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.