And thus, another anniversary for a heinous and tragic event is created.

[Azarkon]

Remember that post earlier where someone said the gunman was a 24-year old Chinese student? That came from an early "rumor" circulating around the net, and which was picked up by media sources as reliable as FOX News and the Chicago Sun Times. I think some of these sources even posted this guy's pictures online as that of the potential culprit, based on the fact that he was 1) Asian 2) in his 20's 3) a Virginia tech student and 4) apparently had photos where he poses with guns. He then received a multitude of death threats and phone calls from people who believed that he was the criminal in question - all because of the rumor. Read the blog - you'll get it.

[Aram]

Why would they send death threats to a guy who, if he really was the guy, had already commited suicide?

[Gfted1]

Because they are stupid.

[metadigital]

Bingo!

[Walsingham]

death threats to a guy who was already reported as dead? Sheesh.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6564653.stm

 

Reports that he had in fact already been referred for counselling, but that no-one seems very bothered about whether he had gone to it, or what was done for him. I see it seems he also set fire to something in his dormitory, was an unresponsive loner who stalked women and was generally known for railing against the 'corruption' all around him. Sounds like your bog standard star-spangled forebrain to me. One more black mark against the university.

 

Having said that I do think it's going a tad far to suggest that mental health care is the whole solution. It's a complex issue. What's your view then, Gorgo?

[Azure79]

I'm Korean. I hope I'm not mobbed and beaten.

[Tigranes]

I'm korean as well, living in NZ... anyway, let me offer some words on that perspective, other than the 'guns' argument, which has always been well covered.

 

So when the incident first happened, there was a general feeling amongst the Korean community that it was "America at it again". The image of America as a place of moral decline is reinforced with such events and the implication was that only in a place such as America could such despicable happenings happen so often (there was a fatal shooting at RPI recently). So imagine their shock when they find out that he was a Korean. Even though he's been in US since he was 8, and was as much "American" as he was "Korean", many of the Koreans I know responded with acute embarrassment, as if they somehow shouldered some of the social responsibility or the shame of having one of their countrymen commit such acts.

 

The way I see it, we cannot make such bold assertions about one's demographics anymore - whereas decades and centuries ago being a "Korean" or an "American" carried certain moral, behavioural, cognitive and cultural codes which were very rarely broken out of (indeed, most could not imagine thinking and acting in any other way), this is not really the case anymore. This it not to say it doesn't matter what country they are from, but it is rather amazing for me to see how the national identity still takes the foreground in media and public discussions. To me it does not really matter in this case whether the man was Korean, or Chinese, or White American. There will have been very similar social and epistemological reasons that something like this happened, happens, and will happen with such frequency. As reference, I have seen Koreans who came to NZ when they were 7-8 as well, and they are extremely 'un'Korean - they dont eat Korean food, hardly speak Korean, don't watch Korean news or Korean media, don't consume Korean products, don't interact with other Koreans, and their moral values are distinctly western or New Zealandian. This isn't a simple blame game where you pass it around between different countries; the problem and the 'blame' lies in an entirely different sphere.

 

Sadly, issues such as nationality ("look, this happened in US, look, a Korean did it") and stupid scapegoats ("We found out that he used to play ****ing tetris when he was 6, therefore video games are at fault"... remember Columbine?), will soon overtake any proper discussion of social issues or even the acknowledgment of the tragedy. We are already seeing the media describe him as a loner with issues; he will be stereotyped into a disturbed individual who was a loner, and his anti-socialness supposedly lead to a sort of madness; wouldn't be surprised if he was subsequently linked to Goths, video games, alternative culture, and whatnot.

[Sand]

He was just a human lashing out in a most violent manner possible. Nationality is irrelevant.

[Guest Accept]

Wtf...

 

[Sand]

 

We have a WTF moment! WTF! Indeed.

[Pop]

Probably an automated, keyword-based search system. When I log into my email I get all sorts of ads about soda. Same deal.

[Fenghuang]

It's still funny.

 

In a black humor way.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Seems like this is another tragedy that had some signs. I guess the shooter wrote a play in which he is molested by his stepfather and wants to kill him, writing such poetic phrases as 'die ****, die!'.

 

Hindsight is always 20/20, but it is a shame someone couldn't have looked into this further.

Edited April 18, 2007 by GreasyDogMeat

[Aram]

Of course, the last time a school tried to take action based on something some kid wrote, half the internet exploded with outrage.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Yeah, I can just imagine if something was done the headlines would be shouting about the teachers stifling free speech at Virgia Tech or some other nonsense. Its just hard to accept that nothing could be done about it... especially with such 'signs'.

Edited April 18, 2007 by GreasyDogMeat

[Aram]

Unfortunately, even if people were able to see that this kid was wierd, then what? So the kid is quiet, keeps to himself, and writes naughty stuff. Arrest him? Get the government involved, because the kid is wierd? Most of us on this very forum are probably wierd too, and we play violent videogames and listen to Slayer and have probably written our share of smut too. A couple of us have posted pictures of firearms and swords. Do we really want to see the government investigating us for these things? Do we want them forcing us to see shrinks and take drugs?

 

Most often, you can't really tell if a kid is actually dangerous or just a little odd until they actually do something. After that the key is knowing how to react and how not to overeact. When you look to the nanny state to do something that ultimately solves little and restricts freedom for yourself and everyone else (ban violent games and movies and books, punish eratic behavior, turn public places into security zones, ban firearms and flammables and knives and blunt objects) you go into dangerous territory. It's not worth the little bit of security you might gain.

[Walsingham]

Aram, it's not about being weird. its about:

 

Weird + History of actual criminal damage + social isolation + deadly weapons.

 

At least so it seems to me.

 

Like I say, although far from perfect the UK has at least some mechanism whereby this could have been nipped in the bud. Certainly at the point he was referred for counselling someone would have been on the case.

[Aram]

Aram, it's not about being weird. its about:

 

Weird + History of actual criminal damage + social isolation + deadly weapons.

 

At least so it seems to me.

 

Like I say, although far from perfect the UK has at least some mechanism whereby this could have been nipped in the bud. Certainly at the point he was referred for counselling someone would have been on the case.

 

Well, I forgot about that second one, but I don't believe that the other three are enough that the government needs to send someone to get involved in your business.

[Gorgon]

How do you find these people anyway. Give anyone a questionare ?

[Fenghuang]

Online surveys.

[Blarghagh]

Points of interest:

 

A former teacher of the gunman expresses that if there was a way for teachers to get their students to counseling this whole tragedy might have been averted. Any thoughts?

 

The international debate this has spawned has been about the right to bear arms. Generally the concencus here is that the right to bear arms will always lead to a vicious circle of violence. Any thoughts?

 

Jack Thompson predicts the shooter will have Counterstrike installed on his computer. Any thoughts?

 

Personally, I predict this is probably the outcome of a terrible upbringing and not enough attention payed to mental problems. I think there should be more government-based help for parents trying to raise their kids. Any thoughts?

 

I am non-religious so I will not say something akin to "my prayers go out to blah" like so many of my non-religious friends have been hypocritically doing, but I will say that the ones who live on will find the closure they need to carry on their lives.

[Tigranes]

Weird + History of actual criminal damage + social isolation + deadly weapons.

 

Without the second bit, it's not much. There are numerous clever tricks the media all over the world are pulling, consciously and unconsciously, in order to make Cho much more deviant than evidence strictly says. He might actually really be a super-weirdo with mental problems, of course, and it is likely - but there is a lot of assumption goingo n here.

 

A) Anti-social behaviour. Now whoever said anti-social behaviour and social isolation is a direct cause of mental derangement and/or criminal activity?

 

B) His writings. They're not your average uni kid's creative writing, but sure as hell they're not nearly as bad as some film scripts that are aired nowadays, or short stories or novels by published, respectable authors. I mean, Old Boy was pretty screwed up, so should the director go get therapy? What about published stories involving amazingly graphic scenes of rape? Extreme violence on screen? All these things were meticulously conceived of by someone. *only* in hindsight does it seem like it was a blatant warning sign.

 

C) The media initially signalled Emily Hillscher as Cho's girlfriend and used it to try and find a 'reason' for his behaviour. Now we know that, according to Emily's close friend, Emily probably didn't even know who Cho was, and already had a boyfriend. Media and politicians, and all of us to an extent, always try to find reasons as to why they did such things. Because if Cho was a perfectly normal and socially well-integrated person, then the spectre of deviance cannot absolve society of this crime; it falls on all of us to look in ourselves and ask, are we too a potential murderer. If we can however say Cho in certain ways was not normal and disobeyed the laws of our society, in this case by being antisocial, disturbed, etc, then we can take comfort in the fact that our society is fine and works well, its just those outside that social norms that need to be helped / controlled.

 

D) And that is why retarded idiots like Jack Thompson believe that once again video games are the culprit. Video games are not the culprit. Neither are violent films, nor antisocial behaviour, and so forth, in and of themselves. They are simply phenomena on their own that compound a problem that has already existed in this person and in our society. One part of it is that person himself: it is no use pretending that Cho is completely a victim of external forces, because in the end it was him who allowed himself to descend into a level of mental disarray that led him to commit such acts. Another part of it is our society and our epistemology, which has created certain laws of social interaction and relationships. In our society, everybody notices loners such as Cho, but because we find it difficult to approach strangers and want to respect their privacy, nobody tries to build a relationship with them. In our society being a loner in and of itself is a sin and is something shameful. In our society you are allowed to be different, but often your difference must be kept private; in public, in interaction with anything but those closest to you, you would do well to present an affable personality that in many communal circles is remarkably similar. Our codes of behaviour and interaction can choke us to varying degrees, and it is no surprise that alienation, loneliness and shallowness of relationships are some of the most recurring and relevant themes in our society. How many people have we seen commit similar acts such as Cho's and have similar personalities?

 

E) If people really wanted to stop this kind of thing from happening more and more, they need to stop trying to find that one magical solution, such as banning video games or violent films or guns or whatever: they need to think about what underlying tendencies of our society have created an environment and circumstnace in which, reaacting with the personal elements within Cho and other such people, result in a dangerous level of mental disarray and murderous desires. I too am willing to bet that he may well have Counter-Strike installed on his computer, or looked at hardcore porn, or listened to heavy metal (but then, apparently he listened to Pop too, so huh.). I can find no words for those who would latch eagerly on to such things and proclaim condemnation save those of utter disgust.

Edited April 18, 2007 by Tigranes

[metadigital]

Weird + History of actual criminal damage + social isolation + deadly weapons.

 

Without the second bit, it's not much. There are numerous clever tricks the media all over the world are pulling, consciously and unconsciously, in order to make Cho much more deviant than evidence strictly says. He might actually really be a super-weirdo with mental problems, of course, and it is likely - but there is a lot of assumption going on here.

 

A) Anti-social behaviour. Now whoever said anti-social behaviour and social isolation is a direct cause of mental derangement and/or criminal activity?

Depends on the type of behaviour and the response to assistance. From my (admitedly limited) information, the boy had some clear issues with his co-students. I think part of the difficulty might be that he was in a sub-community; not that sub-communities are necessarily deleterious, just that I think it was a contributing factor to the concealment of his underlying illness.

B) His writings. They're not your average uni kid's creative writing, but sure as hell they're not nearly as bad as some film scripts that are aired nowadays, or short stories or novels by published, respectable authors. I mean, Old Boy was pretty screwed up, so should the director go get therapy? What about published stories involving amazingly graphic scenes of rape? Extreme violence on screen? All these things were meticulously conceived of by someone. *only* in hindsight does it seem like it was a blatant warning sign.

I haven't seen any of his writings, have you? My information (again, quite limited) was that the writing showed a pattern of illness. I would be hesitant to cite popular culture as an example of ill writing ... without some more professional (i.e. psychological) investigation. I've seen Old Boy, and while it isn't a film I'll be rushing back to see, it was a good film (well written, well directed, well acted, etc) that did what it set out to do: create a whiplash-inducing plot twist and have people think long and hard about filial relationships. Again, I have little information (and so I am cautious about making statements of the scope that you are) but I believe this boy's writings were distinctly abnormal to the point of illness.

C) The media initially signalled Emily Hillscher as Cho's girlfriend and used it to try and find a 'reason' for his behaviour. Now we know that, according to Emily's close friend, Emily probably didn't even know who Cho was, and already had a boyfriend. Media and politicians, and all of us to an extent, always try to find reasons as to why they did such things. Because if Cho was a perfectly normal and socially well-integrated person, then the spectre of deviance cannot absolve society of this crime; it falls on all of us to look in ourselves and ask, are we too a potential murderer. If we can however say Cho in certain ways was not normal and disobeyed the laws of our society, in this case by being antisocial, disturbed, etc, then we can take comfort in the fact that our society is fine and works well, its just those outside that social norms that need to be helped / controlled.

He obviously had an unhealthy fixation on the first victim. And he was obviously ill enough to kill her ("If I can't have you, no-one can" being the warcry of the criminally insane) FIRST. That means it was significant. The poor girl just didn't fathom the magnitude of the threat posed by the shooter.

 

Perhaps that is the lasting lesson that society must take from this incident.

D) And that is why retarded idiots like Jack Thompson believe that once again video games are the culprit. Video games are not the culprit. Neither are violent films, nor antisocial behaviour, and so forth, in and of themselves. They are simply phenomena on their own that compound a problem that has already existed in this person and in our society. One part of it is that person himself: it is no use pretending that Cho is completely a victim of external forces, because in the end it was him who allowed himself to descend into a level of mental disarray that led him to commit such acts. Another part of it is our society and our epistemology, which has created certain laws of social interaction and relationships. In our society, everybody notices loners such as Cho, but because we find it difficult to approach strangers and want to respect their privacy, nobody tries to build a relationship with them. In our society being a loner in and of itself is a sin and is something shameful. In our society you are allowed to be different, but often your difference must be kept private; in public, in interaction with anything but those closest to you, you would do well to present an affable personality that in many communal circles is remarkably similar. Our codes of behaviour and interaction can choke us to varying degrees, and it is no surprise that alienation, loneliness and shallowness of relationships are some of the most recurring and relevant themes in our society. How many people have we seen commit similar acts such as Cho's and have similar personalities?

• Jack Thompson is an opportunistic slime worm. He is just feeding off this tragedy (like others). He might not even believe this argument; he certainly believes it will make him famous and rich.
  
• My information (again very limited) was that the students actively tried to involve the shooter in their social interactions. Anyone who has lived in the US will recognise this socially-inclusive behaviour as normal.
  
• I disagree that preferring one's own company is looked on as antisocial. I prefer my own company. I don't think any (sensible) person is saying that a preference for one's own company equates to a dangerous person. But it is a correlating factor that, along with other factors, might indicate that the person has problems interacting with others in society.
  

E) If people really wanted to stop this kind of thing from happening more and more, they need to stop trying to find that one magical solution, such as banning video games or violent films or guns or whatever: they need to think about what underlying tendencies of our society have created an environment and circumstance in which, reacting with the personal elements within Cho and other such people, result in a dangerous level of mental disarray and murderous desires. I too am willing to bet that he may well have Counter-Strike installed on his computer, or looked at hardcore porn, or listened to heavy metal (but then, apparently he listened to Pop too, so huh.). I can find no words for those who would latch eagerly on to such things and proclaim condemnation save those of utter disgust.

I couldn't agree more that simplistic answers are pointless, shallow attempts to solve complex problems.

 

There are, what, seven million copies of Counter-Strike currently installed? I don't see them all out shooting people. A correlation is not an indication of a causal relationship; this is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

 

The real tragedy is that long-term solutions, that require sustained funding and efforts over periods of time longer than a political term, and that require more than a passing glance at the problem to provide a cogent remedial response. No-one wants to talk about mental health; one of the main reasons is that mentally ill people are more a danger to themselves than to others: most will take their own lives rather than even dream of hurting others.

 

 

 

Edit: I just saw the interview with one of his (creative writing) teachers and she had thought his behaviour odd enough to have set up a signal and contact the police. The police couldn't act, because he had no overt threats; the "trouble was beneath the surface". He was referred for counselling.

 

He was identified as a potential risk (to himself if not others) and the intervention was ineffectual. THAT is the issue.

[metadigital]

What I see as a possible way forward is to change the process of gaining fire-arms.

 

The absence of evidence of pathological behaviour is only relevant if there is a history. Just as I cannot take out a loan without proving myself as a good credit risk, so too should potential gun owners have a probationary period where they can demonstrate their soundness of mind. Much like a driver or a pilot has to sit an exam and prove competence.

[Gfted1]

What I see as a possible way forward is to change the process of gaining fire-arms.

 

The absence of evidence of pathological behaviour is only relevant if there is a history. Just as I cannot take out a loan without proving myself as a good credit risk, so too should potential gun owners have a probationary period where they can demonstrate their soundness of mind. Much like a driver or a pilot has to sit an exam and prove competence.

 

 

Well there is a mandatory "cooling off" period of 72-96 hours on the purchase of handguns in the U.S. The intent there is to curtail spur of the moment purchases while in the heat of an arguement. I agree though that there should be classes with exams prior to taking ownership of a weapon.