VA Tech families make a statement


PDA






ZeSpectre
June 12, 2007, 12:46 PM
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061102119.html)

Families' Statement
Tuesday, June 12, 2007; Page B02

Here is the statement written on behalf of 13 families of victims of the April 16 Virginia Tech massacre, in which 32 people were killed by student Seung Hui Cho. The panel investigating the shootings received the statement yesterday at a meeting in Fairfax County.

"We, as family members of the Virginia Tech victims, are both angry and disappointed. We are angry about being ostracized from a government-chartered panel investigating a government-sponsored university (Virginia Tech), and about how the university has used the names and images of our loved ones to raise millions of dollars without any consultation. We have many unanswered questions. We don't speak for everyone, but in addressing these issues we are speaking to issues and outcomes that affect families across this nation. We seek accountability to make our campuses safe for all our children and their teachers, and to remember that all the victims of this act were good people doing great things -- that is our focus.

"We are of one mind that we must, and will, be represented by membership in the work of this panel. This is, in our minds, non-negotiable and the minimum this panel owes to us, the memories of our loved ones, and the future safety of our campuses across the Commonwealth, the nation, and the world.

"We want this panel to uncover the unbiased truth about the events and decisions of April 16th which took the lives of our loved ones, the events prior, and the reactions following, as the Governor's charge at the first meeting tasked. By collecting all the facts, the panel will be able to expose the flaws in Virginia Tech's academic student conduct, procedural, and mental health actions. Through such exposure, the university will be able to identify necessary changes to handling students with severe emotional and behavioral problems. The panel needs access to all of Cho's records, including immigration and mental health records, and we strongly support use of Crime Commission subpoena power to get them. The health privacy laws must be addressed in terms of the balance between patient privacy and the safety of those patients and the public around them; we do not accept that patient privacy is (or should be) the sole overriding criterion in making records available to those charged with public safety and security of our college campuses.

"Although not a focus of this meeting, we cannot let pass the point that sensible gun control measures are in no way incompatible with anyone's Constitutional rights and are at least as likely as some other recent suggestions to help prevent future tragedies of this nature. We are not advocating any particular solutions, but we are sure that having more guns more readily accessible on college campuses is not part of it.

"We are very concerned about the accountability of the Hokie Spirit Fund. We expect that a university which takes the names and images of 32 victims for vast fundraising purposes will, at the very least, consult with the families on how this money is raised and how it is being disbursed. This is not only a moral but a legal duty.

"Finally, we believe this goes well beyond the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that a federal commission needs to be empaneled to address the larger issues that affect all families and students across the nation."

:barf:

If you enjoyed reading about "VA Tech families make a statement" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
30 cal slob
June 12, 2007, 12:49 PM
ya know, regardless, i feel awful for the parents.

ZeSpectre
June 12, 2007, 12:51 PM
Me too, but that doesn't change the fact that it was the right call to exclude these people from the panel. They are far too emotionally involved to come to any sort of a rational decision or conclusion. This whole statement can be summed up as...

They are upset.
They want the answers that they want and they'll trample anything in their way in order to get them.
They need a concrete set of scapegoats that can be "punished" so that they feel like they have some control over this situation.

I completely understand the reaction(s) but they are based on grief, not logic.

tinygnat219
June 12, 2007, 01:02 PM
Wow. I was with them up until the anti-gun comments. Sorry folks, they aren't to blame. Cho is.

eric_t12
June 12, 2007, 01:19 PM
everyone knows the guns made him do it

where have you guys been /sarcasm

regardless of any of the above, i do feel for them. i don't know what i would feel if my child was shot by a lunatic, but i can guarantee i wouldn't blame anyone except the person who did it, and the people who didn't allow my child to carry for his and others' defense.

buzz_knox
June 12, 2007, 01:23 PM
"We are not advocating any particular solutions, but we are sure that having more guns more readily accessible on college campuses is not part of it.

Translation: "We aren't advocating any solution, but we are sure going to campaign against the most effective one."

As for "sensible gun control measures," someone's been reading the Brady handbook

Leatherneck
June 12, 2007, 01:53 PM
I've got a bad feeling about this Kane-chartered panel, even without the grief-stricken families as part of it. I don't believe there's a single RKBA champion on it. Stand by.

TC

TrybalRage
June 12, 2007, 02:02 PM
How are guns on campus the problem?

Out of tens of thousands of students, only 1 had one.

Titan6
June 12, 2007, 02:18 PM
TR- That is the most concise comment I have seen in a while. I would say send that to Oleg and see if there is a poster in it.

theleveloftime
June 12, 2007, 02:29 PM
If you fight like a man, you never have to die like a dog.
This requires you have arms.
Here ends the lesson.
Post Script to lesson:
Does anyone suppose that if the heroic professor who held the door against the madman so his students could flee for their lives had been armed he would have given Cho some hot lead? I do, he was a man and did not die like a dog!

SANman
June 12, 2007, 02:57 PM
We are not advocating any particular solutions, but we are sure that having more guns more readily accessible on college campuses is not part of it.

....because banning guns from campus completely was an effective deterrent for the criminal element/whack jobs.

Oh, wait a minute. That didn't work, and may have even contributed to the problem.:banghead:

Henry Bowman
June 12, 2007, 03:01 PM
We are not advocating any particular solutions, but we are sure that having more guns more readily accessible on college campuses is not part of it.I feel for you, but when Cho started shooting, who was called for help? Men with guns.

Titan6
June 12, 2007, 03:09 PM
Since the ban did not work the first time maybe they should double ban them?

Sistema1927
June 12, 2007, 03:09 PM
Too bad that nobody on the panel will have the guts to tell them:

"Do you want to know why your loved ones are dead? They are dead because they were convenient targets in a victim rich environment and were barred by regulation from possessing the means to protect themselves."

TCB in TN
June 12, 2007, 03:11 PM
In the VT aftermath there have been numerous articles about the problems with the US gun culture, and I agree that we do have 1 HUGE problem with the gun culture in our country........ Not enough of the right people have them.

Some churches, our schools, our jobs, and especially our Government is doing all that it can to take the ability to defend ourselves AWAY! It is time that is does stop, I propose that we start a STOP THE MADNESS crusade.

Stop the madness carry concealed!

ZeSpectre
June 12, 2007, 03:21 PM
We are not advocating any particular solutions, but we are sure that having more guns more readily accessible on college campuses is not part of it.
I feel for you, but when Cho started shooting, who was called for help? Men with guns.

Wow, I think Henry Bowman hit it right on the head. In fact this scenario proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that having more guns on campus DID improve the situation. Cho was certainly forced to stop his rampage when OTHER armed individuals showed up.

Deanimator
June 12, 2007, 03:30 PM
Too bad that nobody on the panel will have the guts to tell them:

"Do you want to know why your loved ones are dead? They are dead because they were convenient targets in a victim rich environment and were barred by regulation from possessing the means to protect themselves."
__________________

Disarming the potential VICTIMS to prevent violence makes as much sense as using chum as shark repellent.

Deanimator
June 12, 2007, 03:33 PM
Delete duplicate post

SWMAN
June 12, 2007, 03:44 PM
According to the Washington Post article, the family of 13 want more gun control.

Relatives of Cho's victims, in often emotional remarks that caused others to leave the room in tears, called for tougher gun laws and questioned the panel's work, saying in a statement that they feel "ostracized." Some even said they want the power to edit the panel's final report.

ZeSpectre
June 12, 2007, 03:54 PM
I'll repeat what I said in post #3
They want the answers that they want any other answers just won't do for them. It's called denial (see stages of grief (http://www.cancersurvivors.org/Coping/end%20term/stages.htm)).

Which, again, is exactly why they must be EXCLUDED from any policy decisions right now.

romma
June 12, 2007, 04:02 PM
32 - 13 families leaves = 19! Probably 19 VT families that did not agree with their so-called sensible gun control.

Crunker1337
June 12, 2007, 04:06 PM
I think a working background check system would be both Constitutional and reasonable, but beyond that mehhhhhhhhhhhhh

Mr. James
June 12, 2007, 04:23 PM
ZeSpectre nailed it. These people are fueled, perhaps understandably so, by raw emotion. And that does not make for sound policy- or law-making.

Kaine may have stacked this panel with apologists for the continued victim-disarmament zones, and nothing but mischief is likely to come of it. But he did one thing right in keeping the families the heck away from it.

RNB65
June 12, 2007, 04:38 PM
IMHO, this letter is pretty meaningless. It sounds like these families are at the anger stage of the grieving process and have decided to lash out at pretty much everyone remotely associated with the deaths of their loved ones -- the review panel, the Governor, the government, the university, people who have contributed money, etc.

I think this letter makes it very clear why the families were excluded from the panel. The review panel is supposed to make their findings and recommendations based on facts and not on emotions.

I've known families who have lost children, and the intense anger, depression, frustration, and feeling of total helplessness that seems to last forever is overwhelming. They deserve sympathy, not criticism, even if we disagree with their opinions.

illspirit
June 12, 2007, 04:39 PM
Panel seems like a total farce. They've also had some crazy guy in there a couple of times saying it's all the fault of video games, even though none of Cho's roommates ever saw him playing any. How many inanimate objects do they plan to shift the blame onto?

modifiedbrowning
June 12, 2007, 05:55 PM
Since the ban did not work the first time maybe they should double ban them?
They're going to put guns on triple secret probation.

Prince Yamato
June 12, 2007, 06:09 PM
We want this panel to uncover the unbiased truth about the events and decisions of April 16th which took the lives of our loved ones, the events prior, and the reactions following

Your kids were shot dead by a wackjob. The campus didn't do a good job of informing them that said wackjob was on campus. We all are mourning for you. I don't mean to seem like a callous bastard, but what do these people want? Your kids are dead, no committee will bring them back. You want to form a group to punish other good people because of what happened to you. It's not enough that you people are miserable, now everyone else has to suffer DIRECTLY with you. You want to vent, go punch a wall, go scream at a preacher about why "God let this happen", but don't take it out on everyone else. And yes, more gun control WILL trample on our rights. Somehow, these people have bit the Cindy Sheehan bug that when something bad happens to an innocent person you love, that anything you say, becomes irrefutable and morally correct. Well, it doesn't.

The fact that they're clamouring for it 2 months after leads me to believe that some of them are probably upset that their brief moments of fame have faded. Again, I know it sounds cruel, but some people relish the fame that's heaped upon them after tragedies. Moment in the spotlight fades? Open another committee.

Caimlas
June 12, 2007, 06:12 PM
I agree with everything they say, except this:


"Although not a focus of this meeting, we cannot let pass the point that sensible gun control measures are in no way incompatible with anyone's Constitutional rights and are at least as likely as some other recent suggestions to help prevent future tragedies of this nature. We are not advocating any particular solutions, but we are sure that having more guns more readily accessible on college campuses is not part of it.


Ya know, I'm going to get flack for this, but: I have absolutely no sympathies for the parents who signed onto this little letter. These same parents would have the same things happen to subsequent students - children of other people - with a policy like this. That is morally reprehensible.

They want something they can cling to as an explanation for the violence - one which removes any and all culpability for the acts from themselves, those they've placed trust in, and their offspring. If you remove personal liability and responsibility, the only thing left to blame are inanimate objects: guns. (No, I'm not saying the parents are responsible for the fault anymore than a plumber is responsible for a leaky toilet - unless he installed the toilet and was responsible for its proper function, and it wasn't working properly when he left.)

I do, however, feel sorry for the students.

Caimlas
June 12, 2007, 06:14 PM
They've also had some crazy guy in there a couple of times saying it's all the fault of video games

Yeah, that guy? He's dead now. Can't recall his name because it's inconsequential - Fred Hunter I think? Whatever - he was a schmuck who acted emotionally to manipulate to his own ends, too.

AnnCoulterFanClub
June 12, 2007, 06:35 PM
I wish people would realize that we live in a free society and that living in a free society comes with inherent risk. I would rather be free and live with the risk than have to raise my hand and ask permission to live. VA Tech was a tragedy, but there doesn't need to be any new laws, or bans, or restrictions...give me a break! Realize that people are free, or so they tell us, and things will happen, that's just part of life.

ArmedBear
June 12, 2007, 06:42 PM
we are sure that having more guns more readily accessible on college campuses is not part of it.

They don't have any solutions, but they're sure of this.

I ask, "How, exactly, could it be worse?"

The fact is, if one of their kids had been carrying a gun that he/she knew how to use, he/she would most likely not be dead, and others would be alive, too.

Or do they believe that THEIR kids were also likely to become mass murderers?

It appears to me that they don't want to think about the fact that there was one thing that could have saved their kids, and that's if their kids had been armed. I am well-acquainted with a parent's grief; I understand that there are things you don't want to face. But that's no reason to make sure the NEXT victims won't have a chance.

IdahoFarmer
June 12, 2007, 07:12 PM
AnnCoulterFanClub... Welcome to the board!

FTA84
June 12, 2007, 07:23 PM
I second that they should arm the professors, with it being left up to the individual professor if they want to arm themselves. They could put it under the "security guards enlisted in their security duties" clause.

I was in high school when the first school shootings broke out. They 'fixed' the problems by locking all doors to the building except the front doors, mounted video cameras at all entrances and posted a security guard at the main entrance. The problem for colleges is there is no way to 'lock the doors' during classes. Even so, with class changes every 1 hr, an intruder would not have to wait long. If the dude that survived Nazi concentration camps had a gun, I'm sure he would of killed that Cho without thinking twice.

I would not allow the students to be armed, there is too much emotional trauma for most college students. Their lack of emotional and mental maturity leads to the chance that students would use guns to intimidate others. Remember, colleges aren't what they were fifty years ago, now they are just a continuation of high school. (With most of the same attitudes and mentalities towards learning.)

pacodelahoya
June 12, 2007, 07:50 PM
I was gonna reply to this thread, then I read all the posts and it seem Prince Yamato beat me too it.

yokel
June 12, 2007, 07:52 PM
Ugh, we certainly do not need the victim's relatives to serve as lackeys for the gun control and confiscation interest groups.


I do not believe that those who want to disarm the law-abiding public have the public’s best interest at heart. Injustice is never in the public’s best interest, and it is unjust to respond to gun crimes by depriving the innocent and the victims of their God-given right of self-defense and their constitutional right to carry the means of that defense on their person.

I would not allow the students to be armed...
:rolleyes:
No other school policy was more responsible for the massacre than this one.

FTA84
June 12, 2007, 08:05 PM
yokel, would you put guns in the hands of highschoolers?

pacodelahoya
June 12, 2007, 08:14 PM
FTA84, I used to ride the bus with my 870 wingmaster 16 ga, pockets full of ammo, put it in my locker, then go hunting after school with my buddy.

This was in the late 70'2 early 80's. I'm old but not ancient.

yokel
June 12, 2007, 08:17 PM
You know very well that we're talking about giving qualified college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus.

SomeKid
June 12, 2007, 08:23 PM
So, they want to attack my rights and use the rotting corpses of their own kids as shields?

They just lost every bit of pity from me. Hopefully none of them had any other kids, humanity would be better off without the genes from this group.

jselvy
June 12, 2007, 08:27 PM
I think they just failed their Darwin Exam

Jefferson

TrybalRage
June 12, 2007, 08:29 PM
yokel, would you put guns in the hands of highschoolers?

In the not-so-distant past, high schoolers took their guns to school with them all the time. It was called hunting season. Funny, not alot of shootings happened.

RNB65
June 12, 2007, 08:36 PM
In the not-so-distant past, high schoolers took their guns to school with them all the time.

Ah, yes. The "good ol' days".

I carried a rifle or shotgun behind the seat of my pickup truck every single day that I was in high school. Never thought twice about it. And I didn't hunt - just liked to have something along in case a plinking opportunity presented itself. That was 20-something years ago. :)

FieroCDSP
June 12, 2007, 08:40 PM
They want access to Cho's medical records, as if they're looking for an indicator that he was nuts. I'd be interested in whether parents of VT students think a complete review of an applicant's medical history should be required for the proper mental history before they're allowed to go there. What? No? Because that's unfair?

Hypocrites.

jselvy
June 12, 2007, 08:41 PM
Funny you should mention hunting season and high schoolers.
When I was in School (early 80's) the only day of the year attendance would not be taken was opening day of deer season :D
Brings back fond memories.

Jefferson

FTA84
June 12, 2007, 08:47 PM
To all whom it concerns:

Aslong as you are comfortable with high school students taking guns to school than it is ok with me. Though there are no lockers, they would have to have them in their bags beside the desk.

Perhaps I am not so against students having firearms as much as I am strongly for professors possessing them.

It is like the old dilly with (cruise) ships. If a (cruise) ship goes down, the crew goes onto life boats last. As students are paying for a service, the professor has the duty to be the first line of protection in a Cho-style shooting.

pacodelahoya
June 12, 2007, 09:03 PM
FTA84, perhaps you don't realize it, but guns were not allowed at VT, nor Columbine, nor the school house in Lancaster Pa ( I think that's where it was , I'm not gonna go looking for it either).


What good did it do all those dead kids to not allow guns?

Prince Yamato
June 12, 2007, 10:26 PM
First off, let me say I am totally for CCW on college campuses, but I also get what FTA84 is saying. There is no doubt a rationalized fear amongst many people about allowing college students to carry concealed handguns and for the reasons FTA84 stated. But one must remember that most of the stupid stuff done by college students happens freshmen year. Freshmen are 18 and almost completely excluded from CCW in most states. 21 is the age for CCW in most states and with that in mind, most students would be juniors or seniors and certainly more capable of handling the responsibilities of gun ownership. Yes, college kids (ironic because by freshman year you are considered an adult) can be pretty stupid, but I think this can be offset if penalties for gun crimes on college campuses were raised (at least temporarily)- presuming CCW is allowed. IE, no threatening with weapons, etc. Basically, you severely punish for people doing stupid stuff with firearms.

Again, I'm fully in support of CCW on college campuses, but many people have fears about it. We can cite facts about how CCW would've saved lives at VT... and we'd be correct. We also need to meet the fence sitters half-way though, and explain how campuses won't turn into a bloodbath. Look if you're not from a gun owning family, the prospect of guns "suddenly being everywhere" on campus sounds kind of scary. We have to allay some of these fears. Also keep in mind, especially those of you who brought hunting arms to school- most of you probably grew up around firearms. There are many kids in this country who haven't and in addition to things like alcohol and sex, guns present a big "wow" and "cool" factor that may be too much for some kids to handle their freshman year.

pacodelahoya
June 12, 2007, 10:37 PM
That's becuse the .gov and the million mommy types have turned them into forbidden fruit. The answer of course is mandatory gun training in school.

HiroProX
June 12, 2007, 10:43 PM
I feel awful for their loss, and I feel awful for their inability to reason. To have one's sense of reason so impaired has got to be a dreadful burden.

Prince Yamato
June 12, 2007, 11:13 PM
The answer of course is mandatory gun training in school.

Actually, if this were talked about during Frosh O', right along with date rape, getting along with your roommate, and proper study habits, I think it would be great.

And on another note, if we can teach kids to put on a codomn in high school, surely we could teach them how to handle a firearm?

cassandrasdaddy
June 13, 2007, 01:22 AM
i went to high school in pg county md in late 70's more than a few of us carried guns to school and not for hunting no one shot anyone. nor did we desire to be the only one with out one if stuff started. we fought a lot but knowing others could shoot too kept us to hands

If you enjoyed reading about "VA Tech families make a statement" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!