the 1999 Columbine High School murderers. Cho's motives, lifestyle and tactics in many ways mirrored the two Colorado killers. And yesterday, BU experienced a copycat threat following Cho's massacre. Part-time BU student Andrew Rosenblum told a woman he dated that he wanted to recreate the Virginia Tech shootings at her Wheelock College campus. But sadly, these threats will surface regardless of whether the media provides all the information or not. As a journalistic enterprise, NBC News had the responsibility to tell the story as it developed. And by carefully combing through the material in the package, NBC offered the most current and telling story it could yesterday. -- Original Source:The Daily Free Press - April 19, 2007
By:Anonymous Posted: 4/17/07 On one of the most celebratory Mondays on Boston's calendar -- a day when students forget about classes and hit the streets for a citywide party -- the Virginia Tech campus was in shock and mourning. In the deadliest shooting in U.S. history, a gunman murdered 32 community members and wounded 15 others before taking his own life yesterday. This page can barely begin to express its deepest sympathies to the Virginia Tech community. When Boston University loses any one of its members, the campus has a difficult time recovering. To lose 32 community members in fewer than three hours is unimaginable. The most frightening element of this tragedy is that it was virtually unpreventible. No matter how much money a university pours into its security plan, no matter how often safety procedures are rehearsed, little can prevent a suicidal gunman from going on a rampage. This mass murder is part of the violence this country has been forced to become accustomed to. Many may not consider Monday's shooting an act of terrorism, but that is exactly what it was. Ever since Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris killed 12 of their classmates and a teacher in Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, this sort of terrorism has been part of our reality. But that doesn't remove the distress and pain felt after it happens. Blacksburg, Va. may be more than 700 miles from Boston, but the emotions still hit close to home. College students have a connection to universities across the country. Most students know someone, or have a friend of a friend, or have some other tie to Virginia Tech. Even if students don't have these personal connections, they have the bond of being college students -- going to class, sleeping in late, going out on weekends and being close to friends. And sadly the thought about the possibility of a gunman coming into their classrooms and opening fire is a concern that crosses many students' minds. But no one can possibly fathom what this horrific experience would actually feel, sound or look like. Hopefully, most never will. Virginia Tech will likely never fully recover from what happened yesterday. Coping with the most destructive shooting this country has ever seen will be a slow and seemingly impossible task. Though it may sound insincere or contrived because it will be so difficult, this message isn't meant to be such: We wish the speediest recovery to the Virginia Tech community. -- Original Source:The Daily Free Press - April 17, 2007
Aug. 20, 2007 Anytime a tragedy occurs we ask ourselves how it could have happened and how it can be prevented from ever happening again. So in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre, gun rights advocates began calling for the repealing of bans on carrying concealed weapons on school campuses. The national organization of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus is one such group. There are eight chapters of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus in Texas, the most of any state. Current Texas law forbids the carrying of concealed weapons in places like school campuses, places of worship and government property -- even if a person is licensed to carry. Arlington senior Andrew Sugg, head of Baylor's SCCC chapter, seeks to make it possible for students to arm themselves at Baylor. Groups like these have to use circular logic to reach their conclusions. Because a deranged individual brought guns onto campus, Sugg and others believe they should be allowed to bring theirs in order to protect themselves. What the gun lobby conveniently forgets is that the mental history of Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho should have prevented him from ever obtaining a gun in the first place. Cho's mental history was recognized by a Virginia court in 2005, and due to inconsistencies between federal and state law, he was not entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The problem is not with the laws, but with the ability of the system to work properly. If it did, Cho would not have been able to purchase a gun and the conversation may not have gone in this direction. While it is clear that the response time of Virginia Tech's campus police was inadequate, this does not mean we should allow anyone who has gone through a criminal history check and a safety course to be a substitute for law enforcement. This vigilante attitude of circumventing the responsibility of law enforcement could potentially create many serious problems. The majority of people who receive licenses to carry concealed weapons are responsible individuals, but they do not receive nearly the same level of training to handle situations that police do. Although they do not receive the same amount of press coverage as a school shooting, accidents involving guns are far more common. According to the Centers for Disease Control, there were 776 accidental deaths and 75,685 injuries from firearms in 2001. It would be naïve to say that if bans on guns at these locations are repealed, there would be no accidents as a result. The purpose of banning concealed weapons in certain places is because the state has a responsibility to ensure the safety of its citizens in those locations. How wise would it be to allow someone to carry a concealed weapon to a stadium? A church? Better yet, how about an airport? Baylor police chief Jim Doak was quoted in Baylor Line magazine saying it would be "unwise" to lift campus bans. We couldn't agree more. Baylor SCCC has good intentions at heart -- making campus safer. But before we arm ourselves, there are other steps we can take that are both easier to implement and less double-edged. One step is to have better emergency planning. School lockdowns for threats are commonplace at our nation's high schools -- the capacity for emergency response should be no different in colleges. Another step is to better enforce the laws and have tighter background checks. Too many loopholes in state and federal laws are allowing people who shouldn't be able to, to get guns. Even if state laws are changed, Baylor as a private institution has the right to ban concealed weapons on its own. We hope it continues to keep its rules in place, even if state schools allow concealed carry on their campuses. -- Original Source: Baylor University http://www.baylor.edu/Lariat/news.php?action=story&story=46387
Aug. 20, 2007 Anytime a tragedy occurs we ask ourselves how it could have happened and how it can be prevented from ever happening again. So in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre, gun rights advocates began calling for the repealing of bans on carrying concealed weapons on school campuses. The national organization of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus is one such group. There are eight chapters of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus in Texas, the most of any state. Current Texas law forbids the carrying of concealed weapons in places like school campuses, places of worship and government property -- even if a person is licensed to carry. Arlington senior Andrew Sugg, head of Baylor's SCCC chapter, seeks to make it possible for students to arm themselves at Baylor. Groups like these have to use circular logic to reach their conclusions. Because a deranged individual brought guns onto campus, Sugg and others believe they should be allowed to bring theirs in order to protect themselves. What the gun lobby conveniently forgets is that the mental history of Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho should have prevented him from ever obtaining a gun in the first place. Cho's mental history was recognized by a Virginia court in 2005, and due to inconsistencies between federal and state law, he was not entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The problem is not with the laws, but with the ability of the system to work properly. If it did, Cho would not have been able to purchase a gun and the conversation may not have gone in this direction. While it is clear that the response time of Virginia Tech's campus police was inadequate, this does not mean we should allow anyone who has gone through a criminal history check and a safety course to be a substitute for law enforcement. This vigilante attitude of circumventing the responsibility of law enforcement could potentially create many serious problems. The majority of people who receive licenses to carry concealed weapons are responsible individuals, but they do not receive nearly the same level of training to handle situations that police do. Although they do not receive the same amount of press coverage as a school shooting, accidents involving guns are far more common. According to the Centers for Disease Control, there were 776 accidental deaths and 75,685 injuries from firearms in 2001. It would be naïve to say that if bans on guns at these locations are repealed, there would be no accidents as a result. The purpose of banning concealed weapons in certain places is because the state has a responsibility to ensure the safety of its citizens in those locations. How wise would it be to allow someone to carry a concealed weapon to a stadium? A church? Better yet, how about an airport? Baylor police chief Jim Doak was quoted in Baylor Line magazine saying it would be "unwise" to lift campus bans. We couldn't agree more. Baylor SCCC has good intentions at heart -- making campus safer. But before we arm ourselves, there are other steps we can take that are both easier to implement and less double-edged. One step is to have better emergency planning. School lockdowns for threats are commonplace at our nation's high schools -- the capacity for emergency response should be no different in colleges. Another step is to better enforce the laws and have tighter background checks. Too many loopholes in state and federal laws are allowing people who shouldn't be able to, to get guns. Even if state laws are changed, Baylor as a private institution has the right to ban concealed weapons on its own. We hope it continues to keep its rules in place, even if state schools allow concealed carry on their campuses. -- Original Source: The Lariat http://www.baylor.edu/Lariat/news.php?action=story&story=46387
Julie Freeman (Julie_Freeman@baylor.edu)
Editorial: The necessary right of self-defense
From the May 2007 Print Edition Respectfully observing tragedy is never easy. Tempering a respect for the deceased and their families with a desire to draw upon lessons from the tragedy to prevent future occurrences is touchy. Indeed, allegations have already been levied that some have exploited the Virginia Tech shootings for political gain. Within hours of the attack, gun-control advocates began a full-fledged campaign against gun-rights politicians, as many in the media were quick to call for increased regulation of guns, ostensibly to prevent future tragedies. We at the Patriot give our condolences to the families of the deceased, and pray for a quick recovery of those affected by the attack. At the same time, we take a firm stand against gun-control advocates who attempt to offensively use the recent tragedy to silence other voices. The aftermath of Columbine was no different. Second Amendment advocates were branded "insensitive" and politicians seized the opportunity to put gun-control measures on the table. However, Virginia Tech bears little resemblance to Columbine. Though the first two student deaths in the dormitory were unexpected, the subsequent slayings in Norris Hall could have been prevented with adequate campus security and warnings. The issue at question should be the shoddy campus security and an administration's apparent complacency in the face of red flags; campus officials issued only an e-mail warning to students after the first two victims were found murdered. Virginia Tech's administration is not unique. UC Berkeley's own stance on security is laughable, in the face of a locus of crime around People's Park. Vagrancy exists as a catalyst for crime, yet is permitted to continue. Admittedly, muggings and university shootings are on separate planes, but the complacency about student safety is the same. Unfortunately, it takes a tragedy before bureaucratic and disconnected administrations get serious about student safety. Despite the fact that the Virginia Tech administration could have done more to secure the campus, gun-control advocates nonetheless spuriously seized the opportunity to make the Second Amendment the primary culprit. However, existing gun-control laws outlawed the killer from having guns. Even The New York Times pointed out that existing laws "made the killer ineligible to purchase guns" since law "prohibits anyone who has been 'adjudicated as a mental defective ...' from buying a gun." The killer slipped through existing statues because enforcement of such laws is spotty. Local mental-health records are often not synchronized with national records, which let killer Seung-Hui Cho slip through. Gun-control advocates shouldn't be championing more legislation, but instead should be focusing their efforts on enforcing existing laws. Even if one philosophically supports additional gun-control laws, they would only serve to stretch existing enforcement budgets thinner, and result in a net decrease in enforcement. Yet reasons to oppose gun control aren't just pragmatic. Freedom is often confused as the philosophical justification for the Second Amendment. However, the philosophical base for the right to bear arms is much more profound. Such a right empowers individuals to defend themselves, so they don't have to leap out of windows when threatened by mentally defective maniacs. It gives individuals the ability to defend themselves when a government or administration does not take the adequate steps to protect them. During the rampage, students were at the mercy of the killer and the Virginia Tech administration. Were even one mentally stable student, instructor, or janitor armed, the outcome would have likely been much different. Far from demonstrating a need for extensive gun control, the Virginia Tech tragedy demonstrated the dangers of relying heavily on a bureaucratic entity for protection. It's true that enforcement of existing laws could have helped prevent the tragedy, and a more vigilant administration could have prevented two deaths from turning into 32. The underlying lesson to take from the tragedy, however, is markedly different. At the end of the day, neither a university administration nor government can ever be trusted to safeguard an individual's safety, because such amorphous bodies lack the direct accountability to do so. The university president and security force may lose their jobs over the tragedy, and that may compel future officers to be vigilant. Yet the students who barricaded themselves into classrooms won't forget that they owe their lives to their own abilities to save themselves, not to a university administration, police force, or government. -- Original Source: California Patriot Online http://californiapatriot.org/magazine/issue/8/8/editorial Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License
By:Anonymous Posted: 4/24/07 Many believed last week's Virginia Tech shootings would trigger immediate gun-control legislation from the Democrat-controlled Congress. But apparently, that won't be the case. Rep. Michael Capuano seemed to represent the Democrat majority's attitude Monday when he said tackling gun control is "just not worth it," as reported by an April 23 Boston Globe article. He said although he would ideally like to support stricter gun-control laws, putting up a losing fight on such a divisive topic could be political suicide. Capuano added it would be a difficult battle because, when it comes to Congress, "the NRA has this place wrapped up." And most other Democrat leaders seem to agree. But that doesn't mean the fight shouldn't be made. Some of this country's greatest societal changes came after long struggles. The United States entered a civil war in part to end slavery. Activists lost their lives fighting for civil rights in the 1960s. Gay marriage is an undying debate on Capitol Hill. Change is never easy. The last time Democrats held a majority in Congress, they made headway on gun control. In 1994, President Clinton passed a federal ban on selling semi-automatic weapons. This ban expired in 2004 under a Republican Congress. Now that Democrats have regained dominance in the legislature, gun control should be championed again. Many Republicans will see gun-control efforts as an irrational reaction to the Virginia Tech tragedy. Too much emphasis on the issue will appear as if Democrats are trying to take advantage of emotional circumstances to push their agenda. But gun-control efforts are necessary even if they are reactionary. Politics are about responding to society's demands and addressing issues that need to be fixed. It cannot be stressed too often that April 16 was the worst shooting in U.S. history, and it should have been prevented. In 2005, a Virginia court determined Cho Seung-Hui to be mentally ill. Virginia law prevents people who are mentally ill from buying weapons, yet he still acquired the weapons that killed 32 people and himself. Background checks must be more thorough for purchasing guns. There must be more strict limitations on what types of weapons can be bought. Such legislation may be reactionary, but it is appropriate. When 32 innocent people are murdered, Congress not only has the right to respond, it has the responsibility. -- Original Source: The Daily Free Press - April 24, 2007