next »

[busyslinky]

According to this news report, 85 were found dead across the entire country in Iraq this week. Where are you getting your intel about hundreds dead in Iraq? I think that it is a cheap political shot and way off target for this discussion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18162972/

You should be careful how you read your cites.  The number 'at least 85' was only for Tuesday.  Probably, a slow day for 'senseless' death in Iraq.

[cuajada]

I am posting under a different moniker than usual...
I work at Tech and so does Spouse Cuajada.
I also teach at another local school, and have class in 20 minutes. I'm completely unprepared.

I am without words.

But the sympathy from here and all over the world is so important. Thank you for sending it.

[livefreeordie2]

Again, even if somebody truly believes that students and teachers are willing to fire back (and truth be told, I'm personally pretty sure I'd rather be shot than kill somebody), where, logistically and practically, are we going to have such weapons? Do I bring it with me as I hook up my laptop to the projector? Do I carry it in the hand that's not writing on the board? I'd love to hear one of these gun advocates explain how this security measure would work in practice. Will we get standard issue holsters at new faculty orientation? Again, I don't see how anybody who works in higher ed could possibly suggest something so completely impractical and dangerous.

A couple of points.  First, I don't think anyone is talking about making such a thing mandatory - forcing professors or students to buy "six-shooters" and strap them to their waists as if to participate in a John Wayne movie..  The thought occurs to some, however, that there are already tens of thousands of people who are trained and licensed to carry a concealed weapon, who routinely do so, but cannot when they go to work or school.  In all but 11 or 12 states, you have no idea if the person next to you is armed. On almost a daily basis, armed citizens intervene and stop crimes.  If only those who are already licensed were carrying at VT, it is possible that someone would have been able to fight back. Unlike the post from two days ago, I would not say probable, but random chance being what it is, who knows?

I realize that there are a lot of folks who take extreme pride in advertising their campus as "a gun free zone."  Unfortunately, that type of claim will only be respected by those you don't have to worry about.  For someone who is deranged or just plain evil, it is an "invitation" to a "free fire zone" since clearly, there will be no one who can immediately stop him or her. . . no one who can fight back.  It gives someone like that the opportunity to play God because he or she knows that no one will be coming around the corner to shoot back.  Think about it. . .just for a moment.  Most of these things happen where the perpetrator knows there will be no armed resistance.

Finally, you may prefer death to your own survival or the survival of loved ones or others around you, but I think most people (not just Americans), are willing to kill if that's the only option.  As an academic exercise, I'd be interested in knowing this:  If you had been there and had access to a gun, would you have shot Cho and saved yourself and perhaps 30 other people?  Or would you have proclaimed your pacifistic beliefs and let him slaughter you and everyone else?

[draco]

I am posting under a different moniker than usual...
I work at Tech and so does Spouse Cuajada.
I also teach at another local school, and have class in 20 minutes. I'm completely unprepared.

I am without words.

But the sympathy from here and all over the world is so important. Thank you for sending it.

My thoughts are with you. 

I'm sure that people will understand if you don't teach at your other school right now. 

Take some time for yourself and your family first.

[accidental_prof]

Finally, you may prefer death to your own survival or the survival of loved ones or others around you, but I think most people (not just Americans), are willing to kill if that's the only option.  As an academic exercise, I'd be interested in knowing this:  If you had been there and had access to a gun, would you have shot Cho and saved yourself and perhaps 30 other people?  Or would you have proclaimed your pacifistic beliefs and let him slaughter you and everyone else?

My wife and I were watching the story of Dr. Librescu (and weeping) when she asked me what I would have done.  Would I have sacrificed myself and left a young wife and child alone for the sake of 30 students.  Would I (if armed) have shot Cho down?  I've never fired a gun, but as a hypothetical, it's a good question.  Part of me hopes I'd have the courage to sacrifice my life for the good of others.  The other part is wondering how I could have taken him out and saved myself as well.  If I were carrying a concealed weapon, would I even have the courage to pull the trigger? 

No answers here.  Just questions.  And plenty heartfelt sympathy for those affected. 

A_P

[jackie_d]

And, without diminishing the very real suffering of thousands, if not millions, of people tonight, I cannot help but point out that hundreds of people have died in Iraq this week.  What for? 

The point is not to make a cheap political statement but to note that for so many of our fellow Earth inhabitants, random useless death is a constant event, not a horrifying and unusual tragedy.  I am not saying we may not mourn VT; I am not saying we should not problem solve in attempts to prevent future massacres.  I am saying, however, that the bulk of human experience has involved the accidently and randomly tragic; that web of significance to which obscure referred, for many people across the world, includes daily death.

According to this news report, 85 were found dead across the entire country in Iraq this week. Where are you getting your intel about hundreds dead in Iraq? I think that it is a cheap political shot and way off target for this discussion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18162972/

My point stands.  Johns Hopkins has demonstrated that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed in this senseless violence initiated by George Bush.  Death is common in most other countries, including in this unfortunate, tragic war zone.

You're off base.  Focus on the points regarding senseless death.

Since the shooting, 117 groups dedicated to Cho Seung-Hui were created on Facebook by students all over the country.

Some of them: Cho Seung-Hui is pure evil, Cho Seung-Hui is a f***ing Dead b*tch Pussy!, Blame Cho Seung-Hui (VT Shooter), Cho Seung-hui (VA.Tech Shooter) is the BIGGEST P*ssy in Recent Memory (in which a nice photoshop work depict Seung-Hui having sex with another male), Cho Seung-Hui has no soul, Cho Seung-Hui Can SUCK MY D**K!!!!!!!,...

I think it always easier to believe in monsters and to scream out outrage against events we are not responsible for, rather than to assume the responsability for the deaths caused by our own actions and countries.

All my thoughts now go to the families of the victims and to Cho Seung-Hui's family.

[jackie_d]

If you had been there and had access to a gun, would you have shot Cho and saved yourself and perhaps 30 other people?  Or would you have proclaimed your pacifistic beliefs and let him slaughter you and everyone else?

I don't think pacifism has anything to do with the right of self-defense.

Anyway, in such a situation, with an gun in my hand, I don't know if I would have the guts to shoot another human being.

[sikora]

As anthroid suggested, I was referring to Geertz.

The need to impose, create, find order.  People turn to their cultural values, models, and assumptions to do so.  Two interrelated things I see going on here.  First, American individualism, so we focus on the wayward individual, Cho, instead of looking for a more collectivist understanding.  Second, psychologism.  Must be something innately wrong in his head.

These also deal with the question of control, "Will it happen again? What do we do?"  So because the rest of us are psychologically normal, we and those around us will not commit such atrocities.  Second, if we know what is wrong with people like Cho, then we can identify them.

Apparently, Cho was a marginal and deviant individual. There are marginal and deviant individuals in all communities. In an individualistic society, where most relationships are simplex in nature, there are fewer social controls  than in more collectivist societies, where social relationship are more likely to be multiplex.   

Obscure, but still the first dog in space

[trabb]

Finally, you may prefer death to your own survival or the survival of loved ones or others around you, but I think most people (not just Americans), are willing to kill if that's the only option.  As an academic exercise, I'd be interested in knowing this:  If you had been there and had access to a gun, would you have shot Cho and saved yourself and perhaps 30 other people?  Or would you have proclaimed your pacifistic beliefs and let him slaughter you and everyone else?

I've always found this rhetorical strategy to be horribly unfair.  The point of the question seems to be to force pacifists to acknowledge that there are situations in which they probably would act in a way that runs contrary to their beliefs.  Having wrangled this concession, you can then show that even pacifists think that having guns available is a good thing. 

Why do I say that's unfair?  The basic assumption is that human actions are an accurate and adequate expression of a person's beliefs about what is moral and ethical.  In reality, I think you can almost always imagine a situation in which individuals will willingly choose to act against their own set of moral and ethical values.  Do you think it's wrong to lie?  Can you imagine a situation in which you would lie to save someone's life?  Yes?  Well - you must really be a liar at heart.

My honest answer to your question is that yes, if I'd been there and had a gun in hand, I'd have done everything possible to shoot Cho Seung-Hoi.  After doing that, however, I wouldn't be celebrating the fact that because I owned a gun I was able to stop a tragedy; more likely, I'd be spending the rest of my life in counseling wrestling with the fact that I'd taken another human life and that by doing so, I'd violated some of my most deeply held beliefs.


 

[sikora]

I've thought about my pacifism hard these past few days.  I would like to think that, in the heat of the moment, I would have the courage to try to protect my students.  Not that I want to be a hero in my death, but because I feel a sense of reponsibility for them.  In a crisis, most of them would look to me.

Obscure, but still the first dog in space

[samspade]

Maybe its because I am a heartless person, but instead of praying for the gunmen's parents, I have to ask myself-where were they? If my children showed the disturbing signs that he did, I am not sure I'd bundle them off to college.

[livefreeordie2]

I've always found this rhetorical strategy to be horribly unfair.  The point of the question seems to be to force pacifists to acknowledge that there are situations in which they probably would act in a way that runs contrary to their beliefs.  Having wrangled this concession, you can then show that even pacifists think that having guns available is a good thing. 

Perhaps it is unfair, I don't know.  But I thought of those poor people desperately trying to escape, desperately trying to save their own lives, heroically trying to save others and I wondered how many of them would "rather get shot."  Perhaps that poster genuinely feels that way, but juxtaposed with the suffering and carnage, it didn't sound right to me. . . I agree with the person who said that pacifism shouldn't have to preclude self-defense.

[rowan1]

My heart gos out to all the people touched by this horrible tragedy - including the friends and family of the young man who did this.

It is so sad to see the woulda coulda shouldas start, but then that is a natural part of the grieving process.

I am anti gun - I am also fairly certain that if my child was threatened I would do anything, even kill, to protect him.  I believe in my heart that I would do the same for my students, and I pray I never have to find out.

Maybe its because I am a heartless person, but instead of praying for the gunmen's parents, I have to ask myself-where were they? If my children showed the disturbing signs that he did, I am not sure I'd bundle them off to college.

How could they possibly have any idea how disturbed he was?  I can we ever "know" something like that?  ever anticipate it?  Especially in our own children?

Imagine the pain they are going through, they suffered a loss and more, and they are probably blaming themselves as well, have a heart, they are victims here too.

[samspade]

How could they possibly have any idea how disturbed he was?  I can we ever "know" something like that?  ever anticipate it?  Especially in our own children?

Imagine the pain they are going through, they suffered a loss and more, and they are probably blaming themselves as well, have a heart, they are victims here too.

It doesn't appear that this behaviour appeared out of the blue. If it was apparent to the English department at VT, I think its reasonable to think that there were clues there for the parents. I am sure they are suffering pain- but like the parents of the Columbine killers, I think its fair to ask-where were the parents?

[case_insensitive]

Maybe its because I am a heartless person, but instead of praying for the gunmen's parents, I have to ask myself-where were they? If my children showed the disturbing signs that he did, I am not sure I'd bundle them off to college.

How could they possibly have any idea how disturbed he was?  I can we ever "know" something like that?  ever anticipate it?  Especially in our own children?

Imagine the pain they are going through, they suffered a loss and more, and they are probably blaming themselves as well, have a heart, they are victims here too.

I agree.  We don't know any details of his childhood and we cannot, by default, assume this parents knew anything about his ... condition, for lack of a better word. If we are going to jump to conclusions like this, we'll have to similarly blame every parent of every criminal who ever lived.  Obviously, that's ridiculous.

I feel for them. You know, no matter how innocent they are, they are probably going through not only the "oh I've lost my child" horror, but also the "why didn't we see it coming and/or what could we have done to stop it" horror.  Unfathomable. They are certainly in my prayers, as well.