The 33rd Victim?
Okay I've been hearing a lot of talk lately about the Virginia Tech shooting having 33 victims. Now I was under the impression that the shooter, Cho, had shot 32 people before shooting himself, so I was wondering if I had read the reports wrong or what. Nope, I had read them right.
But it seems that folks out there who class this dill-hole...
But it seems that folks out there who class this dill-hole...
...as the 33rd victim.WHAT THE HELL?
He was the victimizer. If it wasn't for him, there wouldn't have been 32 real victims in the first place.
But he was mentally ill, say some folks.
So what? I respond.
The bulk of mentally ill people do not go around killing innocent people.
Also, I doubt he would have been able to win with an insanity defense. To win a plea of insanity would require him to prove that his delusions prevented him from distinguishing right from wrong.
His manifesto didn't say that he had to kill everyone to stop the aliens from planting their eggs in his brain or some similar delusion, it just said that he had killed those people because he hated them. It was pure and simple hatred.
That doesn't make him crazy.
That makes him evil.
But he was a product of violent video games and movies, they then say.
Millions of people, some with mental disorders, see violent movies and play violent games and do not go out and kill people. I believe that no one is made a murderer by the media or some other outside force. The desire to commit one of the most horrible crimes must come from within, from something a lot of people choose to ignore these days.
Something called character.
Character is what kept civilization growing and developing in a world fraught not with the fantastical violence of movies and video games, but real physical violence, from everyday familial abuse, to war, to lawlessness. Most of history held life cheap, something that has only recently started to change, and that is due to people with strong moral characters working to make good moral choices the norm.
Cho would have been okay if America had banned guns, the self-righteous declare, Britain banned guns after a school shooting and everyday is happy unicorn day over there.
That's the usual argument, but it doesn't quite hold up anymore.
School shootings are still relatively rare, just think of the number of schools and universities in North America and multiply them by 365 days a year, and you will see that days like the one in Virginia Tech are extremely rare, despite what the media say.
So simple random chance can explain why Britain hasn't had another Dunblane. And the gun ban actually caused gun violence in the UK to skyrocket, because only criminals carry guns in Britain. So while there hasn't been another school shooting, there have been an ever increasing number of shootings in homes, pubs, businesses and streets in the UK.
And then there's the incident in 2002 where a school shooter wannabe was stopped by two students armed with pistols. Something they wouldn't have been able to do if their
school had the VT style gun ban.
And even if America had no guns at all Cho probably would have just imitated the terrible Bath school massacre of 1927, where a malignant walking tumor named Kehoe, blew up a school full of children, then blew himself up while attempting to kill the people trying to rescue the children. He killed 45 people, mostly children, and wounded another 58.
He didn't have any guns, or violent video games and he had the worst bodycount in American history until Tim McVeigh showed the world what a prick he could be.
Would using a homemade bomb have been better?
But he was bullied, say the champions of victim Cho, top that.
I was a big kid with a studious nature and reputation for being a peaceful kinda guy, that made me a target for every self-anointed 'tough guy' in the school district. I followed a very strict code when it came to dealing with bullies. It went something like this:
Smack the bully, don't hit the innocent bystander.
You see what I'm getting at?
Probably not, so let me explain.
If John bullies Jim, Jim has the right to deliver a swift knee to the nads to John. It does not give Jim the right to shoot Betty in the head.
Does that make sense to you?
So that's why we must take a new tack when dealing with mass shooters like Cho, the Columbine Kids, and all the others.
We don't give them sympathy.
We don't give them respect.
We don't fear them.
That's what they want.
It's the main reason why they did what they do.
It's the pity parties or fits of terrified public hysteria that inspire more shooters than an army of violent movies, video games, or free guns.
People who choose to act out their issues on the innocent deserve only two things:
That's right.
Don't give them what they want, give them shit.
It's what they deserve.
And maybe the public shaming of these rectal pimples will prevent someone doing it in the future, fearful that they will receive in death even worse abuse than what they got in life.
And do the same thing with those terrorists too.
Deep down, they are all the same.
But he was mentally ill, say some folks.
So what? I respond.
The bulk of mentally ill people do not go around killing innocent people.
Also, I doubt he would have been able to win with an insanity defense. To win a plea of insanity would require him to prove that his delusions prevented him from distinguishing right from wrong.
His manifesto didn't say that he had to kill everyone to stop the aliens from planting their eggs in his brain or some similar delusion, it just said that he had killed those people because he hated them. It was pure and simple hatred.
That doesn't make him crazy.
That makes him evil.
But he was a product of violent video games and movies, they then say.
Millions of people, some with mental disorders, see violent movies and play violent games and do not go out and kill people. I believe that no one is made a murderer by the media or some other outside force. The desire to commit one of the most horrible crimes must come from within, from something a lot of people choose to ignore these days.
Something called character.
Character is what kept civilization growing and developing in a world fraught not with the fantastical violence of movies and video games, but real physical violence, from everyday familial abuse, to war, to lawlessness. Most of history held life cheap, something that has only recently started to change, and that is due to people with strong moral characters working to make good moral choices the norm.
Cho would have been okay if America had banned guns, the self-righteous declare, Britain banned guns after a school shooting and everyday is happy unicorn day over there.
That's the usual argument, but it doesn't quite hold up anymore.
School shootings are still relatively rare, just think of the number of schools and universities in North America and multiply them by 365 days a year, and you will see that days like the one in Virginia Tech are extremely rare, despite what the media say.
So simple random chance can explain why Britain hasn't had another Dunblane. And the gun ban actually caused gun violence in the UK to skyrocket, because only criminals carry guns in Britain. So while there hasn't been another school shooting, there have been an ever increasing number of shootings in homes, pubs, businesses and streets in the UK.
And then there's the incident in 2002 where a school shooter wannabe was stopped by two students armed with pistols. Something they wouldn't have been able to do if their
school had the VT style gun ban.And even if America had no guns at all Cho probably would have just imitated the terrible Bath school massacre of 1927, where a malignant walking tumor named Kehoe, blew up a school full of children, then blew himself up while attempting to kill the people trying to rescue the children. He killed 45 people, mostly children, and wounded another 58.
He didn't have any guns, or violent video games and he had the worst bodycount in American history until Tim McVeigh showed the world what a prick he could be.
Would using a homemade bomb have been better?
But he was bullied, say the champions of victim Cho, top that.
I was a big kid with a studious nature and reputation for being a peaceful kinda guy, that made me a target for every self-anointed 'tough guy' in the school district. I followed a very strict code when it came to dealing with bullies. It went something like this:
Smack the bully, don't hit the innocent bystander.
You see what I'm getting at?
Probably not, so let me explain.
If John bullies Jim, Jim has the right to deliver a swift knee to the nads to John. It does not give Jim the right to shoot Betty in the head.
Does that make sense to you?
So that's why we must take a new tack when dealing with mass shooters like Cho, the Columbine Kids, and all the others.
We don't give them sympathy.
We don't give them respect.
We don't fear them.
That's what they want.
It's the main reason why they did what they do.
It's the pity parties or fits of terrified public hysteria that inspire more shooters than an army of violent movies, video games, or free guns.
People who choose to act out their issues on the innocent deserve only two things:
Mockery and Derision
That's right.
Don't give them what they want, give them shit.
It's what they deserve.
And maybe the public shaming of these rectal pimples will prevent someone doing it in the future, fearful that they will receive in death even worse abuse than what they got in life.
And do the same thing with those terrorists too.
Deep down, they are all the same.
1 comment:
Hi nicce reading your blog
Post a Comment