Thursday, April 19, 2007

Baghdad Comes To Virginia Tech

It's amazing. What shocked me the most about the horrible carnage on the campus of Virginia Tech this week was not the act itself - terrible as it was - but my reaction to it:

Oh. So it happened again, huh?

Don't kid yourselves; that was the reaction a lot of people had. Have we really become that desensitized? Or might our perceived apathy lie in the fact that the state of Virginia has what can only be described as the stupidest gun laws on the planet earth and common sense dictates that tragedies such as this are inevitable? George W. Bush - who must be somewhat relieved as this has diverted (for the time being) national attention away from the recent scandals involving the most corrupt administration in American history - told Brian Williams of NBC News (with a straight face, I swear) that now is not the time to be talking about changing the laws with respect to gun control. Would someone please explain to this fucking idiot that now is the perfect time to be talking about it! Sheeeesh!

The first serious debate with respect to gun control (in my memory, anyway) came in the late spring of 1968 following of the assassinations - within two months of each other - of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy. I can still vividly recall Time Magazine's Pop Art/Peter Maxx-style cover of a smoking gun aimed right at the face of the reader. Then, as now, the nation had been forced into a serious discussion about our insane appetite for firearms in the wake of an unspeakable tragedy. Then, as now, an outraged citizenry demanded legislative action. And, as nothing changed in 1968, nothing will change in 2007. Nothing.

Every once in a while, the debate is resurrected - as it was in 1980 after the murder of John Lennon - or in 1981 when an attempt was made on the life of President Reagan - or in 1999 following the Columbine tragedy. But after a week or two of mindless rhetoric, it was always back to business as usual. The sad and undeniable fact is that another massacre on the scale of the Virginia Tech tragedy will happen again - and again and again and again and again and again. Get used to it.

Think about this: three (or more) separate car bombs will be detonated in Baghdad on any given day - as happened yesterday - resulting in the deaths of six times as many people as those killed on Monday in Virginia. At the same time, seventeen recently executed bodies were found buried on the grounds of a school yard in that same city. Did you hear about that? If you didn't you shouldn't be embarrassed. The news of those atrocities (if they were covered at all) were relegated to page eight or eighteen of most American newspapers. Even as I write these words, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez is testifying before a senate committee which is investigating his corrupt and inept handling of the Department of Justice - and all three cable news networks aren't even covering the event - undoubtedly the most important political story of the year. This is beyond crazy; it's despicable. The so-called "fourth estate" has utterly failed the American people. In the mean time, one hundred (or more) innocent people will be killed in Iraq today. Is it because they are Arabs and Muslims - is it because they are non-white, non-Anglo Saxon and non-Christian - that lends itself so readily to our seeming indifference?

Sheriff? Looks like we got trouble right here in Empathy City!

Considering the effect that the killings in one American town - on one American day - have had on the nation's psyche, imagine - just imagine - what it must have been like during the last four years for the men, women and little children of Iraq? Or have they become as desensitized to the slaughter as some of us seem to be? It just boggles the mind anyway you slice it. But, like the thirty-two students killed this week by an English major with serious anger management issues, the death and destruction endured by the people of Iraq has been visited upon them by another unstable, murderous, half-witted little frat boy by the name of George W. Bush. I wonder how much empathy the people of Baghdad might be feeling at this very moment for the students of Virginia Tech? Just a thought.

We have got to take a long, hard look at the second amendment. The two centuries-old argument has been as to whether or not the Founding Fathers were referring to the right of everyone to own a gun or "a well regulated state militia". There is no denying that in the eighteenth century most people, particularly those in rural areas needed a gun for hunting or self-protection and that no laws were passed to disarm them. Back then, the rapid fire, military assault rifle was over a hundred years away from being invented. One of the lies that the NRA loves to drudge up is the idea that gun control is, exclusively, a modern day phenomenon. Really? In the nineteenth century it was against the law for a private citizen to own a cannon. Had the people of that era experienced the problems that the people of the twenty-first century have had to deal with - trust me on this one - laws would have been passed and constitutions amended. If we're really serious about putting an end to this insanity, that is what must be done. And while passing an amendment into law which limits freedom is always a bad idea, the truth of the matter is that a so-called "free society" which lives in mortal terror of when the next attack will occur isn't really free at all but is, in fact, a society held hostage.

This isn't rocket science, folks; it's called "common sense"!

This week, as in times past, we're having all the old, tired cliche`s of the National Rifle Association shoved down our throats: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Of course they don't - and I'm seriously considering shooting the next person who tells me that. "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them." Yeah right. Were you aware of the fact that gun violence in Britain has all-but vanished since that country banned all hand guns a few years ago? The same is true for Australia! In countries where firearms are difficult or impossible to obtain, the murder rate is extremely low or (in some cases) non-existent. I'm not makin' this stuff up, folks! Do the research!

And while it may be true (as the NRA never tires of pointing out) that a person who wants to kill you will make the attempt regardless of the weapon available, you stand much more of a sporting chance out-running someone with a switch blade than a bullet fired through the chamber of a 9 mm semi-automatic. Can you even imagine the carnage that would have ensued had this crazed VT student tried to strangle his victims with a rolled up scarf? Everyone on that campus would have died laughing!

Maybe I'm a tad sensitive on this issue because I had a loved one killed a number of years ago by some twisted little geek who had been stalking her.

Susan Clements, my beloved, lost cousin, was an accomplished, violinist, pianist and an award winning writer (it runs in the family...OK, maybe not, just bear with me). She was twenty-three years old and had everything to live for (A photo of her may be viewed at the top of this piece). The man who murdered her in cold blood - a German exchange student - could not easily gain access to a gun in Indiana (Susan's native state) so he flew to Arizona - a state where the gun laws are about as stupid as those in Virginia - and was able to obtain two of them. He then flew back to Bloomington and killed her and her boyfriend, Steven Molen, in her dorm room at the University of Indiana on April 23, 1992. She was such a beautiful, sweet and gentle girl. Monday will mark the fifteenth anniversary of her passing and it doesn't get any easier. I once met an elderly man in Toronto whose own daughter had died in the same, horrible manner over thirty years before. He said to me, "You adjust, but you never really get over it." I've come to learn how right he was.

Are there lessons to be learned from what happened Monday on the killing field of what had been just another peaceful college town the day before? Oh, yeah! A whole shitload of lessons! Are the American people finally going to take those lessons to heart? Don't hold your breath.

Pray for peace.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
Photograph of Susan Clements by Mary Dell

13 Comments:

At 9:34 AM, Anonymous Charles Moore said...

Hi Tom,

You are absolutely right when you say that again nothing will be done about gun laws. I have never understood how such a small group as the NRA could have so much influence and evidently strike such terror into so many politicians as to paralyze them from taking meaningful action.

Having grown up in the rural south with wild four legged critters around, I acknowledge that it is sometimes expedient to have a rifle or such around, but no sane person really needs an assualt weapon. It is beyond pathetic when criminals are better armed than many of our own police.

I must admit that my reaction was also somewhat less sympathetic than it should have been. Yes, we have become desensitized to reports of daily killing whether they are here or in Baghdad and frankly, I am becoming tired of the crocodile tears articles that continue to be churned out by the media about Virginia Tech.

As a sideline, I find it interesting that some writers have commented that many gun supporters feel that their guns are a phallic extension of their masculinity and to take them away would be to emasculate them. Perhaps something to ponder.

Now we only have to sit back and wait for the copy cats to come out. Here in my own place of employment, one woman was fired on Tuesday for saying that she wished she had a gun so that she could take out some of her fellow coworkers.

And menawhile Bush fiddles while Iraq and the United States burns.

 
At 2:41 PM, Anonymous Christopher Haig said...

Tom,

I agree with you that the horrible tragedy at VA Tech serves as a springboard to discuss gun control in America. However, while not a gun owner myself; I do fear the implications of any action taken by the government to limit our rights and privacy. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that our fore fathers could not have predicted the availability of technology as vicious as an automatic weapon. But, I do think that they understood the consequences of limiting the rights that they were establishing when they wrote the constitution. And, one thing that so many people have missed about the VA Tech shootings is that they were carried out with two semi automatic pistols, not “assault weapons” of any sort.

It is unfortunate that we as a society do not apply the same fervor to other social ills that we apply to this issue. Take for example the fact that in 2005 there were a total of 10,104 firearm homicides in the United States. Compare that to the 16,885 people who died in alcohol related automobile accidents during the same period. Now, we don’t fight to take away people’s right to their alcohol, or their cars do we? That would be ludicrous, and we’ve already tried it and it did not work. Instead, we treat drunk driving as a social ill, and treat it accordingly. Why then do we not explore gun violence as a social ill as well? Let’s look at what happens in our society to incite violence in the first place and treat the problem there, at its root.

I appreciate the fact that you point to Australia as a landmark society in your statement “In countries where firearms are difficult or impossible to obtain, the murder rate is extremely low or (in some cases) non-existent”. This is absolutely true. However, banning semi-automatic and automatic weapons has had no effect on the overall homicide rate in that country. Australia as a society has historically had an incredibly low homicide rate. Keeping in mind that the ban on these weapons occurred in 1997 in Australia, refer to this website http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/crime/homicide.html and you will see that homicide rate in Australia was not affected by this ban. I am glad that you encouraged me to “Do the research!”. Perhaps we still have a lesson to learn from Australia, but we’re just looking in the wrong place. How, has Australia managed to maintain a homicide rate between 1 and 2% for the last century when we struggle to keep ours in the ballpark of 9%? If we can answer this question, we may be closer to achieving the peace we both long for without allowing the government to legislate away our rights.

Sincerely,

Chris Haig

 
At 3:25 AM, Anonymous Larkrise said...

My other concern, besides gun laws, is the ignorance of most Americans and the Media about mental illness. I will add a post about that, that I sent to NBC Nightly News. In response to Tom, however, I agree with him absolutely about gun laws in this country. The NRA owns
state legislatures and Congress. It has bought them and will continue to buy them with campaign contributions and lobbyist lollipops. The majority of Americans want gun control. They are ignored, just as Bush and his flunkies ignore the public on Iraq. The solution to gun violence in this country, according to the NRA, is for all of us to be armed to the teeth, wearing clips of Ammo and twirling our Smith and Wessons. "Hey,Dude" cover me while I go to the grocery store!" Indianapolis is in the throes of a terrible murder(S)-a-day epidemic. It is finally reaching the ritzy suburbs of Hamilton Co.and is a fixture in Marion Co. I imagine it is that way in many parts of the country. In some states you can obtain a gun with incredible ease. Gun shows are even worse. There should be NO reason for the average citizen to have a semi-automatic weapon or even a Saturday Night Special handgun. All guns should be licensed and registered. The manufacture and distribution of guns should be controlled like prescription narcotics. Yes, there will be a Black Market and Illegal Trade, but it will BE illegal. We need to have more traffic stop/barricade searches and confiscation of weapons. Most criminals are too damned lazy to walk. Traffic stops will get a lot of weapons in a short time. The laws need to facilitate this, not hamper it. And, that gets us back to the Rogue NRA. Those who accept big bucks from the NRA; and routinely vote against any reasonable gun control, need to be targeted as aiders and abettors of death and destruction. Hunting guns must be licensed and registered. Only law enforcement and the military should have handguns. If the INS can conduct immigration raids, then the AFT should be able to conduct gun raids, until the illegal weaponry load is significantly reduced. We look down our noses at Developing Countries and tisk-tisk about political violence. Given our behavior in the Middle East and our governmental embrace of the NRA and gun culture, the tis-tisking needs to come to an end. A good long look in the mirror would be more appropriate.

 
At 3:37 AM, Anonymous Larkrise said...

The Massacre at Virginia Tech will provoke discussion on many levels. That is as it should be. For the families and friends involved and the students and faculty of Virginia Tech, now is a time for grief and mourning. Those of us who have watched this tragedy unfold through the Media, also feel sadness and great concern. Nevertheless, the Media should be hearing from Mental Health Professionals concerning these horrific events. I am one of those professionals. I practiced psychiatric nursing for 20 years. I also have a Master of Science Degree in Psychology. My Nursing and Psychology degrees are from Purdue University. I was a Ford foundation Scholar. I last practiced active psychiatric/mental health nursing in 1993; and was A.N.A. Board Certified in Child/Adolescent Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. I was also certified in Jungian Play Therapy. I have kept an ongoing interest in the profession. While the medications have changed over the years, the symptoms of illness have not. I was the Head Nurse at Larue Carter Psychiatric Hospital at Indiana University Medical Center on the Research Unit in the late 70's. We had mostly adult patients and some teens. These were people who did not respond well to the treatments offered at the time, and, thus, were given investigational drugs. They were the most severely ill patients from all over the Sate of Indiana. Mr. Cho would have most likely fallen into that category.
If there is any positive that can come from the Massacre at VT, it will be to help the Media and the public become better informed about mental illness. All too often, it is at the bottom of the budget at both the sate and federal levels. There are not nearly enough group homes, outpatient facilities and affordable inpatient facilities. Most insurance companies have little or no coverage for mental illness, and if they offer coverage, it has a cap. The problem pervades our society; and as long as we ignore it, tragedies will occur.
Below is a DSMIV diagnostic description of Schizophrenia. It is a devastating illness. It is not widely understood by the public:


Psychiatric Disorders

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Schizophrenia

Category

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Psychotic Disorders

Etiology

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many theories have been introduced in an attempt to explain this disorder. Currently, most professionals believe it is a result of a physiological condition brought out by a life stressor.

Symptoms

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Symptoms of Schizophrenia typically begin between adolescence and early adulthood for males and a few years later for females, and usually as a result of a stressful period (such as beginning college or starting a first full time job). Initial symptoms may include delusions and hallucinations, disorganized behavior and/or speech. As the disorder progresses symptoms such as flattening or inappropriate affect may develop. See Schizophreniform for more information on diagnoses.

Treatment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Medication is the most important part of treatment as it can reduce and sometimes eliminate the psychotic symptoms. Case management is often needed to assist with daily living skills, financial matters, and housing, and therapy can help the individual learn better coping skills and improve social and occupational skills.

Prognosis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no cure for this disorder so prognosis is poor. However, medication has been shown to be quite effective against the psychotic symptoms and therapy can help the individual cope with the illness better and improve social functioning. Absence of what is termed the negative symptoms (flattened affect, avolition, and poor social interaction) improves the prognosis significantly.





This is, of course, a very brief description of a complicated illness. Not all patients will manifest all symptoms. Some will be more disorganized than others. Not all patients hallucinate. Most are not violent. However, there is a small percentage who are. Mr. Cho evidenced most of the symptoms. He had poor social interaction, flattened affect, a tightly knit delusional system, delusions of grandeur, and religiosity. To know if he had other symptoms, I would have to see his medical record; but these are very evident from descriptions on TV.
His delusional system encompassed much of his existence. It was organized. He was an intelligent young man, who realized that others would not accept his delusions, so he refrained from speaking to others. He could have kept short conversations together, but his delusions would have come out in therapy. They did come out in his writing. He saw himself as persecuted, as a "savior", as a victim of "societal" forces. This is not uncommon in paranoid schizophrenia. I have had patients who were convinced they were being targeted by the FBI and CIA. Arguing or attempting to re-direct their assertions will not succeed, but only cause more anxiety, more isolation, and a worsening of symptoms. Their delusions are all that makes sense to their disintegrating mind.
There was an expert on Keith Olbermann's program, Dr. Susan Lipkind, who was an excellent, obviously experienced, and knowledgable resource. She should be referred to more often. She nailed the diagnosis and the effects of the illness. News people, pundits, and even profilers keep trying to "make sense" of the ramblings, the symbols and the rage of Mr. Cho. The fact of the matter is, it made sense only to him. He was not in touch with reality, as we know it. He had created an alternate universe, so to speak, to explain to himself why he "did not fit in." Refer to the movie, "A Beautiful Mind" if you want to see a realistic protrayal of schizophrenia, paranoid, organized.Fortunately, the person was not extremely violent. The public, all too often, thinks of the mentally ill as ranting lunatics. Many of those in the Media keep wondering how a person, so seriously ill, could function, could plan, could calcualte. It can happen. This is why a small percentage of Paranoid Schizophrenics can be dangerous to themselves and others. In time, he probably would have become more disorganized. The manuscript he sent to NBC indicates that. His writing rambled and was often incoherent. Schizophrenia is a chronic illness. Some people do develop insight and can manage their disease. Others never do. Another of my patients was a beautiful woman in her 50's. She dressed like a fashion model. Her manners were impeccable. She was gracious and pleasant. She murdered three men. After talking with her for a time, she would tell you she had been invited to tea with Queen Elizabeth and was a close friend of the Reagans.Because of her attractiveness, she would visit bars and be picked up by men. She shot them. She had to spend her last years at a State Hospital. My personal opinion is that mentally ill persons who have exhibited violent behaviors or criminal behaviors, should not be allowed to live on their own. Psychiatric medications have very uncomfortable side effects. Patients will often stop taking their medication, especially if they have no insight into their illness. There are another group of patients who develop tolerance to their medication, and it no longer is effective. Both of these groups should have living quarters in a supervised group home, where medication compliance can be monitored or tolerance can be ascertained. In that case, medication can be changed or modified. A very small group will not respond to medication. Given the level of severity of their symptoms, they should remain hospitalized. The problem is that laws don't reflect reality for this minority of patients. It is very difficult to keep a patient permanently hospitalized. This is why Mr. Cho was released. The law protects the majority of mentally ill patients. It does not always protect society. The laws vary state to state, but it is extrmely difficult to keep a patient for more than 30 days. If they show improvement, they must be released. Patients can be quite cagey. They get themselves together for the psychiatrist so that they look good. On the unit, they may still show signs of illness. Unfortunately, cost factors in, patient load factors in, bed availability factors in, family assurances factor in, and the patient is released. I would suspect some of these factors played a part in Mr. Cho's release. He was a student at a prestigious university. He came from a good family. He was intelligent. His sister was a Princeton graduate. These are all positives. They softened the negatives. I contend he should have been in a group home. But, it would take court-mandated institutionalization to force him to take that option. It is no accident that Mr. Cho decompensated so close to the end of his Senior Year. He was going to be forced to navigate in the real world. He couldnt adjust socially, had no serious love prospects and no acceptable way to relate, and had no job opportunities awaiting him. This must have caused unbearable anxiety. It is unfair to blame his parents and his Korean background/descent. Many researchers believe there is a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia. Stressors can triggor it. Hormonal changes, such as child birth, can trigger it. Abuse and neglect can trigger it. But, it is there, and may evidence itself come what may. It is a biochemical disorder of the brain, affecting one's perception of reality. Mr. Cho was not evil. His actions were horrific, but he was ill. His words were violent and terrifying, but a deranged mind produced them. He was not psychopathic in the same way as Ted Bundy or John Gacy. They were disordered. They were not schizophrenic. Someday, we will understand these disorders and illnesses; and how best to treat them. At this point in time, the most we can do is try to protect the public, try to recognize the signs, and avoid false assumptions. We need to educate the public. The Media should take this opportunity to do so.
There is a considerable amount of anger in the news. Steve Capus and criminal profilers have voiced it. This is a normal grief reaction.But, it shouldn't end there. It is more productive for the public, for university and school officials everywhere, and for law enforcement to have a much more comprehensive understanding of mental illness. Revenge, anger, hatred and stereotyping will not bring back 33 lives. To finally accept and understand that the perpetrator was ill, will be far more healing. This was a very, very sick young man. All of us need to know about mental illness. We should avoid the derogatory terms, the lashing out, the idea that this young man was hateful. It is his actions that were horrific. His mind was tortured; and he had shown signs of illness since childhood. Instead, it is better to focus on the fact that mental illness takes a toll. While it is too soon for many, compassion is never wasted. It will help the one who offers it, even if it seems to some to excuse a terrible act. That Mr. Cho was ill, is NOT an excuse. It is an explanation. He may fit the profile of rage mass-killers in several respects; but he WAS mentally ill. I don't know if all rage mass-killers have been schizophrenic. A differentiation needs to be made. If this sad and tragic opportunity is used to learn and teach about mental illness, 33 lives will not have been lost in vain.

Sincerely,

Patricia Davis Chang, R.N., M.S.

 
At 4:54 AM, Anonymous Wilma Lamb said...

Dear Tom,When the founding fathers wrote the constitution times were much different then.
Guns were a necessary part of life.Hunting wild game for food; in many cases fighting off marauding Indians and each soldier had to provide his own gun; the army didn't furnish guns as it does now.
As in everything in our society today guns are a source of money and political power.
There are big bucks in the price of the gun, all the goodies that go with it and especially the cost of the helicopter for some would-be Nimrod to shoot helpless animals on the ground.
My father,grandfather and all of our neighbors owned guns and hunted rabbits, squirrels and quail.
My mother once shot a chicken hawk out of the sky with a 30-30 rifle because it was circling over her flock of chickens.

 
At 8:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom,
Do you know what the Gestapo confiscated at their first opportunity, since the law demanded the registry?
Did this prevent resistance to the insanity that was happening in Germany at the time?
While we're discussing the registration of "guns", should there also be a registry and background checks for box cutters?
Rental trucks? Potassium fertilizers?

Methinks the outrage against firearms is misplaced. A terrible tragedy happened because an insane killer decided to act on his delusions. You may guess if he lived in Blacksburg or Washington DC.

 
At 9:23 AM, Blogger Tom Degan's Daily Rant said...

To Anonymous,
Thank you for posting. You made one can only be described as a thoughtful argument. While I don't believe guns should be banned across the board, there should, indeed, be a federal standard. It should at least be as difficult to get a gun as it is to get a driver's license but in most states that isn't the case. Also, I believe that no one should be allowed to own rapid fire or assault weapons. It's my opinion that we're not going to solve the problem of exessive gun violence in this country until we start dealing with these issues.
Cheers!
Tom Degan
tomdegan@frontiernet.net

 
At 11:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom,
In my humble opinion, if someone is intent on acting on their violent delusions, no amount of "law", "legal requirements", nor
"federal guidelines" will be effective.
My reading of the 2nd Amendment implies that the "right to bear arms" by an informed citizenry needs to be preserved so that in the event of governmental tyranny, those citizens have the arms to overthrow such.
I am not advocating violence.
I am a pacifist.
However, no amount of legislation will prevent someone with intent from purchasing illegal firearms, illegal drugs or even, dare I say, the illegal confiscation of Constitutional "rights" by those that self justify their actions.
Witness the creation of improvised explosive devices that are effectively being used against an occupying military in Iraq that seeks to deny the rights of the minority and confiscate the resources (oil) of the populace.

 
At 10:37 PM, Anonymous Wilma Lamb said...

I am against concealed carry. I can see no rationale for carrying a concealed weapon.
Of all the dumb laws passed by the US Congress, concealed carry is George Bush dumb.
If one feels the need for the protection of a firearm the firearm should be in plain sight.
several people were killed after the law was passed because a nervous perp thought the victim was reaching for a concealed weapon

 
At 10:57 AM, Anonymous Georgette Orwell said...

I thought that Florida's gun laws are the nation's worst--it's not only easy to get a gun, but you're allowed to shoot first if you feel threatened by anyone, and *you* get to define threatened.

Once Charlton Heston made an NRA speech in which he said 'There are no bad guns. Any gun in the hands of a decent person is no threat to anybody -- except bad people.... "
For the next three weeks I clipped every newspaper and magazine story I could find about gun violence, about all the people killed accidentally, the kids being macho and killing to avenge being dissed, the adults losing control in an argument, the abusers committing the final abuse, the mentally ill who shoot up students, the suicides, and some just plain folks with either bad judgment or very bad luck.
There was no lack of materials. The Boston Globe alone would yield half a dozen a day. It took a box rather than an envelope to send the stories of good- and not-so good people shot to death by someone who shouldn't have had a gun. Possession might have been legal, but it wasn't and isn't right.
As a matter of fact, I think I'm going to repeat the exercise. There might be at least one legislator whose mind could be opened if not changed.
I bombard all of them with emails, but something tangible probably makes more of an impact. Now, where are those scissors....

 
At 11:10 AM, Blogger Tom Degan's Daily Rant said...

Great posting, Georgette! That was a keeper! Please email me sometime.
tomdegan@frontiernet.net
Peace!
Tom Degan

 
At 10:28 PM, Anonymous Dr. Rick Lippin said...

There is a post on Huffington Post y Arianna herself on Charlie Rose interview with Tom Delay who was hawking 2nd Amendment rights where he suggests all students should own a gun?

Delay is a real menace to society and left the senate in disgrace.

Why is someone like Charlie Rose or Meet the Press (about a month ago) giving this evil human prime time?

Dr. Rick Lippin
"Blake:

 
At 6:04 AM, Blogger Nancy said...

No one and I mean NO ONE should be allowed to buy anything but hunting rifles or small arms. No one should be allowed to use assault weapons or machine guns. What are they going to do with them, shoot a herd of deer?

I used to be completely anti-gun but now have met sane people who own them. Like cars, they need to be regulated and registered.
NO ONE currently registered as a college student should be allowed to own one, whether or not they are of legal age. Colleges should be no-gun zones.

That little beast should have been expelled from the college long before for stalking women and burning up a dorm room. There was no excuse to leave him in the college; he frightened other students and teachers and was removed from a class after taking 'inappropriate photographs'. What were they thinking by letting this human time bomb continue to walk around campus?
And why, when there were two murders in a dorm and an uncaught perp, did they not lock down the campus?

I'd sue that college for everything it was worth, which isn't much.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home