Virginia Tech. I am getting more angry about that University President and Police Department.

Some facts: Virginia Tech has 100 buildings. I can't yet find the land area but it is big.

The student population is about 26,000. Faculty and staff 10,000 to 20,000 more.

29 Police Officers. Maybe 35 tops. My sources are “guarded.” No video security cameras. Someone told me the police did not patrol and were unarmed. They only responded to 911 calls. Drunks and fights and the like.

So two of these Police Officers go to a dorm room yesterday at 0715 responding to a 911 call and they find two dead students and they do not ALERT THE COMMUNITY? Unconscionable. Now they are on Fox News Channel saying you could never have alerted the community in time? As the Brits say: BALLS!

TV and Radio? What if they had a tornado? I am incensed.....and they might get away with it. I hope the FBI does a complete review.

Oh, and finally, the University petitioned a State Congress committee to have the campus made “a gun free zone.”

Really great security environment…..

I mour their loss. I weep for them. But it is time for some truth, honesty and accountability.

John E. Carey
http://johnib.wordpress.com/

John,
I'm sure there will be a very thorough investigation of this horrific carnage. But at the end of the day, it will come down to one question and that is how do you anticipate the actions of that single irrational individual, who acts on the spur of the moment. The same situation applies to the terrorist; how do you identify these people before they act?

No doubt that the investigation will lead to a procedure being instituted where a shooting occurs on campus; will that stop these acts of madness? Unfortunatly, I believe it will happen again especially where you have a culture that promotes the rights of citizens to carry weapons.

Before we get all very sanctimonious and say it could never happen here remember it happened here in Nov 2002 at Monash University when a Chinese student opened fire on his honours Econometrics seminar group rather than deliver an oral presentation. He was over powered by the lecturer and some students, some died and others were hospitalised.

The question really is why do people think they can shoot other people in peace time?

If you want to reduce this type of action then you need to reduce the amount of violence shown on TV, the amount of violence in internet games.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that some young Chinese males think they are in an economic war to make China great again to recover the prestige lost during the Opium Wars.

And lose the National Rifle Association right to bear arms, the redcoats left 230 years ago.

Are we really going to put something the size of a small town into lock-down on the strength of a couple of murders?

Murders happen, unfortunately, but very few are the precursor for a massacre. If authorities start imposing lock-downs every time there is a suspicious death, they will be seen as crying wolf, and warnings of identified imminent threats will be ignored.

Yes, we all wish it were possible to turn back the clock and handle this incident differently, but we do not have that option, and the police on the ground did not have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

Sylvia.

Netab: I agree with your thoughts on gun control. However, the article had nothing to do with how to "anticipate the actions of that single irrational individual"... the point was, a shooting murder had clearly taken place and we don't know where the shooter is, what do we DO about it? Yes, a lot of students live on campus and could not be safely removed, but they let THOUSANDS of students onto the campus AFTER the first deaths. The second (much worse) round of shootings occurred HOURS after the first.

Sylvia Else: "Are we really going to put something the size of a small town into lock-down on the strength of a couple of murders?" Well... yes!
You can't put most towns/suburbs on lockdown after murders because there are too many access points but you CAN close a university that has limited points of access. I am a university student and I would hope like hell that if someone on my campus got shot (and the shooter was not apprehended) that no one else would be let in until they had located him. It is hardly 20-20 hindsight, just sheer bloody common sense

at virginia tech, a young male went into rage, and killed 2 people over some sort of emotional/sexual dispute. then, he decided his life was finished and decided to spread his despair around.

you can't stop this from happening, although you can limit access to weapons. perhaps this would reduce the scale or frequency of fatality.

don't imagine you can make life safe with more/intensive police activity. you have to accept that a certain percentage of people will die like this, just as some will die by lightening strike. by far the biggest killer is the automobile, but no one says a thing about selling cars that are vastly over powered for legal speed limits. if you use a bicycle, you may be morally justified in calling for 'lock-downs' whenever a car backfires- everyone else should just say "hmm, bad luck there."

stickman,
Thanks for your comments. In relation to the article, it is a rational knee jerk to this tragedy. Firstly, it ignores the fact that universities, secondary schools and primary schools are community based and community integrated. Your point about access points is simply wrong. I can walk onto a university for up to 18 hours a day without a problem. This university was very large and probably had buildings adjacent to residential area's. Education institutions share the same and possibly higher risk of this type of madness in our communities.

The authors article is based on initial hindsight. But what do we know? We know that at 7.30 am Police arrived at a murder scene at a university student residence. Their job will be to inform the authorities that they are investigation a murder scene. Even if they quickly come to the conclusion that it is this South Korean student; so what - they may know that he killed his ex girlfriend and current boyfriend and do what a jealous lover would do and that is take off!

We don't know what the university policy about this situation is? We don't know the procedure the Police took and what information was available to them.

A tragedy has occurred and confusion is reigning and it will be probably weeks before we start to get some facts rather media releases based on speculation and two minute time grabs.

Its early days and the shock wave of the tragedy is rolling over the source of our news. Any judgement now is based on pure speculation rather than established facts.

Read the print news, and watch the TV interview with the Virginia Tech "Police Chief".
Note the ostentatious Americana - black uniform, the badges, the award ribbons, and the name, Wendell Flinchum.
Do we need to say more?

Demos - what is the purpose of a gun? To kill living things. A car? To transport people and goods over distances. If you can't understand the philosophical implications of this I needn't write much more. That is a ludicrous argument.

Netab - thanks for your response. I maintain though, that it is possible to prevent people from entering a university campus in a dangerous situation and am interested in how you conclude that to say so is simply wrong. You may be able to access a campus 18 hours a day or 24 for all I know, under normal circumstances, but not with police standing in the way telling you that you can't come in. There are, I repeat, limited access points. Remember - the aim would not necessarily have been to keep the shooter in as he may well have been able to elude detection by exiting through a non-obvious route. However, as Carey said in the original piece, "With that huge force of law enforcement, a good police commander could have closed every road into that campus in no time." All it would need would be a squad car on each road in and a simple road-block. Did emergency services allow people access to anywhere near the WTC on 9/11? Of course not - there was a clear danger and it was one-way traffic other than emergency services personnel. I would consider a double-homicidal gunman on the loose a clear danger.

I think we need to be less eager to throw blame around. No one can predict a massacre.

We're all experts *after* the fact. But I have serious doubt that any police officer in that situation would have responded differently. Shootings are a daily occurence in the US, they're a sad fact of life there. You can never predict when a lunatic will go postal.

It's not like a cop drama where the hero goes: "I got a bad feeling about this shooting boss..." and the boss goes: "Leave it alone, McDangerson, stick to the regulation investigation procedure, we're doin this one by the book, or I'll have you doin night shift paperwork for the rest of your life!" and McDangerson gets all up in his bosses face, and the boss goes: "Now get back to the station!" and McDangerson walks off, but secretly goes to look around the area, sees a suspicious looking guy with a big bag, follows him, has a shoot out and saves the day and the boss goes: "McDangerson, you broke every rule in the book! I've got the mayor hounding me about damage to public property, I got three claims here from citizens who's cars exploded, and another wanting a replacement skateboard! ...but you got your man, and saved lives. Well done, McDangerson. Well done indeed. Hahahahah." roll credits.

I don't mean to make light of the situation, by the way. It's a horrible, indescribable tragedy. My point, though, is: was it preventable? Probably about as preventable as McDangerson is non-fictional.

Gun control works, the University authorities introduced gun control on the campus.

27,000 students and ?,000 staff and only one student had a gun.

See GC works.

I love the fictional McDangerson!

*chuckle*

I think the truth will lie somewhere in the middle. Wiser police would probably have taken more comprehensive action, but would most likely have failed to prevent a massacre nevertheless.

The personnel involved should certainly be accountable for their action or inaction against standard police procedure.

Shootings also seem to be a daily fact of life in Sydney.
But don't worry the laws protect us.

I think that this is a maliase of most Western democracies.The Legal disease has reduced the police to guidelines and lobotomised public servants who cannot think for themselves.The "Nanny State" is alive and well.

Before Monash: in the late sixites (I think) a sniper mounted one of the towers surrounding the quad at The University of Sydney and started picking off people.

It strikes me that mass murders will probably always occur because they are, like suicide bombers, all so different; and solo. Yep, we could have alarms in all rooms in a Uni, set them off and have staff, students and visitors running all over the place, including into the path of the killer or just simply trampled to death in a panic.

After the first two people were killed at Virginia who would have had the insight (or courage) to take responsibility to risk a panic?

I just love hindsight.

http://johnib.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/parents-demand-firing-of-virginia-tech-president-police-chief-over-poor-handling-of-mass-shooting/
and:
http://johnib.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/virginia-tech-woefully-unprepared-for-an-emergency/
and:
http://www.nowpublic.com/questions_abound_for_vt_prez

I believe the same things the parents do.

Yes, because I'm sure parents of the recently deceased will approach their discourse with calm objectivity.

Interesting article. All universities and TAFEs in Australia have an evacuation plan not unlike a fire drill. That gets people out of the buildings but there's no plan, as far as I know, to evacuate a campus.

Some unis are the size and spread of a small suburb. That causes some massive logistical problems.

Apropos, I understand why the American Founding Fathers included the 'Right to bear arms' in the Constitution, fearing invasion or requiring weapons to over thrown a despotic government.

It's just unfortunate that mid west and southern Republicans seem to have most of the arms and vote for Bush.

This writer(?) should be ashamed of himself for the title he has picked. Frankly it's a disgusting grab for headline reading morons. I suppose I qualify simply by responding to this dreadfully titled item. Mind you I haven't and won't read it simply because of that.

Many ridiculous comments on this thread. Sylvia is about the most sensible of the comments so far.

Why is it that people on sites like this "know" all the answers, facts and solutions before the authorities have even finished their investigations? It's typical of how judgemental and demanding of others we are.

Do those who expect total security everywhere really expect any law enforcemnet agency, no matter what size, to prevent crimes such as this one? It's ridiculous to expect such.

Take a look at Iraq. The US have what, about 170,000 troops there. As well as the Iraqui troops. They all know that every day the insurgents will strike. Are they able to stop it?

Clearly the answer is NO.

Given the size of that operation how can you possibly expect a rural university to guard against one person who has had whatever reasons for doing what he did? Assuming of course that is the case. So far it's mainly just assumptions based on some facts. There could be more than one person, anything is possible.

Just for once how about waiting until the facts are known. Even then how about considering the impossibility of defending all people against all possibilities. It can't be done. Start thinking instead of reacting. If you do then it may spread and who knows, maybe everyone starts thinking before they react.

hi all,

I noted that this fellows parents had a dry cleaning business ...

perhaps the dry cleaning fluids also effected the mental health
of this fellow

was he living and working around dry cleaning fluids ?

he certainly looked dazed

JHH

Blame the person who actually did the deed.

Gun control is attached to the finger on the trigger.

Ban things that kill people, by design or default, its all the same. Except in the case of (insert specious agenda driven rationale here).

Intention is irrelevant, a figment of a intelligent imagination.

Intentions dont change the facts. Neither do reasons.

When things like guns are outlawed, only the outlaws and the state will have them. A much more dangerous situatuon than public ownership of guns. l'll take the lesser of two evils here.

Heck, l dont even own a gun, never fired one and cant understand why people hunt for sport. But lm not gonna advocate for punishing the 99% of responsible private owners because of a few rotten apples. But that's just me.

Finally, in the absence of whipping the actual offender, bite the hand that feeds and make sure to punish good deeds.