next »

[onomatopoeia]

The following is the website for the VT student news paper:

http://collegemedia.com/

It contains a link listing the confirmed dead:

http://www.collegemedia.com/stories/417-300am-none.html

Don't know what "confirmed" means or how reliable the information is.  As of now, 4 faculty are listed.

[infopri]

The "petty" arguments started when our dear President decided to politicize this by citing the second amendment even before expressing sorrow for the tragedy.  The blame for the gun control debate, like many things, rests with him.

I should have expected that hatred and anger toward GWB would be front and center in the discussion.  [text deleted]

There's some psychological reason so many of you want to blame GWB for any and all ills in our country. What are you going to do and who are you going to blame when he's no longer in office and tragedies such as these continue? He wasn't in office when Columbine happened.

Nobody (I think) is blaming Bush for what happened at Virginia Tech.  If you look at untenured's comment again, you'll see that the point was that Bush injected the gun-control debate into his message of condolence--and on the side of gun owners.  It was unnecessary and even inappropriate, and he must have known the effect it would have, yet he did it anyway, and for political reasons.  Funny way to express condolences.  (P.S.  Note that I am a gun owner--and I still say this.)

if I were on that campus I would have wanted to know if there was a shooter at large. There was a first shooting and the shooter was still at large on campus, and yet, students were walking around completely unaware.

You must be joking.  On 9/11, there were both students and faculty walking around, whistling, completely unaware of the attacks, even though it was on every radio and television news station (and many non-news stations) in the country.  When I told the people that I encountered that the WTC towers were gone, they looked at me like I was crazy.  Have you ever tried to tell 25,000 people (or even 9,000 people) anything?  Especially when they are spread out over 2,600 acres?

[crazybatlady]

The "petty" arguments started when our dear President decided to politicize this by citing the second amendment even before expressing sorrow for the tragedy.  The blame for the gun control debate, like many things, rests with him.

Untenured

It's been months since I've posted on here. I came to this forum to read the thoughts of academics, but I should have expected that hatred and anger toward GWB would be front and center in the discussion. Is it possible for you to set that aside?

There's some psychological reason so many of you want to blame GWB for any and all ills in our country. What are you going to do and who are you going to blame when he's no longer in office and tragedies such as these continue? He wasn't in office when Columbine happened.

Oh for pete's sake. What a grand misreading. Welcome back, Diana. I see nothing's changed.

My deepest sympathies to the victims of the VT shooter, their families, their community, and the rest of the nation as we struggle to come to grips with the fragility of life and the horrific losses yesterday.

cbl

[empyrean_aisles]

When New Orleans was flooded and destroyed, a friend of mine caught the BBC news (the CBC was on strike at the time, and the CBC news was replaced by the BBC). Anyway, the New Orleans tragedy was buried under a bunch of other stories. It was given about as much air time as an earthquake in India would be given here. It wasn't in their backyards, and it was just another natural disaster that had happened "somewhere else."

Sorry to have to say this on this thread, but this is a crock as far as the US is represented in the UK. NO was big news for a long time in the UK, with a lot of reporting and documentaries. The VT story is likewise the main story in most of the UK mass media. There is puzzlement at the  US's gun culture (and that is not to comment on the positions stated in this thread, just to say that that puzzlement exists); but the main theme is deepest sympathy.

This is entirely correct. New Orleans was comprehensively covered. The VT story, meanwhile, has featured in every hourly BBC news bulletin I've heard so far since the shootings happened. The Australian newspaper the Sydney Morning Herald has a huge banner about it on its website which is reserved for *very* big stories. US news is big news everywhere.

My thoughts are with everyone touched by these awful events, too.

[case_insensitive]

If you look at untenured's comment again, you'll see that the point was that Bush injected the gun-control debate into his message of condolence--and on the side of gun owners.  It was unnecessary and even inappropriate, and he must have known the effect it would have, yet he did it anyway, and for political reasons.  Funny way to express condolences. 

Many posters have done the same here, ie. express condolences then rail about gun control.  Most of these are on the other side of the argument, of course, and they all get a pass. No one attacks them for having a political opinon.  Such a tolerant group, we are.

As to the international news coverage, the VT tragedy is getting full coverage on German news as well.

Back on the central topic:

Many of the dead are from the foreign languages, civil engineering and engineering sciences departments.  Those departments in particular will be devastated because of the sheer numbers of deaths among their students/faculty.  Please remember them in your prayers.

[zarathustra]

When New Orleans was flooded and destroyed, a friend of mine caught the BBC news (the CBC was on strike at the time, and the CBC news was replaced by the BBC). Anyway, the New Orleans tragedy was buried under a bunch of other stories. It was given about as much air time as an earthquake in India would be given here. It wasn't in their backyards, and it was just another natural disaster that had happened "somewhere else."

Sorry to have to say this on this thread, but this is a crock as far as the US is represented in the UK. NO was big news for a long time in the UK, with a lot of reporting and documentaries. The VT story is likewise the main story in most of the UK mass media. There is puzzlement at the  US's gun culture (and that is not to comment on the positions stated in this thread, just to say that that puzzlement exists); but the main theme is deepest sympathy.

This is entirely correct. New Orleans was comprehensively covered. The VT story, meanwhile, has featured in every hourly BBC news bulletin I've heard so far since the shootings happened. The Australian newspaper the Sydney Morning Herald has a huge banner about it on its website which is reserved for *very* big stories. US news is big news everywhere.

My thoughts are with everyone touched by these awful events, too.

I don't know what you mean by "NO was comprehensively covered." Maybe long after the levies broke, but before that, friends of mine and I (who had done grad work around there) were pulling out our hair b/c we couldn't believe that more wasn't being said about the extent of the damage, calamity, etc.  We were wandering around in a daze saying "They just don't get it. They just don't get it."

[helpful]

I find it funny that the police say it is not a terrorist act. Of course, it is. The guy terrorized a large number of people and the act is terrorizing that poor university and its students.

But we mustn't forget that to a lot of people 'terrorist' equals a certain minority. I remember after the Oklahoma City bombings anyone looking Arab was stopped. Then they found out it was true blue American who did the ghastly deed.

Now that they have announced that it was a South Korean student who did the killing, do you think relations with South Korea will be affected. Do you think there will be threats against that country. No, but if the shooter had been Palestinian or North Korean or Iranian, you can be sure the loud mouths would have called for war.

To me, a terrorist act is a terrorist act when people are terrorized.

[bioclem]

My thoughts go out to any and all affected by this tragedy.

[infopri]

If you look at untenured's comment again, you'll see that the point was that Bush injected the gun-control debate into his message of condolence--and on the side of gun owners.  It was unnecessary and even inappropriate, and he must have known the effect it would have, yet he did it anyway, and for political reasons.  Funny way to express condolences. 

Many posters have done the same here, ie. express condolences then rail about gun control.  Most of these are on the other side of the argument, of course, and they all get a pass. No one attacks them for having a political opinon.  Such a tolerant group, we are.

Not true, case.  Yes, many posters have done the same thing Bush has done, you're right about that.  But they did not get a free pass.  Many other posters--john_proctor, rowan, bibliothecula, trabb, merigan, phlebas2006, anthroid, me--and those are just in the first five pages.  Since then, there have been other calls on this thread to defer the debate.

[phlebas2006]

I think the misreading might be the assumption that GWB's spokesperson's mention of the 2nd amendment is some sort of lobbying attempt during a tragedy.  Surely the media's first question to a President who supports 2nd amendment protetions might be something about gun control legislation, and that there is a need to separate the issue from the tragedy: "Yes, I'm a supporter of 2nd amendment protections, but this is a national tragedy that we all feel, no matter where you are on that issue."  

Trust me, I understand the desire to blame our Contractor-in-Chief for everything, but not necessarily here.

Suppose he was known for his support of foriegn exchange student programs, and had campagined heavily on that issue his whole life.  It would be like saying: "This is a national tragedy, but the President still believes that some good can come from foreign exchange student programs."

I think we need to be cautious here.  After 9/11 we couldn't wait to give the government new powers of control over our lives.  In fact, we demanded that they take away our privacy rights.  Once you give rights away, the government never gives them back.  We're stuck now with secret wiretaps, and FISA courts, and library monitoring, and elderly women and toddlers taking off their shoes and belts at the airport.  

Before we now demand the repeal of the 2nd amendment, let's just be careful what we wish for.  There is a middle ground between "I want every student to carry an Uzi at all times" and "Please, O my kindly government, please don't ever let me have a gun in my house again.  I trust you."

By the way--for those who argue that the 2nd amendment only provides the right for militias:  you mean the state-run militias that a President can federalize any time Hu wants?

[anchorite]

There are also updates with names at: roanoke.com

My deepest sympathies to all the faculty, staff, and students at Virginia Tech.

[merce]

Suppose he was known for his support of foriegn exchange student programs, and had campagined heavily on that issue his whole life.  It would be like saying: "This is a national tragedy, but the President still believes that some good can come from foreign exchange student programs."

It's simple. During apologies and expressing condolences you just do NOT use EVER the word BUT. It's v. tacky. and in super poor taste.

[case_insensitive]

 Once you give rights away, the government never gives them back.  

<snip>

Before we now demand the repeal of the 2nd amendment, let's just be careful what we wish for.  There is a middle ground between "I want every student to carry an Uzi at all times" and "Please, O my kindly government, please don't ever let me have a gun in my house again.  I trust you."

If I am not mistaken, the 2nd amendment is irrelevant here as the non-citizen student did not have the right to bear arms in any sense of the law.  

If anyone with a connection to VA Tech is still reading this thread, please accept my deepest condolences and heartfelt wishes for healing.

Thank you, TF.  That's the way we should all be thinking and praying now.

[infopri]

Whoops, in my haste to post, I left out the half-sentence that was the point of the post.  Maybe I should start drinking coffee again (interthreaduality).  Sorry about that.  Omitted point is displayed in underlined boldface.

If you look at untenured's comment again, you'll see that the point was that Bush injected the gun-control debate into his message of condolence--and on the side of gun owners.  It was unnecessary and even inappropriate, and he must have known the effect it would have, yet he did it anyway, and for political reasons.  Funny way to express condolences. 

Many posters have done the same here, ie. express condolences then rail about gun control.  Most of these are on the other side of the argument, of course, and they all get a pass. No one attacks them for having a political opinon.  Such a tolerant group, we are.

Not true, case.  Yes, many posters have done the same thing Bush has done, you're right about that.  But they did not get a free pass.  There were pleas to leave the gun-control debate aside (for now) from many other posters--john_proctor, rowan, bibliothecula, trabb, merigan, phlebas2006, anthroid, me--and those are just in the first five pages.  Since then, there have been other calls on this thread to defer the debate.

[spork]

Now that they have announced that it was a South Korean student who did the killing, do you think relations with South Korea will be affected. Do you think there will be threats against that country. No, but if the shooter had been Palestinian or North Korean or Iranian, you can be sure the loud mouths would have called for war.

I don't think U.S. relations with South Korea will be affected, but I bet there will be cases of American citizens of Asian descent being told "go back where you came from," because many Americans think American = Caucasian.