The mass killing at Virginia Tech has been all over the news and the blogosphere here since the disclosure that the gunman was an ethnic Korean raised in the United States.
The most surprising thing, for me—in addition to just the inherent shock involved in something so ghastly—is the number of Korean people here who seem to assume that Americans will hold all Koreans responsible.
This evening, David told me that he greeted the cab driver who took him to the train station with his usual icebreaker, “날씨가 좋아요.” (”It’s good weather [today]).”
The driver responded that it was, but that he was sick at heart (because of the shootings) and ashamed that the person responsible turned out to be Korean.
When I got to work today, my boss came over to ask if I’d heard about the tragedy—when I said I assumed he meant the shootings—he nodded and pointed out that he thought Cho Seung-Hui must have been badly abused, or had parents who were unable to take care of him, for something like this to have happened.
I told him what I’ve thought since I read the first news reports about who it was: The man seemed to be mentally ill and not rational, to have suffered some sort of psychotic break–though, really, we will never know.
But for me, it wouldn’t matter if he were Korean or Bosnian or a native-born American citizen, or whatever. He is no more representative of all Koreans than Sulejman Talovic was of his countrymen, nor Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were representative of all Americans.
Living here, I do understand that Korean families tend to have a collective sense of responsibility for the actions of individual members. But to extend that to the entire country and/or persons of Korean ancestry?
I also think it’s useless to question whether there’s some element of Korean society that’s played some sort of role. There’s no evidence of that at all. And, there’s no way we will ever know since the only person who could tell us is dead. I think it’s much more likely that this is another case of a seriously disturbed individual with too little access to mental health services but all too easy access to guns. That statement could describe any number of other lone gunmen, too.
I can’t help but think that if it had been more difficult for this person (and a lot of the other shooters) to get the guns, this might not have happened. I don’t understand why we have so little problem with the government secretly wiretapping hundreds of its citizens without benefit of a court order or going to extreme lengths to prohibit the transportation of potentially dangerous breast milk on airplanes but will brook no meaningful discussion of stricter regulations on gun purchases and ownership.
It’s as if there’s no middle ground between an all-out weapons ban and any restrictions whatsoever. In many states in the U.S., you can buy a weapon with no waiting period—provided you have no documented prior history of violence—and no requirements for safety training, licensure, or mental health screening. We put stricter limits* on who can drive a car than we do who can buy a Glock-9.
It may not have made a difference in this case, if Cho had to undergo a mandatory waiting period, take a gun-training course, undergo a basic mental health evaluation and, perhaps, submit references in support of an application for gun ownership. Maybe he would have done all of those things and the result would still be the same.
I can’t help but think that if he hadn’t simply been able to go into a gun shop, purchase ammunition and two handguns immediately, with no questions asked, allowing him to buy and keep deadly weapons in secret, accountable to no one but himself and his violent fantasies, things might have been different.
*Link is to a PDF document file.
{ 20 comments }
Aunt Clara Fied 04.19.07 at 10:54 am
This is indeed a tragedy, but a human one, not one defined by any ethnicity or background. To have been identified as needing psychological/psychiatric intervention, receiving it, and still being driven to commit these acts points to our impotence at dealing with mental problems. Intervention solves some, or probably more accurately, it partially solves some, but some people seem to be possessed by demons beyond our current capacity to help.
I can’t find any problem with the gun laws and their applications. He followed all the rules, waited all the required times, all data checks were made and came up clean. If he was driven to kill, it would have happened, gun or no (although probably he would have been less efficient without firearms).
Perhaps our privacy laws are too strict. No one can intervene because a person seems likely to do harm until the person actually harms someone. We cannot commit a person to an institution against his/her will anymore. I find it incredible that the mentally ill are left to their own devices, prescribed medication that will probably keep them functioning normally, but with no one to make them actually take the medicine on a regular basis. The homeless in our cities include many who fall in this category. I do not have an answer.
Cat 04.19.07 at 1:09 pm
The state of Virginia does not have a waiting period for purchasing guns. They do require a state and federal “instant” background check.
Virginia law also permits only one handgun purchase per month, but I’ve seen no news reports on whether he purchased the two weapons more than a month apart or purchased them from different dealers.
I still think that more stringent requirements *might* have helped or would help in the future (i.e. a more intensive process for purchasing a gun: required safety training, a waiting period (which, in this case, does not seem that it would have resulted in him ‘cooling off’ but might have given time for someone else to detect potential problems, as might have requiring attendance at a training class).
I’m not saying any of these things are a definite answer either, but they’d be a start—and a compromise that would not unduly limit responsible gun ownership.
I just find it disturbing that in so many cases like this people knew that the shooters were disturbed, they’d expressed verbal and written threats to either specific people or groups of people and still nothing prevents them from obtaining weapons and killing people.
Sure, if he’d had a knife he’d probably still have gone after people, but more people would have had a fighting chance.
Jodi 04.19.07 at 7:30 pm
Actually I used to agree with the stance you take, Cat, but now I’m not so sure. I have no stats to back up my thoughts, but I’d venture to guess that the majority of people who legally buy guns have not been invovled in gun-related crimes.
I would also venture to guess that many who are involved in gun-related crimes obtained their guns by means other than a legal sale. In a case like this, I think such an individual would have sooner or later obtained his guns no matter what–his will seemed that strong. The legal purchase of guns was just one of many ways he could have gotten his hands on some.
I can think of two high-profile cases in my home state of MN in which the guns used in gun-related murders were obtained by other means than a legal purchase, in both these cases the guns were stolen from a family member who was in legal possession of one.
I think the same can be said for guns used in other violent purposes as well such as suicide. If a person wants a gun badly enough, they will unfortunately find a way to get one either legally or illegally. I am convinced that stricter gun purchasing laws would not reduce the number of gun-related crimes in America.
I think the problem in America is a cultural or social one. We live in a society where pop culture glorfies violence as a solution to problems. Evidence can be found on TV, in movies, in hip-hop music, music videos, etc. Perhaps a better way to prevent such tragedies is to look at America’s social values rather than legal issues regarding the purchasing of guns.
Cat 04.19.07 at 10:41 pm
Jodi, I agree that I think there’s some kind of social or cultural connection, whether it’s the media or what, I don’t know.
Your comment reminded me of the part of the Michael Moore movie “Fahrenheit 9/11″ where he points out that Canada has higher rates of gun ownership but drastically lower rates of gun crimes.
Michelle 04.19.07 at 11:14 pm
NO ONE, needs an automatic or semi-automatic weapon. Those are for one thing and one thing only—maximum killing.
If he had been armed with a regular shotgun or pistol, he would have had to stop and reload, which could have given others time to stop him, the same way as if he’d had a knife. I understand hunters (and applaud all efforts in eliminating “rats with antlers”) and I understand people who might want a handgun for protection—but I acutely understand that people who have any history of depression should NEVER own a weapon of any sort.
This is an American tragedy. The kid was considered by all a “local.”
Why can’t the gun lobby distinguish between the types of weapons? Then again, the US is a country that is sliding backwards as fast as it can go. Yesterday was a major setback in women’s rights.
scotto 04.20.07 at 4:21 am
let me preface this by saying i am a dyed-in-the-wool liberal democrat, have two years of attempts at getting into a good clinical psych PhD program, a law degree, and a POST certification as a law enforcement officer.
i also own more firearms than i can recall without doing an actual inventory.
the lack of understanding in some postings above about the process of acquiring firearms, the Constitutional implications of suggested regulation, and that of simple firearm design/application makes it very hard for me to post an adequate response on those issues here.
Mr. Cho is simply an example of a person with a broken brain. as an intelligent individual, he could have devised methods (that i will not utter) to create much greater loss of human life. the firearms are really a non-issue here.
Cat 04.20.07 at 7:09 am
Scott, I believe many of the “methods” you refer to above would have brought Mr. Cho into contact with more stringent federal and/or state monitoring than he encountered with the handguns. Feel free to enlighten me, however …
And, certainly we’ve seen numerous public examples of the method he chose, so it’s not like he had to exercise a lot of thought to come up with a way to accomplish what he wanted to do.
scotto 04.20.07 at 11:11 am
i’ll have to hit you offline to discuss more.
but, with a credit card that one never intends to pay back, one could purchase mass amounts of components (i won’t name them) with no governmental intervention, rent a large truck, and deliver a device able to level a large structure and its denizens. Mr. Cho needed to prove his identity, residency, and submit an affidavit (Form 4473) before his criminal background was run through the NCIC database.
always remember, the Bill of Rights was written because some of the founding fathers thought that future citizens would trade away rights to the government to feel more safe at night. other founding fathers argued that our citizenry would not be so stupid and the Bill of Rights was a waste of effort. ….waiting periods (think woman knows rapist is stalking her), psych evals (think docs now decide if you have the natural right to self defense etc.), no auto/semi-auto firearms (the 2nd Am was not written about hunting).
more laterz. ;-D
PS. i’m more interested in hearing discussion about the group victim mentality that seems to be cropping up in recent events/years…where a lone gunman or criminals wielding mere box cutters can wade in and out of large groups, killing at will with no resistance.
Cat 04.20.07 at 12:19 pm
You’re right, we should take the longer discussion off line. I have several thoughts vis a vis changes in certain regulations post Timothy McVeigh, etc., for example.
But this:
Isn’t accurate, I think. For one, the gun(men) and box-cutter wielders had the element of surprise working in their favor. And, in most situations I can recall, there was resistance (person or persons who tackled/heldoff gunman, tried to re-take the plane, etc.) As for others, maybe they made the mistake of being able to comprehend/predict the level of violence of the perpetrators. Not sure I’m willing to say that’s a bad thing.
I’m certainly not upset that most people don’t get up every morning prepared to take on a homicidal maniac. Being compelled to live under a pseudo-siege mentality—we should all be prepared to kill or be killed—is also a sacrifice of a good measure of freedom, IMHO.
Robin 04.20.07 at 3:55 pm
Michelle,
You said, “If he had been armed with a regular shotgun or pistol . . .” Cho had a semi-auto pistol. The IS a “normal” pistol. The other kind of pistol is a wheel gun or revolver with a rotating chamber which holds the ammo. Both types of guns must be reloaded. A semi auto holds, I believe, 9 rounds, while a revolver hold 5-6 rounds.
Please do not be confused by the media who can’t tell the difference between auto and semi-auto.
annamatic 04.20.07 at 3:57 pm
I read the NYTimes article about how Korean-Americans were fearing a backlash and have heard people here express shame that the killer was Korean, but for the most part haven’t seen that their fears of a backlash are born out in most people’s responses. Clearly attributing the actions of one person on an entire nation or race would be racist. If anything, I’m ashamed that there’s yet another school shooting on American soil, that other nations would confirm their view of us as a violence-soaked culture. But I have to admit that as a Chinese-American, when I heard he was Asian, a small corner of my brain whispered, “but I hope he’s not Chinese…”
MigukNamja 04.20.07 at 7:11 pm
To stand the common saying “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” on its head:
“People with guns don’t kill people. The bullet from the gun with someone pulling the trigger kills people.”
Specifically, many guns have no other primary purpose than to inflict maximum harm and death upon another human being.
At the same time, the 2nd Amendment was written at a time when a citizen’s militia armed with rifles was a useful deterrent against an organized army. For the 2nd Amendment to be even somewhat useful today, it would have to updated to include body armor, night vision goggles (those two are legal, I believe) grenades of varying types, rocket launchers, tanks, and all various kinds of lethal weapons unobtainable by the average citizen. So, the argument that the 2nd Amendment justifies guns whose primary purpose it is to kill or seriously injure people is long outdated.
So, either scrap the 2nd Amendment or give it some teeth. I want my tank, damnit !
Specifically, for this case and all of the school shootings, had a gun not been accessible, it’s doubtful this many deaths would have occured. It’s far more difficult to kill someone with a knife and it’s far easier to stop someone with a knife.
As for a Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols Oklahoma City-style bombing, that’s certainly possible in some cases. However, it takes far more planning, money, and resourcefulness, certainly more than simply walking into a store and buying a gun would take.
As for those who say “we already have enough laws, let’s just enforce them”, that does nothing to stop somebody from stealing it from someone else. or buying it 2nd-hand (illegally, using the same method as 2nd-hand, under-age alcohol purchases).
So, in summary : tools whose only or overwhelmingly primary purpose is to kill or seriously injure others with little effort are a bad idea. Furthermore, trying to justify their usefulness terms of being able to fend off a military coup is also pretty weak.
Disclaimer : I’m not advocating a flat ban on guns. Hunting rifles and target practice guns are two kinds of guns I can think of that have a primary purpose other than to kill or seriously injure another human being.
Also, I’m not exactly excited about moving to the U.S., especially after this massacre. After living in a country where guns are illegal, I’m appreciating first-hand how safe I feel at any time of day, in any neighborhood, carrying any amount of cash or anything else, even in a city of 22 million. Much of it is the culture, yes, but I can’t help but think the lack of access to deadly and effective weapons is part of it, too. I’d actually stand a fighting chance against someone armed with something less than a gun, as would most people here.
An imbalance of power leads to an abuse of power.
scotto 04.21.07 at 12:09 am
i realize that we have very educated people commenting here on the blog, but i’m disappointed in the lack of 2nd Am scholarship from US citizens when discussing these issues. all the reasoning is based on emotion, historical misconception, and the desire for safety, not on the true underpinnings of the natural right enumerated directly after the 1st Am. (and yes, some firearms kill more efficiently than others. when someone is attempting to rob/rape/kill one you love, you cannot kill them fast enough. it never happens like it does on TV or in your imagination. they keep on coming usually until bleedout. sorry for the graphic nature of the post.)
also quickly, please remember that McVeigh used ANFO (fertilizer and fuel oil bomb) purchased over the counter and rented a truck to deliver it. i’ll not get into the release of sarin gas (nerve agent) into subway railcars/terminals, or other poison gas delivery. these can all be obtained and created and delivered with little to no governmental intervention, or simply obtained illegally as the standard case with firearms.
the mind is the weapon; all else are simply tools. much as we may think it possible, we cannot always protect ourselves from the evil person by keeping them empty handed through legislation. crimes against persons have occurred since the dawn of man.
i know y’all are shocked at the cultural difference over there and how safe you feel, but do not be lulled into too much of that. humans are not so different around the globe. you live now much closer to many third world countries where thinking you can “take” a guy with a knife or carry as much cash as you want is extremely dangerous.
Cat 04.21.07 at 1:57 am
This isn’t true. After the bombing of the Murrah building, at least three states (perhaps more at this point) instituted regulations governing the sale of ammonium nitrate fertilizer (see here). These include limits on how much can be purchased, as well as requiring sellers to record the names and driver’s license numbers of the purchasers. South Carolina requires sellers to have a restricted fertilizer permit and record the identifying information of buyers.
Sarin is hardly easily obtainable. It is classified as weapon of mass destruction by the United Nations. The Aum Shinrikyo cult, which employed low-grade sarin in its attacks on the Tokyo subway, recruited several graduate and doctoral level physics students to develop the the gas and it took them years working in a dedicated laboratory.
It’s certainly not available for purchase at a local shop.
scotto 04.21.07 at 3:43 am
yes, new restrictions on AN fertilizer were installed after the fact. this does nothing to prevent the quick massing of enough AN and diesel to create an adequate device. the procedure after the new regs is still _significantly_ less than the firearm purchaser is subjected to at purchase time. ANFO/ANNM devices are simply one type of easily createable device.
deploying sarin specifically, yes, involves more technique but MigukNamja attended a fine institute where access and information is as high as at Mr. Cho’s institute. variants of nerve agents or other poison gases are much easier to create and deploy.
i won’t continue with examples of devices like Mr. Rudolph and others, since this is only an example of more destruction making a firearms choice a non-issue.
going low-tech….chains/locks/lighter fluid from Home Depot. fire and smoke with no easy exit creates significant loss of life in a very efficient manner.
no manner of legislation will protect everyone from evil acts.
M- 04.21.07 at 7:55 am
I love the discussion, both sides, it is what is still good about our society-civil debate & the willingness to sincerely engage each other over difficult issues. Bravo to all who are willing to participate.
I am also struck by your local Koreans’ shock and willingness to almost apologize for the ethnicity of the murderer. I wish we would have as high expectations for our culture as they do for theirs.
And I do hate to use the word murderer for someone who is so obviously broken but that is ultimately what he became. In this particular case, he did have access to mental health care (even a professor who tutored him individually & offered to walk with him to counseling)& he also waited a month between gun purchases. The mind can be amazing & terrifying in what it is capable of.
Please also remember the courage & sacrifice of the professor who held the door against him so students could climb out the window to safety. There are still heroes as well.
A reminder that every day we walk in the precense of saints & sinners.
Lots of love,
M-
Cat 04.21.07 at 9:20 am
scotto,
I do agree that changing gun regulations could only be part of the solution (not a simple answer). But I think consideration of this should be a part of a larger effort to address the situation. It is a complex problem, that involves not only guns, but a lot of other factors.
My point with my previous comments is that in terroristic incidents not involving guns, society has seemed more willing to look at the entirety of the situation with a view to minimizing risk—balancing the rights of individuals with the need to do what we can to prevent a recurrence of said event.
When it comes to these shootings, however, we hear stuff for awhile, then nothing really seems to change. It’s like we just throw up our hands and say, ‘Oh well, *another* crazy guy with a gun, but what can ya do?”
I think we–as a society–should take a serious look at why we have the highest rates of gun violence in the world (almost 12,000 gun deaths per year).
And, I am open to considering that, really, it isn’t the guns but the people—and the culture—that is driving this.
One thing that struck me this time, is that we’ve completely rewarded this latest guy (and many others before him) with exactly what he wanted: recognition. He was someone people were afraid of, but shied away from, or ignored and didn’t like. Now, his gun-wielding face (from his video) has been on every major newspaper, several magazines, and most TV stations. People are reading and analyzing his “creative writing” assignments in detail.
And, everyone knows his name. I wonder how much of an incentive that is for the next disaffected, isolated, angry young man.
Anyway. I will leave the thread open, but I won’t post about it again, precisely because I feel that this does reward the shooter(s) in some way. They get attention and immortality for doing something obscene, while who will remember Liviu Librescu’s name in a few weeks?
caro 04.21.07 at 10:40 am
Fighting against the darkness of mental illness and the darkness of the paranoia about “taking away our right to bear arms” continues as unsolved as ever, exacerbated by non-universal health coverage in the United States, among many other short-sighted public policies, or lack thereof. The “conservatives” cater to the insurance companies and NRA and the “liberals” are afraid to seriously, majorly challenge the status quo. Evil wins when good men do nothing.
scotto 04.21.07 at 2:09 pm
i think i’m gonna have caro’s baby. ;-D
yes, this is all very heavy stuff. i personally think it best for the victims’ families that Mr. Cho ended his own suffering, even though the natural reaction to want retribution will go unsatisfied. the alternative produces unhealthy minds for years to come as the process drags on and on.
however delusional Mr. Cho and other homicidal/suicidal maniacs have been, i think it needs to be seen and discussed so that eventually awareness of these serious mental health issues becomes less taboo. i am always struck by comments in the press that don’t seem to recognize the shooter was not a sane individual.
Prof Librescu is my hero for his active role in saving lives at the expense of his own. i get a knot in my stomach when i think about that.
the political rhetoric may kick up on the gun control issue again, but the Dem Party made a conscious effort to generally drop that platform after it cost too dearly in votes not so long ago. i forgot to mention that i’m a registered Democrat and a Life Member of the NRA. people will also question why, also in VA, two law students retrieved weapons from their cars when shots rang out and then took a shooter into custody….and the debate will rage on….
i’ll hit you up offline on the 2nd Am thang, Cat n MigukNamja. the Constitutional stuff is some good reading and i’ll have to dig up my online resources for ya since i can’t walk over anymore. heh.
i’ll also have to mention for the other readers here that my wife shares the same family name as this shooter. …and some local newscasters are actually pronouncing it properly.
here’s an odd question…does it bother anyone that even before i was a cop, i owned guns specifically to kill people? (…waiting for D to stand that statement on its head…”owned guns to kill specific people”…ROTFL)
John 04.21.07 at 11:09 pm
The world is a scary place with a lot of disturbed individuals wanting to do harm to others—be it the mentally unstable, religious extremists, or madmen intent on ruling, or destroying the world. Thankfully, most high school, and college, students don’t know how to make ricin or anthrax, yet the information is available all over the place and the ingredients are readily available in many regions of the U.S. by just walking out your back door. Our food and water supply is of a grave concern to me. Especially, when a disgruntled worker could easily contaminate a processing plant with e. coli, or salmonella, which could kill many and cost millions of dollars. How long would the chicken industry be decimated for if people got sick and died by eating at at fast food franchise? Last year it was the spinach industry.
The future doesn’t look very promising if we are to believe everything we see and hear on the news regarding terrorist cells, rogue nations, and global warming. Warming, in particular, could lead to massive famines and migrations of millions of starving people. I, as well as Fidel Castro, think that linking our future independence from foreign oil on our corn crops is ill advised. We could be the ones starving and without transportation if we have a couple of bad years related to the weather. Castro is worried that the U.S. won’t be sending our corn abroad which will impact the poor in third-world countries.
A few years ago ABC’s 20/20 did a piece about millennium weapons that various countries and organizations around the world are working on such as electronic weapons, vortex weapons, microwave weapons, laser weapons, etc. These are also very disturbing, but nothing like the greatest threat to the world—an EMP Stroke. An electromagnetic pulse stroke results when a nuclear weapon is detonated 300 miles above the earth. An area 2,500 square miles beneath the detonation would be affected and all electronics would be rendered useless. Basically, the entire United States would be in the dark. We would have no cars, electricity, food, money, computers, phones, etc. The stroke would harm no one on the ground and leave all the infrastructure intact, but the resulting chaos and anarchy would destroy much of the population.
The following are some links to the above information and to Woo Bum-kon’s South Korean Massacre of 58 and Australia’s Port Arthur Massacre both of which did not include handguns, but rifles. Woo was actually a police officer who raided the armory for his weapons. So, while I feel awful about the loss of life from handguns in the United States and around the world, I also want to protect myself and my family from a very unstable world anyway I can, especially if the future is bleak.
EMP Stroke: http://www.endtimesreport.com/EMP_attack.html
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051121-103434-8775r.htm
Millennium weapons: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/970707/archive_007360_5.htm
Woo Bum-kon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woo_Bum-Kon
Port Arthur massacre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre
While I hope I never have to use a gun of any type against another human being, I do want to be prepared because I know that there are many people out there that have other ideas. A few years ago, I thought Russia was moving into the 21st century, now I know that they have openly talked about using a Stroke against the U.S. and Putin seems to be returning the country back to a closed police state, not to mention what Iran, North Korea, and other extremists have planned for the world.
Thanks for the forum. It is enlightening as well as frightening.
John
Comments on this entry are closed.