I meant to post earlier, but every time I've sat down to type since the last time I posted I've found myself unable to quite figure out how I wanted to go about telling a story I've been meaning to tell. I still haven't figured it out yet. But I do have something to fill the void.
The problem with listening to Sox games on the radio is that when the Sox aren't playing on WRKO, it's usually some jackass right wing talk radio host spouting bullshit. Which means that on occasion, that will be the ambient sound at my house. This particular occasion, I heard a painfully annoying voice mock those who perceived Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, to also be a victim, using that as a jumping-off point to decrying liberalism as a mental disorder.
Which is exactly the sort of antic that defines Talkshow Conservatism; the prevalent variety of conservatism in Massachusetts. A talkshow conservative will mock you for the conclusion you draw, even if the relevant facts point directly to that conclusion. Another example of this is abstinence-only sex education (which thankfully was rejected in this state despite the fact that federal funding was lost as a result), which retains traction even though it's been proven ineffective.
Back to the point
There is no sane person who will try to deny the horrific nature of Seung-Hui Cho's actions. There is no one who will excuse him for them, or claim that he didn't get off more easily than he deserved by biting his own bullet.
But the facts remain that he was judged in court to be a danger to himself and others. He was not helped.
He was allowed to purchase the weapon that he used to end his life as well as the lives of his classmates, despite the law prohibiting this given the abovementioned judgment
He was a victim.
Not that I'm mourning him. But I can understand those who feel the need to.
And mocking the Virginia Tech students who did; who may themselves have lost friends in the shootings was, beyond all doubt, a total douchebag move.
I don't remember who the asshole was, nor do I wish to. But he might as well be every right wing radio host, because there are few who I think are above such a rant. The entire thing seemed to be a means of propping himself up as some hero of pundits, here to save us from such nonsense. The timbre of his voice was almost as patently offensive as the content. Come the revolution he'll be of first up against the wall. Given, it'd have to be a hell of a wall...
People mocked people who mourned?
ReplyDeleteI can understand feeling too much media attention was paid to it, especially that damn picture
Yet if all the media attention was about how easily he bought a gun, despite having been judged harmful to himself and others, maybe that would be a good thing
If the media talked about tightening gun control laws, and maybe spurring a debate as to the usefulness of the Second Amendment in the 21st Century, it would be a great thing--and think of the debates Alan and Denny could have on BL
Instead we let The Second Amendment stay as is, and chip away at The First Amendment, the one amendment that is really about protecting individual good rights. Oh yes, there was the Fourth Amendment but we're doing away with that one
My heart does go out to the shooter's family.
I assume that American/Koreans are learning that no group is immune from having crazed gunmen in their midst
I've been listening to a lot of talk radio(FM talk, cant handle the Howie Carr's of AM) about this issue, and mainly it's to reinforce my own opinions about it.
ReplyDeleteMy problem with identifying the murderer as a victim, is that he chose to accept a court ordered voluntary mental ward visit. The time line of when he was in the mental institute and when he returned to school is unknown, but it could have been as little as a day.
In the court, he admitted he needed help by agreeing to the voluntary mental ward visit. Unfortunately, there's a loop hole in the VA Gun Laws that stipulates that those who are deemed a danger to themselves and others are put on the Do Not Sell List(that's obviously not the name of it,but i don't know the actual terminology) only if they're committed to a mental institution INvoluntarily. Not even the murderer's parents can be informed of the judgment that their son is mentally unstable without his explicit permission. The school could not be told anything either. Privacy rules in this instance because the murderer freely went to get help.
He didn't get help.
He acknowledged his problem, and instead of getting the help he needed, he exacted his 'revenge' or whatever he called it. He was sick, and he failed to follow through with the prescribed solution. Due to privacy laws and loop hopes, he was the only one who could have prevented this. He failed at life, and doesn't deserve any 'victim' label.
for what it's worth, the murderer's family are just as much victims as the families of those murdered. That's the worst part, this guy F'd up so many lives.
ReplyDeleteYou're right of course but emotion often takes away any common sense when if comes to this kind of thing.
ReplyDeleteThis is why I ignored all media coverage of this event after the first couple of days.