|
Received an e-mail chain letter from a well-meaning client. I guess he thought he was 'educating' me. Usually I don't do this, but I replied to all. Sorry, this is kind of long. It went like this:
Dr. Michael Hurd posts: The Chicago Tribune reported on its website that
he left a note in his dorm room that
included a rambling list of grievances. Citing unidentified sources, the
Tribune said he had recently shown troubling signs, including setting a
fire in a dorm room and stalking some women.
ABC, citing law enforcement sources, reported that the note, several pages long, explains Cho's actions and says, "You caused me to do this. "
Assuming all of these facts are true, I see a connection between these two paragraphs. On the one hand, we have a young man who does outrageous
things--set fire in a dorm room, stalking women--that in a more reasonable era would lead to immediate expulsion, if not legal prosecution. Since we're not in a reasonable era, with all the fear of crazy lawsuits and political incorrectness (let's not forget the "rights" of the mentally ill, including the violent), then of course there are excuses made all the way up the chain of command at the university. Then, from the point of view of this sick and twisted, evil young man, when he sees excuses made for him, what happens,
psychologically speaking? His sense of being a victim, the mentality of
all criminals, is massively reinforced. When he finally decides to end it all, what does he do? Blame others. "Others," after all, were supposed to give him a life. Others are responsible for all of his pain. Others must pay.
Others in Mr. Cho's life implicitly conceded this by not holding him
accountable for his outrageous behaviors. When you appease a completely
imbalanced, irrational person like this, he's prone to take his premise of victimhood to its logical conclusion....and, well, you can witness, with horror, the results.
Tragedies like this one don't happen in a vacuum. In all the months and
years of "expert" commentary to come, decrying the existence of guns and
the "lack of mental health services" even for those who obviously cannot be helped, I wish someone other than myself would focus on this.
Dr. Hurd
My respomse:
The man walked into a gun shop and bought 2 guns. No questions asked, no
background check, no criminal record check, probably wasn't even
fingerprinted (I was wrong about this). So it's OK to let a mentally unbalanced guy to buy guns?
Failure to act re:his past behavior had nothing to do with 'fear of being sued'. I had not heard that he set fire to a dorm. I need to verify that.
The 'stalking' involved taking cellphone photos of women. Certainly
annoying, a little creepy, but not criminal. So, is this "doctor' saying
anyone who isn't 'normal' by his definition belongs in jail? This 'doctor' comes to the conclusion that 'political correctness' is the reason this guy was allowed to remain loose and if only we had a 'reasonable society' he would have been in jail. I'm sure he thinks it's all liberals' fault. Then there's the inevitable nitwits spouting NRA rhetoric: "if only the students were all armed...if only one in 10 were armed, if only 1 in 20 were armed, this wouldn't have happened because the criminal doesn't know who's armed and would be too scared to blah, blah, blah..." The guy had a death wish. He didn't care if anyone else was armed. Had several others started shooting, who knows who's the criminal and who's trying to kill the criminal? Who's to say the "law abiding citizens (that's what the NRA calls anyone who gets a CCW)" would be expert marksmen? All NRA rhetoric is based on 'perfect world' type thinking. In a 'perfect world', Ted Nugent is standing next to you in line at the bank when it gets robbed. Being a 'law abiding citizen',
he is armed to the teeth and, even though the criminal s already have guns drawn, outdraws the criminals, fires 18 perfectly placed rounds into the scumbag robbers from 30 feet away. No one else is hurt and from then on, all robbers are scared to rob. Remember, about a third of police officers killed in the line of duty are killed with their own weapons. Being armed doesn't necessarily make you safer. Several years ago, a teacher disarmed a student who had just gone on a rampage by putting out his hand and saying "give me the gun, son." That's a true hero. Meanwhile, during another student rampage a bunch of 'law abiding citizens' ran to their trucks and grabbed their guns. By the time they got back, it was all over. The shooter had dropped his weapon, left the school and was leaving school grounds. The students knew who he was and he wouldn't have gotten far. Yet, that night on the news, the statement from a witness was "if they hadn't got their guns and stopped him, WHO KNOWS how many others, blah, blah blah.." In Detroit a few years ago, a female off-duty police officer was filling up her car with gas and saw a robbery in progress. The robber spotted her as she tried to draw her weapon and shot her dead. It's just as easy to say: if everyone is armed, and criminals know it, they will shoot first and ask "who's armed?" later.
And now......the well thought out, intelligent response from one of those on the list:
"F*ck You!"
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
