School Terror in Virginia

Jackie Mason | April 17, 2007
[hidden by request]

Tony Peters | April 17, 2007
he had two handguns, a 9mm and a .22cal both purchased legally...he as well armed and had thought it out quite well as to what he wanted to do., had a number of fully loaded magazines so that he could reload as needed. It's a sad day no doubt, however I'm rather cynical in thinking that the number of dead and wounded would have been much lower had just one person had the courage to stand up to him instead of cowering, waiting to be shot execution style. It's not like he was running around like a crazy man he walked up to each person and shot them. Everyone expects the police to save you when in truth each person is responsible for their own safety (even the Supreme Court said this) . Sadly the attitude of "my safety is not my responsiblity" meant that many died because no one stood up and said NO MORE.

Anna Gregoline | April 17, 2007
My first thought was how did this psycho get this gun onto campus? And why? He shouldn't have been allowed to even have one.

He walked onto campus with it, most likely how anyone would - and I thought I heard he purchased them legally? So I'm not sure why he shouldn't have been allowed to have one. Obviously he wasn't stable but I don't know how you determine that.

I don't know why this is such an issue in our country, why so many people want the right to have a gun, or 20. When in Canada, gun violence barely ever happens. Canada looks nicer every day, it really does.

Jackie Mason | April 17, 2007
[hidden by request]

Tony Peters | April 17, 2007
actually people like this are why CC permits are so good but except for Utah and Alaska guns are not allowed on campus in the USA. I don't understand how he legally purchased his pistols I mean he isn't a citizen but since gun sales it a state issue not a federal one I guess there was a Virginia loophole. This guy would have probably been helped if we had a better mental health-care system. AND BTW barricading a door is not standing up it's cowering. The descriptions that I have heard on TV and read on the net are that people sat and did nothing hiding or cowering on the ground while he reloaded...to quote Edmund Burke "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"

Anna Gregoline | April 17, 2007
My point is, college campuses should be treated like regular schools in if they check for this kind of thing in highschool, same deal for colleges. If they need to put in metal detectors and higher security in dorms and buildings, than so be it.

College-aged kids are adults in our society. If we put in metal detectors because colleges are supposed to be "safe places" then why not at the grtocery store? The library? McDonald's? Any place where any adult might have to go into? I think it's too much to ask that we lock down the entire country because of a few psychos.

I hate all this blaming the victims stuff - so no one stood up and tried to take down a guy with a gun who is calmly shooting everyone. I doubt any of us woud be so self-assured in this actual situation - we can't know what it was like, is my point. How can we claim what someone "should have" done?

Amy Austin | April 17, 2007
My point is, college campuses should be treated like regular schools in if they check for this kind of thing in highschool, same deal for colleges. If they need to put in metal detectors and higher security in dorms and buildings, than so be it.

I strongly disagree, for much the same reasons that I can't stand to fly anymore -- if you let the lowest common denominator dictate the law, then you might as well live in a police state... which is what we seem to come closer to every day. It isn't that the stresses of the times have changed so much, but the ways in which we respond to them -- and I agree with Tony that we rely too much on the government to protect us from ourselves.

I don't need to say that the people on United 93 were heroes for taking the initiative that they did to bring down the efforts of their hijackers, at the expense of their own lives, but I do feel the need all the time to say that it's a damn shame what we have to endure these days in order to fly the not-so-friendly skies... DESPITE these heroic efforts. I wonder what each of those passengers would feel about the current state of things -- I know how I would feel. And I have heard many a dutiful citizen talk about how how they don't mind being compliant with today's ridiculous precautions (removing shoes & putting liquids in ZIPLOC baggies before boarding the plane... oh, I feel so much safer now!) "if it will save lives" -- including some surviving family members of 9/11, and I have to confess to being appalled by this herd mentality, because it will not save you. Maybe it gives some the illusion of safety, like metal detectors at high school, but it isn't and never will be a real deterrent or safeguard against the type of behavior that we seek to eliminate -- if anything, it only poses a greater challenge in the minds of those wanting to defy it.

To those who say that they are willing to make these concessions over and over again in the name of "saving lives", I say that I would rather put myself in harm's way (and, to a very small degree, have) over and over again than to submit to the insidious erosion of the liberties that define this country. Some people call these things "privileges" and not "rights" and so don't seem to mind the piecemeal scaling-down of "privileges" that appears to be happening daily... but I am hugely disappointed and greatly offended, because for myself I would rather take the risk of being gunned down at school or hijacked on a plane or any number of the increasingly probable things that you'd like to think don't happen in America, but do -- because we're becoming a nation of spineless, self-serving idiots -- than to stand in processing lines like a bunch of cattle without an inkling of what steak is all about.

Sorry... touchy subject.

Amy Austin | April 17, 2007
Wow, that was weird -- same selection of quote and everything... it would appear that we agree, and -- without detracting from my previous statements -- I would also second the notion that it's impossible to know what you would actually do given such circumstances.

Kris Weberg | April 17, 2007
The problem with events like this is that they prompt everyone to wonder how things could have been prevented. The problem is that there will always be some way around precautions, or some (only retrospectively identifiable) gap in the existing precautions. I've heard it said that 9/11 happened not because airline security was so extraordinarily poor -- the hijackers, after all, used nothing more exotic or lethal than box-cutters -- but because the idea of using a passenger airplane as a suicide bomb is simply not an idea normal, nin-murderous people have.

The idea that someone would obtain guns for the purpose of simply murdering dozens of random people is not an idea that most people can entertain while living a normal or generally satisfying life. This is why, even in areas where guns are allowed and carry permits exist, I would wager that a substantial portion of the adult population does not carry weaponry around with them. And these people, far from being fools or weaklings, are probably quite right; 99.9% of us will never, ever be in a situation like the one at Virginia Tech. 99% of airline passengers will not be involved in a hijacking. The fact that a few people are struck by lightning each year does not generally induce the rest of us to wear flash suits whenever it rains.

The fear, the desire to find fault or weakness at the root of these kinds of events, is frankly a psychological fallacy. Regardless of statistics, we tend to react differently when it is human beings, not nature or chance, that cause unpredictable and statistically insignificant -- cold as that sounds, it is true -- deaths.

Amy Austin | April 17, 2007
Thanks, Kris, for saying it "more better" ( "less passion, more ration" ;-)... but regardless of statistical probability, I still maintain that people, while perhaps "not fools", are foolishly complacent.

Tony Peters | April 17, 2007
Flying....please don't go there I fly too much and too often and the bulk of it is outside the USA where terrorism has been an issue for far longer than here in the USA. The rest of the world does it better, with less intrusion on people's lives than we here in the USA. Something that was brought up on TV is that this happened in the heartland of 2nd amendment country is going to make the gun control issue different than anyone might think.
Anna, responsibility is what it is, you either take it and live with the consequences if you make the wrong choice or you refuse it and live with the fact that anything that happens you chose to do nothing about it. Would I have gone after someone with a gun? I don't know I never needed to draw a gun and for that I am thankful but I did have lead my hose team into a lube oil fire on the ship...I had to take responsibility for my team and myself, thankfully that turned out well.

Erik Bates | April 17, 2007
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | April 18, 2007
[hidden by request]

Tony Peters | April 18, 2007
Sorry Jackie but it's not the knowledge of knowing how to take down someone, because every bit of that training that I have ever had tells me that if I try I will get hurt and or possibly die in the attempt of of stopping an individual such as him. And regardless of that fact if I had a chance I would still try to stop him even if it meant my life....that's what I meant by taking responsibility...barricading a door is just pushing the responsibility onto someone else, giving up control of your life to someone else. I know I could not live with myself if my lack of action cause someone else their life. I know my opinion isn't popular Keith Oberman called out 2 people as the worst example of a human being last night for saying essentially the same thing.

Russ Wilhelm | April 18, 2007
Tony, in a way, you have helped Jackie make her point. You said that the training you have had let you know that you would be hurt or killed if you attempt to stop this individual. With that knowledge in hand you got to make the choice, and it's admirable that you chose to take that risk.

But these are kids(18-24, to me their kids). Chances are they've never had to make that choice, and certainly have not been trained as you or I have. Even with that knowledge, I think the first two thoughts I would have are "I want to live" and " I hope he runs out of bullets before he get's to me". That's called panic, and we all have it. It's getting beyond that, and fast, which is the trick. Also, we're not sure that no one tried, and in turn, became a victim.

As far as warning the students and locking down the campus? At what point did school officials have the knowledge to warrent those actions? With two victims, it could have been a targeted murder, or murder/suicide. As far as I can tell there were no witnesses to say otherwise. It wasn't untill the second round of shootings that it became apparent. Should we lock down campuses for every incident that occurs? They'd never be able to hold classes.

But Jackie, I do agree with you on everyone having a gun. It's the same thing as saying "Hey it's OK, if in my state of panic, I take out a few of my classmates as long as my goal is to take out the shooter.

Constitutional right? What a load of crap the Second Ammendment has become. If that's all you've got to defend the right to carry hand guns, then you're wasting my time. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to the intent of the ammendment, just the fact that it has become nothing more than an excuse.

All and all I just feel sorry that things like this happen.

Anna Gregoline | April 18, 2007
"The problem with events like this is that they prompt everyone to wonder how things could have been prevented."

I absolutely agree. Did you get that bullshit email from Bradley this morning that I did? From the president talking about their security and their lockdown procedures and how Bradley would react differently? It pissed me off because everything in our society is reactionary. Reacting to this by saying we'll step up security is great but not the right focus, in my opinion. Why isn't anyone talking about identifying problems, taking bigger steps to help someone that seems disturbed? We're still so far from dealing with mental health in this country, it's pathetic.

"Anna, responsibility is what it is, you either take it and live with the consequences if you make the wrong choice or you refuse it and live with the fact that anything that happens you chose to do nothing about it."

Huh? My responsibility is to my own life. I don't have a responsibility to save anyone else. I don't understand calling someone irresponsible because they didn't do some non-specified act that would have *possibly* stopped the shooting from this individual. Who knows what transpired there except the people involved - for all we know someone DID try and stop it and they are dead now, and it affected nothing.

Damn straight I'm terrified if I'm sitting and minding my own business and a gunman walks calmly into my classroom and starts shooting. I can live with trying to protect my own life just fine - no guilt would even enter into it. If you have military training, your opinion is totally different than a civilian - not one of us civilians is prepared for someone to walk toward us shooting. So I can't understand anyone saying these kids should feel guilty for not acting, or should have done something besides run away or hide or cower. It's not their fault. Fault goes entirely with the person doing the shooting.

"The poilice knew that the murders had taken place. Yet this kid was able to go on and kill more people."

The police thought the boyfriend killed his girlfriend because he was a gun nut. That was the premise they were going on, and it was a good one. They had no idea a killing spree was about to start, they assumed crime of passion, which in typical police work, is a good assumption. If they'd assumed killing rampage, it would be because that happens every day, and it doesn't. Always have to go with the most likely explanation. I don't blame the police for doing their job on the law of averages.

Denise Sawicki | April 18, 2007
They had referred him to counseling before due to his violent creative writings. I imagine schools are now going to really crack down on any creative writings that seem out of the ordinary. They released one of the shooter's plays that was supposed to be "disturbing" but to me I'm afraid it just seems goofy and stupid.

Jackie Mason | April 18, 2007
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | April 18, 2007
I believe so, Jackie, yes. The boyfriend of the first woman killed was a gun enthusiast and went to ranges all the time, so they thought he was the shooter (killing your girlfriend is pretty common in America). In a crime like that I'm sure it's not out of the ordinary either for someone else unrelated to your anger getting caught in the crossfire or being killed so they won't be a witness, which would explain the friend being killed too.

It is indeed a recognized problem in our country - but I honestly don't see it changing. Ready access to guns and ignorance/not caring about disturbed people until they act out is part of our culture.

Lori Lancaster | April 18, 2007
[hidden by request]

Lori Lancaster | April 18, 2007
[hidden by request]

Tony Peters | April 18, 2007
Something that was brought up by my boss this morning was that we shouldn't judge students too harshly for their lack of action, they are not the leaders of today but of tomorrow and hopefully by then they will understand that that sometimes looking out your own well being means looking out for others as well. So few people seem to understand this now.

Anna Gregoline | April 18, 2007
Something that was brought up by my boss this morning was that we shouldn't judge students too harshly for their lack of action,

I think we shouldn't judge them harshly because, hey, they're young and human, like the rest of us. But to each their own.

They are victims here. There's nothing to blame them for.

Jackie Mason | April 19, 2007
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | April 19, 2007
It's a damned unfortunate thing all of these amazingly tough guys telling us what the students should have done and why they died because of their own cowardice or incompetence weren't at VA Tech. I'm sure they would have coolly and calmly counted the gunman's shots, and organized a brilliant tactical assalt to disarm him with minimal loss of life by busting out their mad ninja commando skillz on him in the name of COURAGE!

Yeah, it woulda been just like Die Hard, only cooler, 'cause VA Tech was, like, real, man! Boo-yeah!

Tony Peters | April 19, 2007
I'm sorry you all seem to think that when a crazy person walks around with a gun means the only response is to hide and play dead. I was raised differently. For me it is the difference between those that chose to serve and those who don't. 18 years ago when I was the same age as those kids a VT I stood up in front of my family and said my country is more important than my life. I believed it then and I believe it now regardless of who is leading it. So i guess I think differently...I believe it is my responsibility to aid those who need it, that is being a leader, that is taking responsibility for you life and the lives of others, that is courage to me. Survival at all costs is nothing more than cowardice in my view.

Anna Gregoline | April 19, 2007
Ahhh, we're cowards now. I figured as much.

I guess all those victims were cowards too, for daring to die at the hands of a murderer. How could they?

So heartless, honestly. I don't understand this view in the slightest.

Jackie Mason | April 19, 2007
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | April 19, 2007
I'm sorry you all seem to think that when a crazy person walks around with a gun means the only response is to hide and play dead.

And you seem to think that military training and a fondness for hypotheticals give you the right to declare that murder victims are morally culpable in their own deaths.

Tony Peters | April 20, 2007
I had this long response written that but after a discussion with Amy I've decided to just say you have your opinions and I have mine. I know from experience that in a time of stress some people will act and some won't. More and more it has become excepted that not acting is correct thing to do and for that I am sad.

Steve Dunn | April 20, 2007
I think it is perfectly reasonable, and no dishonor to the dead, to wonder if anyone tried to stop the shooter. It's possible that one or more people did, and died. It's possible that no one did. Either way, I think it's eminently valid to wonder and ask.

Asking the question is not the same as blaming the victim. I think we can all appreciate that in retrospect it would have been better if all four planes hijacked on 9/11 would have gone down as Flight 93 did. This is not blaming the victims on the other planes. It's just a simple acknowledgement of the obvious.

I hope that one or more individuals tried to stop the guy. I would hate to think that in a building full of people, not a single one would try.

How would I have reacted? Who knows? Sitting here at my desk, I tend to think that if I had an opportunity to escape, that definitely would have been my first option. I'm not going to run headlong toward the sound of gunshots. I'm not going to seek out the opportunity to be a hero. I like to think that if I had a reasonable opportunity to get ahold of the guy, though, I would have done the best I could. But of course I don't know.

I do think it is valid and reasonable and utterly inoffensive to suggest that it is admirable for people to put themselves at risk in hopes of stopping a crazy gunman. I think that running away is perfectly understandable, but not admirable. I feel no moral obligation to assert or believe that anyone who lived or died at Virginia Tech "did the right thing" by jumping out the window while someone else held the door. I understand it, and I might have done it myself, but it's not something to celebrate.

I hope that at least a few people tried to stop him. I think - and I think this is also Tony's point - that it would be a shame if no one did. Understanding human frailty is what it is, we should at least be able to agree that the "right" thing to do is to put yourself at risk to save your fellow man.

Kris Weberg | April 22, 2007
Your statements are not ones I'd disagree with, Steve, but I still don't think Tony's saying what you seem to think he is. Earlier, he posted the following:

"AND BTW barricading a door is not standing up it's cowering. The descriptions that I have heard on TV and read on the net are that people sat and did nothing hiding or cowering on the ground while he reloaded...to quote Edmund Burke 'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.' "

That's not just saying that it would be a shame if no one stood up, it's outright claiming that the victims in this shooting were cowards, and that the evidence of their cowardice is that they were shot. When Tony writes, as he did in his first post in this discussion, that "many died because no one stood up and said NO MORE" [italics mine] he is indeed shifting part of the culpability for the deaths onto the students who were being shot at, and being killed.

It's that word "because" that makes all the difference, and provokes so much of the criticism. You're describing the brave act as the right act, and wondering about whether anyone managed to be brave or not; he's arguing a strong version of the just world hypothesis. in which bad things only happen because the people they happen to are somehow morally deficient.

Tony Peters | April 22, 2007
Not an english teacher nor a lawyer but actually what I was attempting to say though not very eloquently was that it has unfortunately become the excepted policy that the government will protect you as long as you are compliant. Now I realize that I am coming from a POV of a group of people who believe that the only way you are saved is to save yourself. But the thing I find so sad is that people so rabidly defend the view that the government will save you even when everything out there is too the contrary. You seem to think that because I've spent my life in service to the country and that I disagree with you I'm some macho jerk only dealing in hypotheticals and well that is your right. I know how I have responded in times of high stress and training had little to do with the how or the why. I also know how those I have lived, worked and served with have responded and the same is true. I am arguing that bad things happen, if you allow others to dictate the outcome then you are allowing others to dictate your life. How you respond to being made a victim can be the difference in not only whether you live or die but also whether others die, possibly in your place. I personally can't live with someone dieing in my place.

edit: I recently heard a description of the Romanian professor's actions and how he kept this person occupied and separated from his students while they escaped. I consider that to be heroic.

On a related note...I really don't understand why we as a country afford non citizens the same rights as it's citizens. Specifically to own a firearm...if one takes the last major supreme court decision upon the 2nd amendment that the right to bear arms is related to a well ordered militia and the defense of the country. how is this right extended to someone who isn't a citizen?

Lori Lancaster | April 22, 2007
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | April 22, 2007
Tony, I don't think those things because you were in the service; I think them because that was what you seemed to have written. And hey, you're still doing it when you implictly accuse the students targeted in the VA Tech massacre of blind "compliance" and failing to respond properly to being made victims. You are, in effect, saying that people get shot at and killed because they haven't spent lots of time and energy preparing for the rather remote possibility of being shot at.

The alternative is to behave as if anyone could kill you at any time, and to prepare oneself accordingly. In short, to behave as if there is no law in the first place, and to be fairly paranoid as a matter of everyday living. I'm not sure a nation of Travis Bickles is a good idea.

As to the second part of your question regarding the extension of rights to non-citizens; we don't extend full rights, like voting power and so forth to non-citizens. But we do extend those rights which are meant to be universal, of which the right orf armed resistance is one. A country founded on armed revolution can hardly argue that no one but an American citizen has the natural right to bear arms, can it?

It also has something to do with our insistence, like many countries, that foreign nationals within U.S. borders be subject to U.S. law. Should something happen to attract legal attention, our court system would have to assume some version of Constitutional rights in order to proceed. Surely we can all agree, for example, that it would be perverse to deport a student on a visa who shot a mugger in self defense for daring to obtain the gun that saved his or her life?

It is horrifying and sad to realize that, on rare occasions, a horrible thing can happen in a society that is otherwise free and comparatively relaxed because it is free and relaxed. But you know, I really do prefer living here to living in, say, Israel, where every day demands hypervigilance. People come here and stay here because part of the promise of 21st century America is that you don't live in a place where your life is regularly on the line. It would be quite possible to create a nation of well-armed, well-trained people endlessly on the lookout for possible trouble, but I'm not sure that would be America.

Tony Peters | April 22, 2007
and here I thought i was cynical, paranoia wasn't what I was preaching it was caring enough about your life and the lives of others something to insure that you continue to live it. That said I except that you and I will never agree on this subject. Part of this I'm sure is the generation between us
Self defense wasn't what I was talking about rather "the right to bear arms as related to a well ordered militia"... if one interprets the 2nd amendment in that manner. A foreign citizen should not have the rights of a militia member within the borders of the USA or we could have the establishment of a non-friendly militia on US soil fighting our government (we call this a foreign army). As such if we are allowed firearms for this reason and the Supreme Court seems to agree that this it true (the right to use a firearm for self defense is a by product of this) and we do not allow foreign armies to operate on our soil, why do we allow non US citizens the right to bear arms. To me that is as important as the right to vote. Now there is an exception to this and that is for non US citizens currently serving in the US armed forces however there are lots of restrictions placed upon them already, they are serving the country and they are overseen by US Citizens.

Scott Hardie | April 23, 2007
It disappoints me, although it doesn't surprise me, that pundits have used this incident as another reason to decry our nation's gun-celebrating culture, or specifically to decry violent video games in Dr. Phil's case. Let's not forget that Cho Seung-Hui was mentally disturbed, definitely sociopathic and probably psychotic. He apparently reveled in gun culture and considered himself a modern gunslinger, but that didn't make him do this, because he was nuts. We can complain about media saturation in the wake of a hurricane, but we can't claim that media coverage caused a major hurricane, because it's the weather. I do hate to think of a generation of pissed-off Dylan Klebolds seeing Cho's video make the nightly news and wondering how they can top him, but those are evil people, and this was a sick one.

Jackie Mason | April 24, 2007
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | April 24, 2007
I do actually feel sorry for him. It doesn't excuse what he did, but he was obviously a sick individual who never got proper treatment. For me, this event highlights the lack of proper care of mental illness in our country more than gun culture, although that is another concern. This doesn't happen in Canada, now, does it?

Aaron Shurtleff | April 24, 2007
What? Shootings in Canada at schools? Let's see...

Like this one?

Or this one?

Or maybe...

Imagine if I searched outside of Montreal? *shudder*

Let's not pretend that Canada is an oasis of joy and shiny happy people holding hands, please. They have problems with shootings, even with their stringent gun control laws. And, yeah, there's no signs of previous mental illness in the shooters in these cases...but that does that make it better?!

Every country has its bad element, and gun control does not equal no guns or gun violence.

Anna Gregoline | April 24, 2007
Sheesh.

Regardless of massacre links, Canada does NOT have the problems with gun violence we do. That's a fact. That's what I was alluding to when I'm talking about gun culture. They simply don't have the gun crime we do.

Jackie Mason | April 24, 2007
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | April 24, 2007
Yah, that's what I'm trying to get at. They have lots of guns in Canada but it's not nearly the same situation as the U.S. So that points to the culture being different somehow, which again doesn't link to media because they get the same stuff up there. So what is it?

Jackie Mason | April 25, 2007
[hidden by request]

Lori Lancaster | April 26, 2007
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | April 26, 2007
I was so shocked by that, Lori. I finally feel like I'm living in a police state. Investigated? Ok. Give the kid some counseling to make sure he's ok? Great! But ARREST him? It really frightened me.

Tony Peters | April 26, 2007
And that is why so many members of the NRA come out when anyone even mentions the words "Gun Control"...personally after having to carry a pistol for a year I want nothing to do with a semiautomatic pistol ever again ( went so far as to sell both my Glock and my Sig). I believe pistols fall into a loophole of the second amendment which is more about rifles of various types and configurations than pistols of any type. The second amendment was designed to give the people the tools become an army (if necessary) to rid themselves of a corrupt government. Hand guns are not tools for an army but rather a police force. But as Lori's link shows we here in the USA tend to over react to anything bad in a way which more often than not ends up being worse than the original incident in terms of trampling of human rights. Anyone who has flown in the last 1/2 decade will attest to this. Now having said that, I know I will one day buy a pistol again but most likely a revolver so I truly hope that instead of a knee jerk reaction of banning cosmetics properties or types of weapons, they will actually close the loopholes that allowed a non citizen to purchase a weapon and allowed someone who was mentally ill purchase a weapon.

Jackie Mason | April 27, 2007
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | April 27, 2007
I really couldn't give a crap about airport security measures. I've never understood why people freak out so much about it. Yes, it's necessary. Yes, it's annoying. Don't like it? Don't fly. We avoid flying whenever possible and our trips have been absolutely more fun driving than flying. Airport security mesasure do NOT = a police state. But arresting a kid because he wrote a violent and angry essay? That is completely wrong and upsetting to me.

Tony Peters | April 27, 2007
The thing is that after 911 the USA looked at all the security matters that the rest of the world does for their airports and threw it all away and went with the most ridiculous over reaction imaginable and it still doesn't work...nearly everything that airport security does is cosmetic, with little actual safety for the people involved. Compare this to Australia, France, England, Singapore, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Germany, Greece, or even Spain (countries I have flown through in the last 2 years...I fly for work a lot) and it becomes obvious that we are making our people's lives miserable so that they feel safe...I hate to quote Ben Franklin here but "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" this fits our way of dealing with any crisis in the USA.

Jackie Mason | April 27, 2007
[hidden by request]

Tony Peters | April 27, 2007
part of the problem here is that none of our airports are laid out for security they were all built in times prior to security being an issue....most places I've been out of the US security is done upon entry to the airport...once into the terminal you are fairly free...I liked Paris, very simple and organized even moving from terminal to terminal especially compared to JFK or Philly. Hell Bahrain xrays everything and everyone upon entry to the airport. Once you check your bags you see immigration and your free to go about business. I've only transited Heathrow thankfully, every time I've stopped in London I've come and gone through Gatwick. Schiphol airport in Amsterdam is by far the strictest and yet so easy to deal with. The other thing is this most country's airport security personnel are professionals who were trained and hire to protect the traveler here they are one step above a McDonalds fry guy hired to make people feel safe. My last trip home from Bahrain there was an EOD tech on the plane with us....now this guy makes his living handling things that go BOOM and was drinking coffee like it was water to stave off a nitro glycerin migraine he sweats out explosive compounds for about a week after leaving Iraq...in London he presents medical and official documentation of his status to the officials before they do a check of his person and carry-on (I had never seen a positive test before)...all is good. We arrive in Chicago pass through customs and while reentering the terminal while transiting from international to domestic he and his documents (US Army, DOD, DOT and Homeland security) are ignored by the stupid people, they test his carry on and freak at the positive result call the men with guns and take him into custody (handcuffs and all). I saw him two hours later (I had a loooooong layover) after everyting was finally straightened out. He had missed his flight and was waiting 8 hours until the next flight, no I'm sorry nothing.

Amy Austin | April 30, 2007
I would be so fucking pissed. They wouldn't want to let me out of those handcuffs after that...

Denise Sawicki | May 2, 2007
Another arrest that seems unwarranted. link

Hmm that link seems to have stopped working, here is another

Anna Gregoline | May 2, 2007
And again, an Asian kid. Hmmm, couldn't be a racial prejudice clouding these officials judgment at all, could it? Nahhhhhh....

Aaron Shurtleff | May 2, 2007
Hmm..I hate to be on the minority side, but... are you serious? I might have missed it in the article, but I hear this was for a FPS (first-person SHOOTER) game. Why do you need to make a map of your school for other people to run around SHOOTING each other in?! I can't believe everyone is so concerned about possible racial profiling that they are ignoring the fact this kid is doing a mod of his school for a shooting game! This kid is, if nothing else, doing something in poor taste.

Of course (in the world of generalities and suppositions), if it was the VA Tech student, and they found a mod for a shooting game that he made of the VA Tech campus, we'd be saying how stupid it was that no one noticed the clues that he was planning something.

All right. I've had my say. Please feel free to tell me about free speech, and free rights, and all the other great reasons why it should be OK to make a map of your school as a place to play shooting games and shoot people and act in a violent manner, and also how if this kid wasn't asian, he'd be running around free, graduating in his same school, and no one would care that he was doing this.

Anna Gregoline | May 2, 2007
And he should be arrested for it?

People make game mod maps of locations they are familiar with all the time. They shouldn't be arrested for it.

The level of hysteria and the justification for it frightens me.

Denise Sawicki | May 2, 2007
Sure I think investigating him seems like a good idea but an arrest sounds like overkill. The original article had some goofy details, like apparently the police confiscated a hammer that they found in his bedroom saying it could be used as a weapon. He said he was using it to fix his bed. I guess the array of activities that are illegal is kind of bewildering to me, but I do tend to have some weird ideas...

Tony Peters | May 2, 2007
Aaron what the kid did is pretty common in the gaming world. I played Doom on a map of the my ship while we were at sea. Hell in highschool I spent months playing D&D (remember when that was the precursor to violent student behavior) in a map of my school. We populated it with monsters that were related to each individual teacher who classroom it was....eventually it was released to the gamers of the school with the principle's permission and blessing....he even laughed at some of the monster/teacher comparisons. Yet again the powers that be over reacted....we can't seem to enforce existing laws but we can trample a prsons rights for the appearance of something different.

Aaron Shurtleff | May 4, 2007
OK. In retrospect, I want to back off slightly. I thought he was just brought in for questioning by the police, and the school expelled him and moved him another school to graduate. Arresting him on that little bit a bit too much, and I apologize for my earlier...irritation. I had a bad day, although that is no excuse.

I still think it's in poor taste to mod your school into a shooting game. I'll stay in the minority on that much of it! ;)

And I'm in the gaming world, and I've never done such a thing. Of course, I have a personal rule about keeping fantasy role playing games based in fantasy, not reality. I'll allow that it might be more common among people who are not me (which is a significantly greater number than people who are me!) And D&D is still the gateway to satanism! Don't be fooled!!!

Tony Peters | May 4, 2007
well then Aaron somewhere along the way I took a detour because I ended up a Buddhist

Scott Hardie | May 4, 2007
Were you playing it correctly, Tony? Maybe you also have to read the Harry Potter books at the same time to complete the conversion into a Satanist.

Tony Peters | May 4, 2007
Well its been more than 20 years since I've played D&D but I have read all of the Potter books...reading the Dresden Files right now so who knows

Lori Lancaster | May 5, 2007
[hidden by request]

Tony Peters | May 5, 2007
well that's one of the commandments of the evangelicals anyway...you know I liked the Dresden Files TV shows but after reading the first book I have to say yet again the Books are sooooo much better. Book two is starting well right now