VA Tech Shooting: What can we possibly do?

[Brendan]

So will the war on guns be as successful as the war on drugs?

Substantially less so.

I’ve made a firearm in an apartment using metal purchased at a scrap yard and tool I bought at the hardware store.

Granted, mine was a near exact replica of an 1596 Elizabethan Snaphauce Carbine that I use in re-enacting, but it actually would have been easier to make a revolver.

Anyone who paid attention in High School Shop Class could do the same, using materials that are not only legal, but can be easily purchased by teen agers without anyone batting an eye. scrap metal, a drill or drill press and a lathe

Compare that to making crack cocaine, which requires some college level chemistry and some very highly regulated or illegal chemicals.

If guns are outlawed , one can expect revolvers to be at least as common ‘on the streets’ as crack is.

But of course, only the criminals will have them.

 

[seekerz]

Israeli teachers and any adults working in their schools are trained and armed.

Exactly the point Brendan, they are trained and armed. I’m sure it’s substantially more than a few hours of training that they receive. Maybe I’m misinformed but don’t the Israelis have compulsory military service? That should qualify (in terms of training, pysch profile etc) many, if not most adults there to responsibly carry weapons. Quite a different case in this country I’d say.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Exactly the point Brendan, they are trained and armed. I’m sure it’s substantially more than a few hours of training that they receive. Maybe I’m misinformed but don’t the Israelis have compulsory military service? That should qualify (in terms of training, pysch profile etc) many, if not most adults there to responsibly carry weapons. Quite a different case in this country I’d say.

Again and again, as a professional in the training industry, I have pointed out, “Training is a solution. Before you advance a solution, you should have a problem. And in the ideal world, there should be some slight relationship between the solution and the problem.”

What is the problem you expect to be solved by more training than that required for a concealed carry license?

 

[MikeWM]

And you know that He** didn’t** berate them this time.

He said ‘that’s enough!’. Now that can be taken as

(a) Literal. Two swords will be enough, even though He said three seconds ago you should each have a sword and there are many more than two of you here. How exactly does this make sense?

(b) ‘You’re talking nonsense. Stop that.’

I prefer the latter, because unlike the former, it makes sense. The footnotes to the Bible translation that the USCCB chooses to put on its website thinks the same.

Nor did He explain to them that He had some other meaning in mind – which He always did whenever they misunderstood Him.

He was rather busy at the time. Time was hardly a luxury he had that night. It’s worth at least bearing that in mind.

No, there isn’t. There are those who want Jesus to say something other than what He said, and are quite to pretend He meant “white” when He said “black” – but that doesn’t amount to “doubt.”

No-one is denying what Jesus said. It is however, perfectly valid to question what he meant.

Those doofus Apostles, whom He selected, who spoke the same language He spoke, whom He taught, who ate with Him, traveled about with Him, and knew him personally – they didn’t know what He meant.

Just like so many other times when they didn’t follow what He meant, as you just acknowledged they did.

But you’re smarter than them and you know.

Tediously, and as usual, you’re putting words into my mouth. Try reading my last post again.

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

We could easily replicate the Israeli model. They haven’t had a single attack on their schools since they adopted this policy.

Alternatively you could follow the British model. We haven’t had a single attack on our schools (thank God) since the reforms brought in after Dunblane.

But I suppose that Mike would have us believe that the teachers in the UK are too incompetent to be trusted with anything dangerous.

Why would I say that? I want teachers to teach, not wield dangerous weapons and/or be worried about maintaining and safely storing them.

Mike

 

[seekerz]

Again and again, as a professional in the training industry, I have pointed out, “Training is a solution. Before you advance a solution, you should have a problem. And in the ideal world, there should be some slight relationship between the solution and the problem.”

What is the problem you expect to be solved by more training than that required for a concealed carry license?

The problem is the potential for some unstable soul to take it upon himself to mete out his own brand of justice e.g. the lawyer who recently shot a man accused of molesting his daughter only to find out later that it wasn’t true. Proper training and psychological screening might or might not have prevented that tragedy.

 

[Brendan]

Alternatively you could follow the British model. We haven’t had a single attack on our schools (thank God) since the reforms brought in after Dunblane.

The Israelis have gone even longer than Dunblane with their model

Why would I say that? I want teachers to teach, not wield dangerous weapons and/or be worried about maintaining and safely storing them.

Mike

WHAT! You don’t let your teacher drive cars there??

After all, those are dangerous weapons too. Imagine what a psychologically disturbed teacher could do with a lorry and playground full of kids.

But then again, if you don’t let your teachers have those, your kids are safe.

 

[Kristopher]

I scanned, quickly, posts in this thread, and found one similar “report” as a draft to this other “report”, which I remember reading after the shootings in Columbine: it seemed to me, that it is of course very pertinent, and it would seem, that there is a justifiable criticism against VA Tech: they failed to employ this report; solidified by some twenty yrs. of experience in the field by many FBI agents, etc. in many very relevant areas to school shootings–not a recent, unfamiliar phenomena any longer, but certainly rare in occurrence.

Hopefully all will benefit; taking the time to read this, and to implement it. Certainly it may or may not be demonstrated to what extent schools across the states have complied with it. Given the two yrs. VA Tech had to construct a file on this young adult named Cho–I reiterate, that there is justifiable criticism for the lack of data, and response among administrative officials at VA Tech in consideration of this extant report “The School Shooter”. The following is a link for this report, viewable in HTML, or PDF formats: 72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:TuCRkBL5rycJ:www.fbi.gov/publications/school/school2.pdf+%22The+School+Shooter%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us.

 

[Thekla]

So if you want to compare ‘apples to apples’ BCS table 7a shows%between%

I can’t read it.

 

[fin]

There is NOTHING WE can do because the school administrations don’t offer any psychiatric services for students who are in trouble. NOTHING!

When I was a junior at the University of Texas at Arlington suffering from severe depression over the break up of an engagement, I was directed to some zippy-dippy student playing councelor who tried to tell me how to get my homework done. HOMEWORK was not my problem. Staying alive was. I didn’t want to live. I could have committed suicide and no one who have said boo.

It’s much, much worse now because a psychiatrist will not talk to you unless they can make big bucks off of you in a hospital setting. If I had had to depend on psychiatric professionals to help me solve my problems, I would be dead now. It’s as simple as that.

I can’t stand to listen to CNN because it’s all ****. No one cared about this kid. They just wanted him to go away. Far away.

I’m having some spiritual problems right now, but I can’t find anyone in my parish who will take the time to sit down and listen to me, much less help me.

I understand how you feel. that is why i am in my situation right now because I cannot find anybody to talk with about my problem. sure, some could listen to me, but it seemed nobody can help me.
i would listen to you if you like. i myself know how it feels to feel lost and lonely. even at this very moment, i feel sad and depressed.

and i also agree with you, that NObody cared about this kid. i posted my thoughts here, but nobody was receptive to my sympathy for this troubled guy, save for you.

 

[Sir_Knight]

The problem is the potential for some unstable soul to take it upon himself to mete out his own brand of justice e.g. the lawyer who recently shot a man accused of molesting his daughter only to find out later that it wasn’t true. Proper training and psychological screening might or might not have prevented that tragedy.

Are you aware that those in law enforcement are diagnoised [sp] with a higher degree of psychological problems (drinking, failed marriages, depression, etc.) than the general population due to the stresses from their job and yet we allow them to carry firearms. By your argument, they should not be armed.

 

[Sir_Knight]

He said ‘that’s enough!’. Now that can be taken as

(a) Literal. Two swords will be enough, even though He said three seconds ago you should each have a sword and there are many more than two of you here. How exactly does this make sense?

(b) ‘You’re talking nonsense. Stop that.’

I prefer the latter, because unlike the former, it makes sense.

Jesus, who was preparing His apostles to bring His message to the rest of the world, would have told them that they were wrong and not bothered to correct them? Now THAT doesn’t make sense. If I’m teaching something to someone who is going to then teach that matter to others, am I going to just drop somethng if they fail to understand it? No! Because if I did, then part of my message would go out incorrectly or would not go out at all. Why would He be considered to be the “Great Teacher” if Jesus allowed this to happen?

And, as I said before, it is inconsistent with the rest of scripture. These scripture passages were written many years after the fact and they say that Jesus ALWAYS explained everything to the Apostles and that explanation is always noted. If Jesus failed to do this in this instant, then the scriptures are wrong about Jesus always explaining things to them and if the bible contain this error, then they could contain other errors placing doubt on EVERYTHING that is recorded.

You could go that route and question every teaching that Jesus taught because the Apostles might have got that passage wrong or you could conclude that no futher explanation is offered because Jesus actually meant a literal sword. Which approach you take is entirely up to you but if you take the former, then you MUST conclude that the infallible Word of God has an error in it because Jesus DIDN’T explain everything to His apostles as noted and if it contains one error, it COULD contain other errors – any belief that you may have MIGHT be an error.

Also, two swords would have been “enough” for a group of a dozen men to protect themselves from a small band of robbers or a wild animal. In VT, it would not have been required for every teacher and every student to have a gun to deal with the problem. A few here and a few there would have been sufficient.

The footnotes to the Bible translation that the USCCB chooses to put on its website thinks the same.

They are also mistaken. Bishops are not infallible. Only the Church and the Pope are free of error when teaching the faith and they tell me that I have a GRAVE duty to protect myself even to the point of killing my attacker and I would not be guilty of murder. If this duty is so GRAVE that I can even take someone’s life, does it make ‘sense’ (as you say) for the Church to restrict the means by which I use to defend myself? I highly doubt it because that wouldn’t make “sense”.

He was rather busy at the time. Time was hardly a luxury he had that night. It’s worth at least bearing that in mind.

These scripture passages were written many years later AFTER Jesus opened their minds to His teachings. If this passage needed further explanation, don’t you think that it would have been offered? And given the fact that they were being guided by the Holy Spirit, would they have recorded that Jesus ALWAYS explained things to them when that was not the case here?

No-one is denying what Jesus said. It is however, perfectly valid to question what he meant.

Jesus SAID what He meant. The fact that He didn’t offer another explanation when two swords were brought to Him is proof of that for all other times when they got it wrong, the “great teacher” explained His teaching. Here He didn’t because He didn’t have to because they got it correct.

Just like so many other times when they didn’t follow what He meant, as you just acknowledged they did.

And every other time He corrected them and explained it to them because they were going to teach it to others. This time He didn’t. Why? Because it was unimportant? Then He wouldn’t have mentioned it in the first place. Why would the great teacher not give them the correct understanding like He did all other times in the past especially when He wanted them to pass this teaching on to others?

 

[MikeWM]

The Israelis have gone even longer than Dunblane with their model

Yes, but we changed our model after Dunblane. We’re not evaluating the pre-Dunblane model, which had various problems (not least that the police were perfectly aware that Hamilton was downright strange, but still allowed him to have guns).

WHAT! You don’t let your teacher drive cars there??

Not in the classroom, no! They drive their cars on their own time.

After all, those are dangerous weapons too. Imagine what a psychologically disturbed teacher could do with a lorry and playground full of kids.

But then again, if you don’t let your teachers have those, your kids are safe.

There’s no such thing as perfect safety. All of life is a trade-off between reasonable safety, and living your life.

Mike

 

[seekerz]

Are you aware that those in law enforcement are diagnoised [sp] with a higher degree of psychological problems (drinking, failed marriages, depression, etc.) than the general population due to the stresses from their job and yet we allow them to carry firearms. By your argument, they should not be armed.

Higher degree compared to whom? Is the whole populace screened for pschological problems or are we just aware of those who seek help or whose job requires screeenig?

I will refer to my forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2121347&postcount=126"]earlier post:

 

[seekerz]

There’s no such thing as perfect safety. All of life is a trade-off between reasonable safety, and living your life.

Mike

Golden words

 

[MikeWM]

Jesus, who was preparing His apostles to bring His message to the rest of the world, would have told them that they were wrong and not bothered to correct them? Now THAT doesn’t make sense. If I’m teaching something to someone who is going to then teach that matter to others, am I going to just drop somethng if they fail to understand it? No! Because if I did, then part of my message would go out incorrectly or would not go out at all. Why would He be considered to be the “Great Teacher” if Jesus allowed this to happen?

And, as I said before, it is inconsistent with the rest of scripture. These scripture passages were written many years after the fact and they say that Jesus ALWAYS explained everything to the Apostles and that explanation is always noted. If Jesus failed to do this in this instant, then the scriptures are wrong about Jesus always explaining things to them and if the bible contain this error, then they could contain other errors placing doubt on EVERYTHING that is recorded.

You could go that route and question every teaching that Jesus taught because the Apostles might have got that passage wrong or you could conclude that no futher explanation is offered because Jesus actually meant a literal sword. Which approach you take is entirely up to you but if you take the former, then you MUST conclude that the infallible Word of God has an error in it because Jesus DIDN’T explain everything to His apostles as noted and if it contains one error, it COULD contain other errors – any belief that you may have MIGHT be an error.

Well, that depends on your description of an ‘error’. I think this discussion is getting a bit deep for the News forum, but it’s quite clear if we take any set of Scripture - even just the Gospels - they contain the absolute Truth but they are not literally true. Even the stories of the crucifixion contradict one another on some aspects. The Gospels are true, but they obviously point to deeper truths than the mere words spoken taken at face value.

Also, two swords would have been “enough” for a group of a dozen men to protect themselves from a small band of robbers or a wild animal.

Well, yes, but they were going to be scattered within the next few minutes - they weren’t going to be in a group then. Jesus has said each of them needs a sword, then he says two are enough. If he’s not contradicting himself in the space of a few seconds, I think he means something else.

They are also mistaken. Bishops are not infallible. Only the Church and the Pope are free of error when teaching the faith and they tell me that I have a GRAVE duty to protect myself even to the point of killing my attacker and I would not be guilty of murder. If this duty is so GRAVE that I can even take someone’s life, does it make ‘sense’ (as you say) for the Church to restrict the means by which I use to defend myself? I highly doubt it because that wouldn’t make “sense”.

I think we’re going around in circles a bit here. We’re talking about a (approved) translation of the Bible now which the Bishops think is obviously ok. They’ve come up with a certain way to interpret that, and you see a contradiction with the Pope that I truly don’t see.

These scripture passages were written many years later AFTER Jesus opened their minds to His teachings. If this passage needed further explanation, don’t you think that it would have been offered?

Well, it isn’t the only passage in the Gospels that is far from clear. Scripture scholars wouldn’t be able to write so many books otherwise.

And given the fact that they were being guided by the Holy Spirit, would they have recorded that Jesus ALWAYS explained things to them when that was not the case here?

And again.

Jesus SAID what He meant. The fact that He didn’t offer another explanation when two swords were brought to Him is proof of that for all other times when they got it wrong, the “great teacher” explained His teaching. Here He didn’t because He didn’t have to because they got it correct.

And every other time He corrected them and explained it to them because they were going to teach it to others. This time He didn’t. Why? Because it was unimportant? Then He wouldn’t have mentioned it in the first place. Why would the great teacher not give them the correct understanding like He did all other times in the past especially when He wanted them to pass this teaching on to others?

The correction comes a mere 12 verses later when they use the swords, and Jesus tells them to ‘leave off!’ and reverses the damage they have done.

Mike

 

[beckers]

I worked for a well trained university police force for many years. I started as a dispatcher/communications officer when I turned 18 while still a student and later I returned there as a patrol officer after working patrol in a small city. The municipality actually had a much smaller area to patrol with fewer people and less training for officers. The university had a SWAT team and about 1/2 of our officers were veterans also. We worked closely with the Secret Service on VIP security including presidential details.

Thank you for your post it was very enlighten. As for being an allumi (2002) of a college that had a campus close to the size of VT i can tell you that there is no feasible way for a lockdown. There were so many entrance to buildings and the campus in general that it would have taken an army to lock it down properly.

So how do you communicate to such a large number of people? Heck we had problems doing the basic communication skills. We had tornando drills. There were a few sierns on campus and that was it. There was no way to mass communicate to people. Normal you showed up to class and found out it was cancelled or you watched the news. Email? Not everyone had it. Cell phones? Not everyone brought theirs to class. In the dorms? Letters and personal getting the staff to go around and tell all the students. Lets do the math a dorm of 500 students with amax of 20 person staff. Imagine how long it takes to imform people of stuff.

I agree that college students tend to not listen to anyone.After working in the dorms you would not believe how many people would just let anyone walking. The security readers are they for a reason. They are suppose to keep people out who don’t have a right to be there. We use to catch so many guys just walking around the girls dorms without escorts because someone just let them in. Not everyone is innocent.These girls had no idea that maybe these men might be rapist or there to steal or hurt someone. Trying to get that through peoples minds is hard.

 

[vern_humphrey]

He said ‘that’s enough!’. Now that can be taken as

(a) Literal. Two swords will be enough, even though He said three seconds ago you should each have a sword and there are many more than two of you here. How exactly does this make sense?

(b) ‘You’re talking nonsense. Stop that.’

But He didn’t say, ‘You’re talking nonsense. Stop that’ now did He?

If they misunderstood Him, this is the only time in all the Gospels He didn’t explain his meaning until they did understand.

And as has been pointed out by others, your interpretation doesn’t follow the context – if you are right, it is as if Jesus suddenly switched subjects in mid-breath, launched in an entirely different direction – and then failed to explain what He meant.

This is not Catholic Exegesis – this is twisting the scripture in a manner that would make a Fundamentalist proud.

I prefer the latter, because unlike the former, it makes sense. The footnotes to the Bible translation that the USCCB chooses to put on its website thinks the same.

And if it was misunderstood by the Apostles, that misunderstanding persisted after Pentecost.

The author of the footnote is not infallible nor inspired, and he has committed one of the great “noes” in Catholic exegisis – ascribing an error to an inspired writer in a matter of faith.

He was rather busy at the time. Time was hardly a luxury he had that night. It’s worth at least bearing that in mind.

He had time later to come back and check on the Apostles He left on watch in the garden, did he not?

No-one is denying what Jesus said. It is however, perfectly valid to question what he meant.

One-off Protestant churches are full of people who would agree with that.

 

[MikeWM]

But He didn’t say, ‘You’re talking nonsense. Stop that’ now did He?

If they misunderstood Him, this is the only time in all the Gospels He didn’t explain his meaning until they did understand.

And as has been pointed out by others, your interpretation doesn’t follow the context – if you are right, it is as if Jesus suddenly switched subjects in mid-breath, launched in an entirely different direction – and then failed to explain what He meant.

This is not Catholic Exegesis – this is twisting the scripture in a manner that would make a Fundamentalist proud.

And yet, as you say…

And if it was misunderstood by the Apostles, that misunderstanding persisted after Pentecost.

The author of the footnote is not infallible nor inspired, and he has committed one of the great “noes” in Catholic exegisis – ascribing an error to an inspired writer in a matter of faith.

You’d better write off to the USCCB then, because the version of the Bible they have chosen to put on their website is asserting what you call ‘one of the great noes’. That’s got to be pretty bad, hasn’t it?

Maybe we’re supposed to have the good sense - with the guidance of people such as our own Bishops, and those who translate scripture for us - to be able to reach the correct conclusions with the evidence we have? That’s part of what is meant by the fact that the Bible, and even the Gospels, are absolute truth, but not literally true.

He had time later to come back and check on the Apostles He left on watch in the garden, did he not?

Yes. And that was all rather more important and central than a comment about swords.

One-off Protestant churches are full of people who would agree with that.

So?

Mike

 

[vern_humphrey]

You’d better write off to the USCCB then, because the version of the Bible they have chosen to put on their website is asserting what you call ‘one of the great noes’. That’s got to be pretty bad, hasn’t it?

Why? Because some anonymous PC character put in a whacky footnote?

Maybe we’re supposed to have the good sense - with the guidance of people such as our own Bishops, and those who translate scripture for us - to be able to reach the correct conclusions with the evidence we have? That’s part of what is meant by the fact that the Bible, and even the Gospels, are absolute truth, but not literally true.

We don’t have a license to go off into left field.

Yes. And that was all rather more important and central than a comment about swords.

You seem to have a special insight into the mind of Christ.