Blood In The Water
Tim Dees
Editor-in-Chief
Officer.com
I should probably say more here about the Virginia Tech shootings, but I’d prefer to leave that to people with more expertise than I have, like John Wills, Kevin Davis and Richard Nance. It’s more interesting for me to comment on the news coverage and public reaction to the incident. Never have so many saying so much to so many people been so misinformed.
I read a newspaper when I can, but “when I can” is often while I’m traveling, when the paper is left at the threshold of my hotel room. USA Today was the paper this morning, and I thought they did a decent job, or at least a decent job as compared to the networks. The major broadcast networks don’t do justice to most stories, as they limit coverage of each segment to a minute or less, so as to fit everything into a 22-minute program block. The cable channels do a little better, and the filters one needs to apply are more consistent. For the conservative angle, I can watch Fox News (”We Report. You Believe.”), the self-described “fair and balanced” channel. The view from the left can be found on public TV stations and National Liberal Radio. And, somewhere in the middle, by my perception, is CNN. But CNN takes a back seat to no one in sensationalizing stories and the asking of ludicrous questions.
There was a conversation on Monday between Wolf Blitzer and the CNN medical commentator, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, following the broadcast of a press conference from Virginia Tech. Wolf was trying to make the most of a very small amount of solid information on the extent of the injuries of the shooting victims at VT. I don’t have the precise quote, but the question was something along the lines of “Sanjay, aren’t the wounds from a 9mm dangerous and life-threatening?” No, Wolf, nine millimeters are the good guns. When you get shot by one of those, you feel much better afterward.
On Tuesday morning, the search for someone or something (other than the shooter) to blame for the massacre continued. This time, it focused on Virginia’s “liberal gun laws.” Oh, heavens, people can actually buy guns in Virginia, and those guns can be used to shoot people. By comparison, it’s very difficult or impossible to buy a gun lawfully in neighboring DC, and they don’t have a provision for concealed carry by private citizens, as Virginia does. The violent crime index (violent crimes per 100,000 population) for 2005 in the seven largest cities in Virginia was 231. For DC during the same time period, it was 1402. Clearly, this gun control stuff is working for them. Yes, that was sarcastic.
Many college students are under 21, so they can’t get concealed carry permits. Given the impulsiveness of youth, this is probably a good idea. But the professors and other staff are mostly of legal age, and some of them wouldn’t mind (especially now). Say you that academics would never be the same if the prof was packing heat? I speak from experience here, having been a full-time criminal justice professor/instructor (what I was called depended on where I was teaching) for eight years, I will now disclose that I was armed most of the time I was in the classroom or otherwise at school. This was not disruptive because I was the only one that knew about it. I don’t think I have any unusual talents for concealing firearms, so most other people could use the same techniques.
Reports from witnesses indicate that the shooter generally took the professor out first. That’s been a sound military tactics for ages—decapitate the unit and deprive it of its leadership. From the viewpoint of the professor contemplating getting a carry permit, I would call this “incentive.” In college, I was a convenience store clerk for about a year. During that period, I got shot at or was in the immediate vicinity on three separate occasions. That was one of the motivators to become a cop. I wanted a job where I could shoot back.
Let’s be fair. I’ll entertain the notion of revisiting the Second Amendment. Let’s see if confiscating all firearms and forbidding future sales to private citizens would have a significant impact on reducing the numbers of deranged, homicidal college students with a death wish. But this will be contingent on also re-examining the First Amendment provision for a free press. My amendment to the amendment would mandate that anyone reporting news would be required to actually know what they’re talking about.
It has always perplexed me that the people who want to point to the machine as the cause for the violence always want to have people using the same machine to stop the violence. Go figure?!?!
I have to agree with you that most news reporters don’t know what they are talking about. That also goes for the so called experts that they call on from time to time. On the day that the Virginia Tech shootings took place, I was dismayed at the things these experts were saying about locking down the University. Having worked as a police officer on two different campuses, one being Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, IL, I can tell you that it is impossible to lock down a University of the size of Virginia Tech. It is the size of a small City and Law Enforcement is about the same as any city Law Enforcement agency. I would ask these experts if any city would try to lock down the whole city when confronted with a double murder and no indication that it was anything more than limited to that location. Who has a crystal ball that tells them that the person that committed those murders was going to go on a killing spree. A University is not like a high school or a grammer school and you cannot handle such an event at the University the same way you would at the local schools.
I was shocked (though in retrospect I probably should have expected it) that in the very first hours after the shootings, when extremely little was yet known and it wasn’t even clear if there was only one shooter, the headline ABCNews.com put up on its website had absolutely nothing to do with actual news: “High capacity ammo clips easy to get.” Yeah, that’s relevant. No liberal bias there. I’m sure glad that they took time out from reporting actual news of an ongoing event to advance a political agenda. It was just gauche.
The site soon rotated another headline in while this one was relegated to a sidebar, but they continued to carry it for quite some time. ABC certainly wasn’t the only one to use the incorrect term “clip,” either–I don’t recall ANY of the mainstream news ever using the correct noun of “magazine.” Of course, these same “experts” wasted no time questioning the police response. I appreciate creative criticism from informed individuals who actually know what they’re talking about, but there was (and continues to be) so much completely wrong about so much of the second-guessing and armchair-quarterbacking that it is a genuine disservice to the public. It is also an insult to those who put on the uniform and go to work every day hardly expecting to respond to a mass casualty active shooter incident, but prepared for it (as indeed the university police were). I’m going to pitch my vote for Tim’s proposal: Reporters have an obligation to at least have half a clue, and too damn many of them are so pathetically ignorant it is an insult to their profession–not to mention whatever profession they happen to be maligning at the moment.
What a radical concept. (Yes, I too use sarcasim) Keep up the good work. God Bless
If law makers want to do something constructive they should pass a law to start keeping a registry of mentally ill individuals with suicidal or violent tendencies. These school shooters and murder suicide domestic situations have similar offenders. Our society is not taking the issue of suicide and the danger that suicidal people are to the public in general serious. Instead of treating them like sick children maybe we should start treating them like sex offenders. Both groups are extremely dangerous to the public.
What! Require talking heads to actually have some reasonable idea of what they are talking about? What a radical idea! Unfortunately, most would then have to go on welfare, as there would be no job they could hold, and then they would become useless dregs of society. (OOPS, no real change except how they get paid, right?) Maybe instead of modifying the 1st Amendment, we could just get congress to pass a law requiring a disclaimer taking up about 1/2 the tv screen. Something like “WARNING! The person speaking to you is totally ignorant of any actual facts!”
I agree with Joe. Lets point the finger at the real issue. These suicidal people are going to go on these rampages with or with out guns. Back in the dark ages if you were going on a killing spree you grabbed a sword and a mace. This is no diffrent the bad guys will always have guns, if you can ship tons of illigal drugs into this country why not guns. As a police officer I have never had trouble with people who carry legal conceled wepons, its the people who do it illegally are the problem, and you can’t take their guns away.
My prayers to the families of the victims but to try and place blame on everyone and everything but the suspect is complete ignorance. The police did not cause this to nor did the weapons cause this to happen. The suspect is to blame, without him this would never have happened! It is a simple point that has been overlooked by many in the media and public.
Joe’s comment leads me to point out that:
1> Cho was involuntarily committed to a mental health facility on the order of a judge who found him to be “a danger to himself or others.”
2> The Code of Virginia 37.2-819 states that “The clerk shall certify and forward forthwith to the Central Criminal Records Exchange, on a form provided by the Exchange, a copy of any order for involuntary admission to a facility. The copy of the form and the order shall be kept confidential in a separate file and used only to determine a person’s eligibility to possess, purchase, or transfer a firearm.”
3. The Virginia State Police administer an “Instant Background Check” system which must be consulted prior to the sale of a firearm.
So far, I haven’t heard any journalists asking why given these three facts Cho was able to purchase a firearm without the “instant check” system vetoing the purchase when it looks pretty clear that he was not legally able to buy a gun under state law.
It also begs the question just how more laws are supposed to help when the ones we already have apparently aren’t doing a damn thing about keeping guns out of the hands of prohibited possessors.
As I read thru all the articles and see the flow of comments, it is proving again that hindsite is 20/20 and history repeats itself. Many of these learned experts mostly retired and in some cases shamelessly self serving it appears, are weighing in on matters such as what the VT police and administration did or did not do. If you close your eyes and listen it sounds eeriely similiar to conversations that centered around federal agencies and law enforcement agencies and other groups after 9/11 and events like Columbine, Waco, Ruby ridge and oh so many others. It is often said that University’s and colleges are microsisms of the larger society in which they function, like those societies I guess we have found that you can stop 99 out of 100 and you can still get hurt. I would that rather then continue the divise finger pointing and close ranks like we have all done after 9/11, thats worked out well right!! Those who don’t study history are dommed to repeat it.
Guns are tools, no more and no less. The hands that control the tool are responsible for the action taken with that tool. If guns are removed from the reach of civilians then another tool will be found to accomplish the same task. Will we then remove that tool as well? And then another and another and another…? Minds and behaviors need to be changed, not the tools that we use. Focus on the problem not the symptoms.
What happened at Virginia Tech is a tragedy. And the news media can attepmt to blame who ever they want. As a Law Enforcement Officer we all know that the bottom line is this: The world is full of nuts and the shooter at VT was definately screwed up in the head. There is no way to prevent or even predict when these tragedies will take place. But if we as human beings(the ones who are not nuts) prepare ourselves mentally and equip ourselves (carrying firearms) then we can limit the amount of destruction a crazy person can cause when they go off the deep end. Even if society was able to rid the world of all guns, this maniac would have still went off the deep end. Perhaps he would have used a knife and the body count may have only been a half dozen before he was stopped. The bottom line is that no matter what the scenario is, it would not makke it any easier to deal with what happened. Guns do not kill people, crazy people kill people!
Other than the insightful commentary offered here, I’ve found that British commentators seem to better comprehend this tragedy than their counterparts in the American media. I know that I’m generalizing here, but the Brits seem to have a better sense of perspective.
Consider the comments of Kevin Yuill of the Univ. of Sunderland in England: “We seem to believe that every unfortunate incident can and therefore should be stopped, if only we were more alert and more willing to introduce tougher security measures. However, some things, sadly, cannot be prevented. We must simply trust that individuals who carry out massacres like that at VT are few and far between.” Prof. Yuill then goes on to explain how crime rates are considerably lower on college campuses than in the nation at large, even after allowing for the recent tragedy at VT.
Another British academic, Frank Furedi of the Univ. of Kent, weighs in with this sage commentary with respect to the VT tragedy: “Arbitrary acts of meaningless violence have always been part of the human condition. We should not seek to endow such acts with meaning, because we can end up turning an isolated incident into something that can fundamentally change our lives - and usually for the worse. That is what happened after the Columbine school shootings in 1999, when two teenage students killed 12 fellow students and a teacher at a school in Colorado. Then, a panic about school violence wrongly convinced many that America’s educational institutions are unsafe places.”
You won’t find this kind of perspective in the American mainstream media, which prefers to create a panic and then identify a handy target, be it guns, law enforcement, video games, violent movies, etc.
Perhaps the view from across the pond is a little clearer . . . Both Yuill and Furedi write at http://www.spiked-online.com
Both Yuill and Furedi write at http://www.spiked-online.com.
If anything good will come out of the Virgina Tech shooting, it’s this: Nevada lawmakers won’t pass the bill allowing high school teachers to carry concealed weapons on campus.