<p>tom1944: I am not referring to "strange people" as my daughter has plenty of strange people at her school and she has actually been known to act a bit strange herself at times. :) But there is a huge difference in strange and crazy and we as a society need to get a better understanding of the difference and start paying attention to the signs before it is too late....again.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Something is very wrong here with all these privacy laws because it sounds to me like they were put in place to protect the wrong people. Excuse me if I sound angry but I am.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>These same privacy laws are granting you the freedom from prying eyes at all sorts of levels. Remember, we shouldn't necessarily only look at the effects of a law when they "fail," but also when they work.</p>
<p>The shooter was an adult, and as such, was granted certain privileges according to our federal statutes and the US Constitution. 32 people dead is a travesty, and yes, we should try to stop it.</p>
<p>Abridging our freedom from unwarranted peeking into our lives is not the right way to go about it.</p>
<p>I knew strange kids in college, and I've had more than a couple of employees that turned out to be regarded as "psychos" by their co-workers. You may be able to get them out of the company (thank goodness for "employment at will" laws), but you can't have them locked up for being weird. One strange ex-employee threatened bodily harm, in fact, and we reported the threats to the police. They, of course, could do nothing unless he showed up with an assault rifle. Fortunately, he didn't. In a really odd (and sad) twist, a guy who had worked for me in the same company was later killed by a disgruntled ex-employee of his new company, along with several other victims.</p>
<p>Life is full of tradeoffs, and we have a free society that has lots of advantages but also forces us to take our chances with the occasional weirdos. Some societies might just "disappear" these characters, but all in all I guess I'd prefer our freedoms and rights.</p>
<p>Yes, I probably would. My younger child will not be attending college until Fall of 2008, but if she wanted VA Tech (and she is leaning toward engineering schools), then, yes I would not prevent her from applying.<br>
The problem, I believe, is not necessarily with the school, and even if a problem lies within the school, certainly this tragic event will correct that.<br>
There's not much one can do if your foe is completely insane as this poor young man was.<br>
EXCEPT- please when will we all ban together to support Federal Gun licensing laws? The gunman bought the Glock in a few minutes. Had he been mandated to acquire a license in VA, then it may have taken days for him to get that gun. That period of time may have saved lives.</p>
<p>A person that has totally gone over the edge is no easier to stop than the terrorists our country continues to fight. We live in a country that values individual freedoms, thank heavens, and while it is obvious in hindsight that this young man was psychotic, most who interacted with him seemed to think he was more suicidal and harmful to himself (yet obviously refusing treatment) than to others. There are many young adults who have "bizarre" thoughts, but it's a tough balance between our freedoms and locking them up. As much as I abhor his conduct, this young man is a victim also - of a system that allowed him to slip through the cracks and dive deeper into his own psychosis.</p>
<p>Having lived in VA for the past 25 years, I can assure you that the nation will most likely be amazed at how soon our General Assembly changes the laws regarding the rights of "suspicously not quite right in the head" people. We may live and talk at a slightly slower pace than many other areas of the country, but when it comes to horrors like this, we act incredibly fast. </p>
<p>As a Virginian, I am proud of the Tech community and the great outpouring of support from here and around the world. This is a HUGE campus and, as seen from the victims' list, an international one as well. There is not a campus in our country that couldn't tighten its security, class buildings could remain locked, dorms could become jails, etc. But wouldn't that just give in to the whole terrorist/martyr way of thinking? </p>
<p>I have four teens - they will go to college where they feel is right for them. Neither myself nor anyone else can guarantee their total safety be it at home, at school, at work, in the car, walking on the street or on a college campus. S2 has Tech as his in-state choice for next year's apps - this tragedy will not change that.</p>
<p>Please join Virginians in showing your support on Friday by wearing burgundy and orange. Thanks!</p>
<p>This discussion about privacy rights and the mentally-ill reminded me of something I read by one of our Founding Fathers, so I looked it up. The subject is a little different than what I thought, but some of you may find it an interesting addition to the conversation regardless, so I'm throwing it out there. In the tenth Federalist paper, Madison wrote about the problem presented by the potential for violent factions to form in the Union. He defined a faction as* "a number of citizens [...] united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permenent and aggregate interests of the community." Dangerous factions and dangerous killers are not the same; however, the issues that arise when dealing with either are strikingly similar. Madison writes: "There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects." *The same is true in the debate about liberty and privacy versus safety and security: this is a zero sum game, and a loss in one is a gain for the other. The problem can be solved by removing as much of the potential for violence as possible through stringent rules and guidelines. This will likely result in mentally-ill (but safe) people being barred from colleges and privacy being breached for everyone, but also a dramatic reduction in the possibility for mass violent crime that could harm many. On the other hand, rules can remain similar to the way they are now, and the effects can be dealt with of possibly having mentally-ill people on campus. </p>
<p>Madison called the first option "unwise." He stated:
[quote]
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an ailment without which is instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
[/quote]
Again, I realize that Madison is not speaking about the same problem. Nevertheless, if your read the quote replacing "privacy" for "liberty" and think of "faction" as the potential for violence as a whole, instead of just political violence, I think you'll see what Madison thought about this issue. When discussing laws that would sacrifice freedom or rights, I think it's a good idea to look at what the founders of our Nation thought when designing and creating the United States. You can be too careful.</p>
<p>UCLAri: I would gladly give up some of those privacy laws if it made our country, our schools, our workplaces a better and safer environment. We would probably all benefit from a little less privacy actually and if you aren't doing anything illegal or immoral then you have nothing to hide. Remember, the shooter at VT passed a criminal check but would he have passed a mental health check if there was a law in place requiring that, probably not. We need to decide what is more important....a safer society or more freedom that allows the dangerously insane to act out their fantasies at the expense of the innocent.</p>
<p>corranged,</p>
<p>I'm going to argue that you're taking the argument a bit too far. Madison was dealing with the tyranny of the majority, not the mentally unstable individual. I don't think that your snippet really tells us what he would have thought in this situation.</p>
<p>He was referring to the power of groups in democracies (particularly Westminster systems, as that was all they knew) to capitalize on pluralities in legislatures, not individuals...</p>
<p>
[quote]
UCLAri: I would gladly give up some of those privacy laws if it made our country, our schools, our workplaces a better and safer environment. We would probably all benefit from a little less privacy actually and if you aren't doing anything illegal or immoral then you have nothing to hide.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
~ Attributed to Franklin, Richard Jackson, and even Hume...</p>
<p>The whole "if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" argument reeks of Big Brother is always right kinds of thinking. I don't care if I'm doing right or wrong-- it's none of the government's business. The abridging of freedoms allows governments to enforce laws that should never be enforced, and is an essential break from the libertarian spirit of our nation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We need to decide what is more important....a safer society or more freedom that allows the dangerously insane to act out their fantasies at the expense of the innocent.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How about a society that acknowledges the fact that you'll never remove every danger, but instead embraces the joys of freedom from tyranny?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>eeeEEEWWWWW. Must we? O.K. We must. :) I'll do it. </p>
<p>I had a talk with the kid today. One of those speed talks. She didn't have the time and I had something to say. She said she and a friend had spent time reading the profiles of the dead. </p>
<p>We commented on some that struck us both - Clark the Georgia wonder boy, what a kid. The Lebanese beauty. The Fulbright scholar long-haired smiling prof. The horsie girl. What a geat cross-section of the world's youth. What a great testimony they give to the universality of the search for education. What a great testimony they give to the need for understanding and compassion.</p>
<p>We talked about the warped bastards who won't let us mourn and instead insistently intrude upon on our thoughts with pro/anti gun/administration. They should all be ashamed. </p>
<p>We talked mostly about the triumph of the human spirit, the will to live, the willingness to sacrifice, the life affirming power to forgive. The truly important parts of this story that get lost in all the claptrap. </p>
<p>There are heroes walking with us. </p>
<p>I didn't have enough time.</p>
<p>But I guess we never do, do we?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Madison was dealing with the tyranny of the majority, not the mentally unstable individual.
[/quote]
He was speaking about small, minority factions as well as majorities. In any event, I did not state that Madison was speaking about privacy and the mentally unstable--that would be hugely improbable given the current knowledge of medicine, particularly mental health, at that time. In fact, I made sure to make that very clear. I believe that the point about the choice between sacrificing one for the other is still interesting, though.</p>
<p>corranged,</p>
<p>Yes, he does talk about the minority faction, but he's much more concerned with the power of non-representative groups tyrannizing the minority or even the majority.</p>
<p>I know you did try to stitch together everything with a disclaimer...I just don't see the applicability. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be TOO difficult. ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know you did try to stitch together everything with a disclaimer...
[/quote]
That would be mainly because I didn't actually want to get involved in this discussion (the one about privacy/safety or this one about my post), but I thought of the quote, looked it up, thought it was interesting and applicable to some degree, and decided to share it with everyone. I wasn't trying to shatter the Earth or anything. (Though I would say the thought of a non-representative group tyrannizing the minority has similarities to a non-representative individual taking inappropriate power over a group of people, in both cases leaving the question of how to stop the former while risking the rights and freedoms of the latter.)</p>
<p>On privacy laws hamstringing colleges:</p>
<p>Reminds me of an interesting Q&A chat with the head of health services at parents orientation. She reviewed the constraints in Pennsylvania law about notifying parents, but then went on to describe that they can usually do what is necessary. For example, she described sometimes standing with a student, dialing the parents' number, and handing the student the phone.</p>
<p>corranged,</p>
<p>I think I see a crack at my feet...</p>
<p>You would prevent your child from attending Va Tech because of this one aberrant incident? For pete's sake, this atrocity could have happened at any school.</p>
<p>and then they can remove yet another school to the undesirable list.</p>
<p>I don't understand the idea that we aren't supposed to talk about the fact that these people were shot to death, murdered with automatic weapons, as if that is some sort of sacred ground</p>
<p>if they were killed in a train accident, we would be talking about train safety, if they were killed by a drunk driver, we would be talking about drinking and driving, but heaven forbid we talk about guns</p>
<p>citygirlsmom:</p>
<p>It's a double standard. If you notice, the gun lobby and their hired hands have been all over the media today telling us that we shouldn't talk about gun control.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It's no double standard from where I stand. Both sides are equally reprehensible in this instance (as are all those who forget the victims in their race to place blame and say "hurray for our side" and "aren't I smart"). We are fast becoming a nation of vultures. Heck, I think we may have have reached it with this one.</p>