Looks like the motherfucker lied in box 11f. of his Form 4473. And the background check didn't uncover it. Go figure.
BLACKSBURG, Va. (AP) - The gunman blamed for the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history had previously been accused of stalking two female students and had been taken to a mental health facility in 2005 after his parents worried he might be suicidal, police said Wednesday.
Cho Seung-Hui had concerned one woman enough with his calls and e-mail in 2005 that police were called in, said Police Chief Wendell Flinchum.
He said the woman declined to press charges and Cho was referred to the university disciplinary system. During one of those incidents, both in late 2005, the department received a call from Cho's parents who were concerned that he might be suicidal, and he was taken to a mental health facility, he said.
"But we can't know! We can't predict it! People just go nuts! The only way we can be safe is to restrict everyone's access to guns!"
This is my crusade. We have to start taking precusor crimes seriously. That means not sealing the record of juveniles, and elevating response to what are now considered minor crimes, particularly arson, stalking, and domestic violence. Even minor offenses like speeding can be good indicators in conjunction with other factors.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Comments
A few months later, the roommate killed her mother with an axe. And *then* went on a date. Then came back to her place, where the dead mother was still upstairs, and watched a movie with her boyfriend. Eventually she told the boyfriend what happened, he called the cops, and after an initial claim that the mother died of a drug overdose which the cops didn't quite buy, she confessed.
My response when I found out about this, after getting over the initial "holy crap!" was, "Huh. I guess she wasn't exaggerating about how crazy her roommate was."
Um...
The 3 strikes law was a sensible idea in principle. Unfortunately it was implemented badly in some states.
The whole juvenile record sealing idea is stupid. There may be a case for some leniency toward juveniles but it should be graduated. Part of the problem is that any felony record can screw up someones life. Even when that felony is selling a few joints.
Stalking and domestic violence could be taken more seriously, provided the only evidence isn't the woman's mere word that something occurred. There needs to be some other corroboration. Accusing the husband of domestic violence during a divorce is practically SOP nowadays.
What they found was that for about a third of those actually arrested, about one third of them had outstanding warrants on felony charges. They were held on those charges. You can say all you want for "community policing" as a means to bring down crime rates, but there is no substitute for putting bad people in jail. People who do not think the rules apply to them rarely distinguish between misdemeanors and felonies.
Admittedly, 2/3rds of those arrested were not felons, but if you went back to New York 8 years later, it was a different place, a different atmosphere, and even a noticeably elevated level of civility.
When I was there in 98 for the first time in about five years, a limo cut-off my cab driver. The cabbie aggressively pulled up next to the limo at the next stop and rolled down his window. In a very controlled voice he said: "You didn't see me, right!" That kind of civility could be witnessed all over Manhatten that month.
Enforcing all the laws does make a difference, starting with improving citizens respect for the laws and running all the way through putting more of the bad guys in jail.
Heh. Y'know, one of my pieces of advice for young men is to ask potential girlfriends two questions:
Sexy and smart are obvious. That's the quickest shortcut to telling if she's sane. You should be glad they don't listen to me, or you'd be mobbed.
Right because speeding is the same as arson.
I'm always stunned that most domestic violence goes completely unreported, as well.
I'm stunned women stick with men who treat them like shit.
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_am
But it's not the second amendment debate that concerns me as much as the delegation of guns to people with mental imbalances and how we determine which loony gets which firearm or defensive tool. I have been diagnosed by multiple psychological professionals as a bi-polar personality (not the fun, loopy kind, fortunately) with reversal seasonal depressive disorder. And it's usually the case of mental illnesses that patients suffer multiple afflictions. But I have been able, thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster, to maintain a functional life with regular exercise, writing music, performing in a band and organizing burlesque life drawing classes every month. I have also been the victim of assault a couple times and in all instances, my martial arts training saved my ass and prevented anybody, including the attacker, from getting hurt, even when knives and chains were involved.
But then things like VTech and the Utah mall happen and I don't want to be one of the citizens caught in the fire fight without my own defense--and nobody ever developed a kung fu technique to block bullets so they ricocheted and hit the gunmen instead. My first thought upon reading about the shooting was "That's it. I'm buying a gun." My second thought was "They really shouldn't give guns to unbalanced whackos...oh...wait."
Where does one with an imbalance decide between personal defense and the safety of everybody else? Or what's the greater threat, the unknown mugger or myself? And as much as guns cost, law enforcement teaches us to cooperate with an attacker with a firearm, not to play cowboy. Kinda negates the point of carrying a firearm though, doesn't it? If I carried a firearm around town, I'd have difficulty even walking into most establishments, including work, and if the point of walking around with a gun is deterrence, then what's the point of keeping bullets in the thing? Maybe I haven't grokked the point of gun ownership in a metropolitan area yet.
But back on the topic of mental illness, I've reached the rationalization that I've personally owned knives and chemicals and all sorts of ways to kill myself all this time, and I haven't done so. So maybe gun ownership is within my means, emotionally.
Untrue. Law enforcement leadership preaches that line. Every single street cop I've ever met has the opposite viewpoint, which is backed up by simple logic: they're not on scene when shit goes down, so they can't protect you.
If I carried a firearm around town, I'd have difficulty even walking into most establishments, including work, and if the point of walking around with a gun is deterrence, then what's the point of keeping bullets in the thing?
If a business prohibits its patrons from being able to defend themselves, don't give them your money. Example: open carry is legal in El Paso county, Colorado. I once stopped at a grocery store on my way back from the range. My 100% legal and safe .357 was in its holster on my hip. As I was checking out, the store manager ordered me off the premises for "inciting panic."
Guess which grocery store gets no more business from any gun owner in his neighborhood.
Maybe I haven't grokked the point of gun ownership in a metropolitan area yet.
Because that's where the bad guys are. QED.
Guns are only fired in *maybe* 1-in-10 times they're pulled for self defense. If you have the balls for it, don't load the gun, and carry it for deterrent. However, that's "individual deterrent", and "group deterrent" is also important; if you stop a crime with a gun, criminals are less likely to commit crime in that area again, and that particular criminal, if they live, will need to reassess the cost of their "crime of opportunity".
Maybe I haven't grokked the point of gun ownership in a metropolitan area yet.
I work in a shitty area of Washington, DC. Trade you? They're never a good idea to take to the bar (or while drinking in any sense), but other than that, they're just another tool to carry around. Ever regularly carry a pocketknife, because you might need it?
The only time I carry a knife with me is when I'm hiking the mountain preserve, but that's more for utility than self defense. But I am planning on touring across state lines with my band eventually. And before that happens, I would rather have a firearm for defense to protect me, my bandmates and all of our expensive equipment.
I guess I've been fortunate that the only times people decided to attack me were a) people I knew and b) didn't use firearms. I'm 28 and have yet to be in a situation which I really wish I had a gun.
I know which people to ask when I decide to purchase a firearm, though. Thanks for the feedback, both of you.
When it's appropriate to carry a handgun, I think people should, without stigma beyond the fact that it's a good step up in responsibility. You don't forget when you have a gun on your hip.
I would certainly recommend the book In the Gravest Extreme, by Massad Ayoob. It deals with the ethics of using lethal force in self-defense, and is possibly the best gun book I own.
I also tend to believe that lead works better than pepper spray when dealing with angry bears, and usually carry if I'm backpacking where bears are likely to be.
I'm also 28, and have been in at least one situation where a gun would have been a good choice to have with me.