Campus Danger
The Washington Times picked up one of my posts on the shooting at Virginia Tech in their "Inside Politics" section.
posted by Helen at 10:29 AM
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Grand Rounds is Up
- We are all Responsible for Preventing Violence
- Another Blogfest
- I'd rather be called a "ho"
- Baldwin's Child Custody Woes Continue
- Does the US Need Better Reporting Laws for the Men...
- I talked with a local news station about mental he...
- Update in the Mary Winkler Case
- Preventing Violence in Higher Education
- The Killer in the Lecture Hall
33 Comments:
What I would like to see is a law passed that says that if you take any action to disarm or otherwise limit the right of self-defense at any site, you become criminally and civilly liable for the defense of the people you disarm. That means that schools would have to provide essentially perfect security, at all times or face significant liabilities on all sides if they pass any policies that limit the right of a victim to defend themselves from violence.
Dr. Helen, I would love to hear your and your reader's comments on the theme of this post: Shouldn't YouTube be checking into this stuff?
Off-topic: I have been reading through the archives and it took me about five months to catch up. At one point I was about 410 days behind.
Nice that this person refered to your blog.
Geez - only The Washington Times would touch a quote like that.
I've heard a lot of second-guessing as to what could have been done differently at Virginia Tech - but a psychologist advocating a gun battle is heinous.
Maybe you could be an "expert" on behalf of the NRA; hey, if Dr. Laura can dispense relationship advice with a physiology degree, there's no reason Dr. Helen can't spout sociological nonsense for the gun lobby.
What is the matter with you?
"I've heard a lot of second-guessing as to what could have been done differently at Virginia Tech - but a psychologist advocating a gun battle is heinous."
So, the situation at Virginia Tech with 32 dead from an unopposed gunman, is somehow better than a "gun battle," where somebody armed could have stopped him? Everything else equal, if you were in that German class, wouldn't you have wanted either you or somebody on your side to have a gun?
The current President of the NRA is Sandra Froman, Harvard law class of '74.
The previous President was Kayne Robinson, Chief of Police in Des Moine Iowa.
Before them there was Charlton Heston and Marion Hammer.
If there is a common thread among these men and women it is their view of the National Rifle Association as a top civil rights organization.
I am tired of the mouth breathing knuckle draggers who refer to the NRA as mouth breathing knuckle draggers.
Anonymous 1:50:
And what is the matter with you that you think that I signed a contract when I got my PHD in psychology to advocate against gun ownership in this country? The right to self defense is a human right and not one that I will give up because I am a psychologist.
The perp was in his fourth year at Tech. He knew the campus, the routines, the layout of the classes. One door. One way in, one way out. Blocked by a nut case with pistols, who had evidently already made the decision he was going to kill himself, and take as many as he could with him. He was shooting fish in a barrel. The only way to have saved any of those lives after he entered those classes was for someone to have had the ability to respond with equal or overwhelming force.
How much resistance or planning can you do when someone walks in guns blazing and you've no defense, no way out?
They had no chance.
Why aren't you angry about that, anon 1:50 AM?
Imagine yourself in the front row, and rethink it for a while.
If you were being quoted as an advocate for the gun lobby or even just some shmoe off the street, fine - but you're being consulted as an "expert" (and oh, man, do I use that word lightly) in psychology.
To sprinkle an scientific analysis of a situation with your political beliefs is the height of unprofessionalism, and the fact that you can't see that makes you even more so.
And speaking of offensiveness, don't you dare tell me that I don't care about what happened to those kids, br549 - you miserable POS.
Guns do not have a place in the classroom any more than they would in Dr. Helen's office. The notion that anyone could've stopped this heinous act, armed or not, is fantasy hindsight.
"The notion that anyone could've stopped this heinous act, armed or not, is fantasy hindsight." -anonymous 6:03
How so? History is full of individuals who have defended themselves and others under the most miserable of odds.
If defeatest statements like that are your defense against allowing conceal and carry permit holders to bring their side arms into a classroom, then I say that you aren't showing much of an arguement here.
Secondly, it appears that br549 was highlighting the fact that, under such dire odds, only a weapon of equal or greater force could have combated both of Cho's two handguns and his element of surprise. I don't understand how you realized that as an offensive attack against your ability to feel compassion for the victims involved.
briannyc, I am merely pointing out that the presence of a gun is not the guarantee of safety that gun advocates like to pretend it is. A campus-full of professors, students, and staff carrying concealed weapons increases the likelihood of one of them using them like Cho did, not decreases it.
And here's br549's statement:
"They had no chance. Why aren't you angry about that, anon 1:50 AM? Imagine yourself in the front row, and rethink it for a while."
Yeah, that's not challenging my ability to feel compassion at all.
It's the same kind of elitist crap that Rudy Giuliani just pulled yesterday; inferring that liberals either don't appreciate or understand everyday threats.
Wow. You are an absolute idiot, aren't you anon 6:03? You simply cannot get out of your own head, your own way of seeing things, and hate to be challenged on anything you say. To disagree with you makes you feel you are being attacked? Maybe you need some couch time yourself, miss "obsessed with Dr. Helen".
Where did I say that you don't care about those kids? Please type the line back to me. I don't see it in print in my post or in your rancid reply.
I think it's too late to tell a lot of perps and victims guns have no place in the class room. But hell, anon, is that going to stop nut cases and the "super dissed" from bringing them in?
There are times and places in one's life where the only one around who can help you is you. Anyone else will simply be too late.
Hey, just saw your 7:38 post, anon. My response had nothing to do with your compassion or ability to feel anything. I was asking, not attacking.
What I was hoping for you to think is if you were in that position, and you had a gun, you'd have had a chance. Without one, you had none.
I find it humorous that I'm a POS because you're paranoid as well as stupid.
Wow - where would I be without br549 telling me about myself?!?
Not only am I not "angry about" the murder of 32 innocent people, I "cannot get out of (my) own head, (my) own way of seeing things, and hate to be challenged on anything (I) say", and I "need some couch time" - probably due to the litany of personal insults he threw my way. All of which he gleaned from just a couple posts on the internets! It's like he's Kreskin or better yet, Miss Cleo!
Man, if only I could be more like br549 and conduct myself like a mature adult...
Don't stop now, Rosie. You are proving the point better than I could ever explain.
"Man, if only I could be more like br549 and conduct myself like a mature adult..."
You don't know how much your sarcasm is a defense mechanism.
Anonymous 6:03:
Perhaps you do not realize that here in the US we have something called the Constitution that gives each of us the right to be politically active. What you are objecting to is that I am not spouting the politics that you agree with. If I was for gun control, you would be singing my praises as a dutiful psychologist.
If I was for gun control, you would be singing my praises as a dutiful psychologist.
No, I really wouldn't, Doc - can you read? I said: "To sprinkle an scientific analysis of a situation with your political beliefs is the height of unprofessionalism"; I would not approve of injecting politics into a scientific discussion either way.
You seem to exhibit the same amazing ability br549 has; to infer what I believe without evidence. That would make you either a psychic or paranoid - which you really should be able to self-diagnose, no?
You're a quack.
Gleep - glop - gloup - gluck - gluck.
Go Rosie!
When have two observations become a litany of personal insults? How you can read meanings that are not there amazes me. Talk about psychic - or do I need to add a syllable?
Obviously a liberal. You actually do in plain sight what you accuse others of, while denying it completely.
Keep it up though. Reading your posts gives me something to laugh at during lulls at work.
When have two observations become a litany of personal insults?
"You are an absolute idiot"
"you're paranoid as well as stupid"
Again, if only I had the cunning wit to say things like "Gleep - glop - gloup - gluck - gluck" or refer to people as "Rosie"...then people would take me seriously!
Y'all wouldn't talk to each other that way if you were face to face and both packin' heat.
There - my argument against gun control. Ubiquity of firearms compels us to treat others with respect so we don't get ventilated.
bugs,
Sometimes a man just needs ventilating. I'm thinking of the anonymous gun-control idiot above.
Cool, a death threat! I'm surprised it took this long.
I hope, for anyone who's exposed to jimmy antley's sake, that the mentally ill are no longer allowed to buy guns.
I am so outta this thread. Everything one says only seems to inspire knuckleheads to more ambitious displays of knuckleheadry.
"briannyc, I am merely pointing out that the presence of a gun is not the guarantee of safety that gun advocates like to pretend it is. A campus-full of professors, students, and staff carrying concealed weapons increases the likelihood of one of them using them like Cho did, not decreases it." - anonymous 6:03
This seems to be more a debate based upon "glass half full/glass half empty" than a difference on gun control.
You point out that "the presence of a gun is not (a) guarantee of safety." I believe that the absence of a gun is a guarantee of defenselessness. I vote for self-preservation over safety.
You also state that more students and professors packing on campus will only invite more to act as Cho did. Conversely, I believe that the more who are responsibly charged to conceal and carry on campus will actually discourage the Chos of the world from pulling off blood baths, or at the very least, limit the number of potential victims by one.
Well, thank goodness Dr. Helen and no one else in this thread is using a tragedy to push their political beliefs...'cause that would be wrong.
Well, good morning, Rosie!
As a female, it should be easy to see yourself walking down a sidewalk and being attacked by a couple thugs who push you down and steal your purse, possibly doing physical harm in the process. Or, pull a knife or gun on you while doing so.
To defend yourself, you could holler out, "Guns or knives have no place on the sidewalk!" I am sure they would stop their aggression, drop their heads, apologize for being so heartless, and turn tail and run - fearing you would add "classroom", "shopping mall", "busy Interstate Highway", "bank", "convenience store","home intrusion", and numerous other locations, leaving them no place to be bad guys, or nut cases. Now what are they going to do? Get a job? Vote for Hillary? Get help? Start a perp self help group?
I just can't resist the sarcasm, your own favorite tool along with personal attacks. I just keep handing it back to you in the same manner. Alas, my weakness.
You come here a lot, as do I, as do many regulars. Every thread you enter, you are against the subject material, the responses, the statements made by most, and especially the keeper of the keys of the site. Any post made as a direct response to you, seems to be misinterpreted - you are wronged, and you must make it right - er, left. The superior point of view is your personal property. You twist it a little bit, until it suits your needs, and feed it back from that superior point of view. Everybody wants to be understood, but nobody wants to be figured out. Especially you. I am only doing this because I'm having a blast with it. I assume you have spontaneously combusted by now, and await you flaming response. Thank you for your support.
You come here a lot, as do I, as do many regulars. Every thread you enter, you are against the subject material, the responses, the statements made by most, and especially the keeper of the keys of the site.
That's because Dr. Hell and The InstaPutz are faux-libertarian quacks and pseudo-intellectual stooges for the Republican Party.
And because most of the rest of you are sheep who hang on every dumb word they say.
I knew you wouldn't let me down.
If your most recent post is true, why do you come here? I am being serious, not sarcastic. What drives you to return time after time, thread after thread, to combat and belittle those who also come here? Are you hoping to bring people over to your point of view; say, your side of the fence?
Are you hoping to expose the "myths" being perpetrated by the those mentioned in the second sentence of your last post?
Which, by the way contains no sarcasm, snide remarks, hate speech, or inference to anyone's beliefs without evidence. But then again, you have the upper position, and can see more than anyone and everyone else that drops in.
You continuously do, time after time, what you accuse everyone else of - while denying it completely.
You have absolutely no credibility at this juncture. What say you to that? Try and have a discussion, not a rant where you call people names.
Are you hoping to bring people over to your point of view; say, your side of the fence?
Nope; just exposing the good Dr. and the InstaPutz for the non-professional professionals they are.
Try and have a discussion, not a rant where you call people names.
That's rich, coming from you. Do you want me to cut-and-paste where you called me names in other threads, or do you want to apologize now?
You save them? I'm flattered! When's the book coming out? You are still skirting over questions and points, I guess pretending they have not been asked.
I don't fire the first volley. I just respond in kind - we are playing ping pong. I'm just having fun, and do not take myself so seriously. I don't take you seriously. But I am amazed how easy it is to take up all your time and keep your thought processes busy.
So, why are you a liberal democrat? What led you to that? Who would you vote for in the upcoming presidential election? Why? I mean, you are so anti-Republican, that you must have some good reasons for being a democrat. Let's hear them.
Who knows, you may convince me to consider your valid viewpoints, maybe change my own.
Oh, and no, I do not wish to apologize, unless you do first. Then, yes, I will again respond in kind.
85cc免費影片85cc免費影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片85cc免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費看 aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費Ａ片線上免費a片觀看a片免費看小魔女免費影城A片-sex520aaa片免費看短片aaaaa片俱樂部sex888免費看影片sex520免費影片sex免費成人影片馬子免費影片免費線上a片成人圖片區18成人avooo520sex貼片區臺灣情色網線上免費a長片免費卡通影片線上觀看gogo2sex免費 a 片sex520免費影片援交av080影片免費線上avdvd免費 aa 片試看,成人影片分享後宮0204movie免費影片免費線上歐美A片觀看sex888影片分享區微風成人av論壇plus論壇自拍情色0204movie免費影片aaa片免費看短片免費色咪咪影片網aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞85cc免費影城5278論壇倉井空免費a影片bbs x693 com sex888a片免費觀賞sexy girls get fucked吉澤明步彩虹頻道免費短片sex520-卡通影片台灣情色網無碼avdvdaaa影片下載城彩虹頻道免費影片 sex383線上娛樂場一本道 a片 東京熱情色影片彩虹成人avdvd洪爺影城高中生援交偷拍自拍限制級色情 片
Post a Comment
<< Home