University Shooting in Virginia USA!

[Big A]

Yea it kinda makes you wonder if Saddam might have had the best management strategy. At least he was able to control the country.

[sargeant]

Sorry hans but you lost me please on any level can you explain to me what Iraq and this USA massacre have in common
In one you have a total raving lunatic killing people for god knows what reason and in the other you have raving lunatics killing people for supporting the raving lunatics that killed people for lies and oil

answered myself lunatics

[PeteC]

Pete i am not making an issue of this but this guy cho came to the US of A age 8 he is now 23 15 of his most formative /learning years have been in the usa 3 maybe 4 in korea the fact he was born in s korea IMHO has sweet FA to do with what made him tick or not tick its where his tick was nurtured which had more to do with it

That's a simple argument, and you are making an issue of it. It's easy for the pot to call the kettle black. If this kid lived in the UK, perhaps I would now be saying the same thing to you. It's now evident that he was in therapy and counseling in 2005 but there was no evidence his human rights should have been savaged and him institutionalized. Yes, here we have hind site, if the docs locked him up in 2005, this wouldn't have happened. Flawed logic. The boy was a nut case, regardless of where he was geographicaly when he decided to snap. The videos he sent to NBC that were aired today prove that beyond a doubt. His relatives in Korea are also aloof and know little to nothing about the past decades once that side of the family left Korea.

Anyway, we can now get back to the deeper reason concerning "why" for incidents like this. I also include the UK and Europe in this. It's called "lack of family".

Look at Asia. Very few women with children work in comparison to the West. Those who do, the extended families are so large here, there is always an auntie, grandmom or someone who is home when the kids get home, without fail. Controls are in place concerning childrens activities around the clock. Wholesome activities far out weight the opposite.

Sometime in the 70's it became necessary for families in the West to have two person family incomes. That was the end for Mom being home when the kids got home from school, and it was then also the end to family times in the evening as Mom and Dad were too tired and busy to spend quality time with the children. This continues to exist and grow today.

The kids found themselves in front of the TV, nowadays in front of the computer, and in all days susceptible to fast talking and perhaps low class friends they wandered into outside when their parents were not home.

I place the blame for this incident, other incidents, future incidents and the overall decay of Western society squarely on the shoulders of the family and lack thereof.

It will be a very hard thing to reverse, to get an adult with these kids for more hours and more quality time. If we don't do it, outside influences will continue to damage them during their formative years.

Bottom line, people who decide to have kids have to stop thinking so much about money and status and think more about what they created, and assure their kids are on the correct path in life. Pete

[lomuamart]

I've just lost a long post in agreement with your's, Pete.
I can't be bothered to go into it all again, but I have friends in London where the husband is taking care of the kids (8/7) whilst the mother goes out to work.
They're thinking of moving out of London soon, renting their house in Ealing and going closer to one set of grandparents. They will take care of the children if the husband can find another job, which he's more than capable of doing. He just needs the opportunity.
The children come first. It's not like they need the money, only the pride and the move may well give the whole family a chance to do what they want in the future.
The thing is that certainly the UK isn't too different from everywhere in the world in terms of taking care of the children. Someone's got to make a sacrifice.

[DawnHRD]

No, I'm sorry, Pete, that's too simplistic. My Mum & Dad both worked full-time. I was a "latchkey kid", along with my sister. My sister is in the police force & every job I have ever had has been in service/caring.
I did have friends or acquaintances who were on the downward slope as teenagers. Yes, their parents were absent, often through bingo rather than work, but the difference was that they didn't give a toss about their kids or what they were doing. It's not the work, or even the absence from the child - kids can understand that - it's the level of care.
You can have one parent there 24/7 who is more interested in the state of her nails/hair/television (or the male equivalent) or you can have a parent that works, but spends quality time with their kids when they are home. Or you can have someone who devotes all of their time to home & kids. Most of us don't have that luxury (even in Asia, kids are left for months on end with Grandma or Aunt while Mum works hundreds of miles away, doesn't that cause feelings of abandonment?)
I don't have that luxury. My parents didn't. Their parents didn't, but I think, as a family, we've turned out pretty well. As do many other families.

[PeteC]

The whole point is the "level of care". Mom being miles away and Auntie doing the raising means nothing. Only the degree of caring does. The attention given, the questions answered, the love shown, the getting tucked into bed and showing the kid he/she has value.

You may be too close to the subject Dawn. You and your sister overcame and succeeded.

History and statistics are showing you are some of the lucky one's but far from the majority. Pete

[Wanderlust]

I am sure that most people on this thread are aware of the thread that started before this tragedy occurred, which is/was about a poster asking if they can bring their guns over here. That thread has evolved pretty quickly into a debate about gun control and the US Constitution, and that is obviously pertinent here. I can't imagine that there are any more mentally unbalanced people percentage wise in the US than there are in other countries. The difference is that what makes them so dangerous when they lose it is the easy access to guns, whether bought legally or not. People can buy guns in the UK, but they have to jump through a lot of hoops to do so, and can't just walk into a store and get one. Background and police checks have to be made, and there aren't many gun shops. Consequently there are a lot less guns in circulation, which are less likely to fall into the wrong hands (criminal or insane). I know that some states require registration, but it is not a national requirement in the US - doesn't anybody think this would be a good start?

[lomuamart]

I reckon the two of you are pretty much in agreement.
My school was 50/50 dayboy and borders. The borders were generally from military backgrounds, their parents still moving around the world.
I suppose their care was entrusted to the school.
And back on topic, it dosn't seem that the trust was well exercised in this unforunate incident.
I went to University at the age of 18. In the first year some of us were advised that a certain person who'd latched onto our group was suicidal. Could we keep an eye on him? Obviously, the staff were also, but they couldn't put him a padded cell. He'd been committed the year before, but was thought OK at that time.
The night he was posted as missing a load of us went out into the woods to try and find him. Unfortunately, he'd hung himself from a tree. A friend discovered him three days after the event. Not nice!!!
So, where's the care these days? I've got no idea.
30 years ago, it was "community" stuff. "Hey, we the authorities are looking at him, but can you help us doing that?"
"Sure". But we're 18 years old and trying to enjoy life.
A shame to put that burden on us at the time.

[lomuamart]

I meant Dawn and Pete. Took me a while to write my post.

[The understudy]

Quote Wanderlust:"People can buy guns in the UK, but they have to jump through a lot of hoops to do so, and can't just walk into a store and get one. Background and police checks have to be made, and there aren't many gun shops. Consequently there are a lot less guns in circulation, which are less likely to fall into the wrong hands (criminal or insane). I know that some states require registration, but it is not a national requirement in the US - doesn't anybody think this would be a good start?"End Quote

Very good point you nade there Wanderlust
But in the US ther's a very big lobbying group called the NAtional Arms and Rifle Association (NRA) who are arguing that It's everybodys right of Frredom to bear Arms and protect themselves which is becomes a Constitutions question once again of when we have Freedom can we bear Arms to protect us from others who wants to harms us.?
I'm also for Background and Police checks in order to buy a Gun which right now in this digitalised world is easy to make just hook up all registered Arms shops nationwide to the System and in minutes you have Background and Police records @ hand. If the NRA would agree and I'm pretty pessimistic that they are going to agree with this.

your's the understudy

[lomuamart]

All I can say, from my legal days in the Uk, is that we're also allowed to defend ourselves.
BUT, you can never show or do more force than is necessary in the circumstances. I forget all the legal terms, but basically if a burgler comes into your home, invades your property etc, you're probably OK legally to hit him/her over the head and kill them. Whether you can kill/injure them with a knife is a moot point. Shoot them with a gun - well you're likely to go to prison for manslaughter.
It's all about what "force is reasonable in the circumstances"' So. you come at me with a knife and I shoot you dead with a gun. I'd be on trial for "unnecessary force".
The law is changing in the UK, as it has to. Unfortunately, that's down to teenage gangs and the associated problems that surround them.
In the past, it was just a fist fight. Then knives. Now guns.
And we don't have the right to bear arms privately in the UK.
I hope we never have.

[lomuamart]

The Understudy,
Do you remember the Michael Moore documentary about the NRA?
It's been shown on Thai tv and I laughed.
This BIG, OLD movie star named Charlton Heston was wound up in his own house.
I used to respect that actor, until I saw his reaction to MM. "Why did he always turn up at terrible shooting incidents the day after and expound the benefits of the NRA?"
"Didn't he accept that there was some kind of symettry?"
The twat went on for about 2 mins before he realised he was being led up the garden path.
NRA? All you had to see was that old man crawl away.
I'll never watch one of his films again. Twit. He used to be one of my heros. No longer.

[The understudy]

Hi there Mr. Lomu

I have apparently missed the Michael Moore Docu about the NRA when it run on Thai TV? Can you please give a short synopsis of that show?

I have a question is not President Bush or his Vice President a member of the NRA?

[lomuamart]

Hi there Mr. Lomu

I have apparently missed the Michael Moore Docu about the NRA when it run on Thai TV? Can you please give a short synopsis of that show?

I have a question is not President Bush or his Vice President a member of the NRA?

No. MM went after that bastion of films - Charlton Heston.
CH was speachless as he realised he was being taken for a ride.
MM went in "undercover" asking about his views re the other unfortunate shooting incidents in America and why good old CH turned up swiftly in those towns afterwards and praised the NRC.
Eventually, good old CH realised what was going on and politely asked MM to leave his premises.
Twat.

[lomuamart]

As to whether the other two are members of the NRA - I've got no idea.
The thing is that a prominent member of the NRA and "society" was shown up for what they were.
It was painful to see. I used to like CH in films. One of those Hollywood greats.
He certainly was brought down to earth that day. I'm surprised you havn't seen it. It's a classic.