Get Schooled

By Jeff

April 24, 2007 8:41 AM | Link to this

The question has been raised, and it deals with this topic:

When does the privacy of the individual lose out to the security of the populace?

My answer: NEVER

We, as a nation, say that the individual becomes a legal adult at 18. Therefore, at 18, NO ONE has a right - nor even a need - to know anything about the individual that the individual does not want to tell them.

Would I want a phone call from the school? NO. I would read my child better than that, and I would know what was going on quite possibly before my child did. (My own parents have done that quite often, MOST of the time without telling me until after I’d realized it on my own.)

When would I expect one? Only if my child was living on campus and had died or been injured severely enough that a trip to the hospital was warranted, and even then it should be the hospital’s responsibility. Not the school’s.

What should colleges do to make sure more students get help? NOTHING Not everyone needs “help”. Many times they simply need to be left alone to sort things through on their own. IF they decide to become an explicit threat, deal with them as such once they EXPLICITLY threaten someone.

By JustMe

April 24, 2007 9:30 AM | Link to this

A college aged kid is a legal adult, right? As such, parents are no longer the legal guardians and do not have the rights associated with that.

Plus, the last thing that we need to do is to put more responsibilities onto learning institutions. They are there to provide an education, period.

Should Coca-Cola be held accountable or be responsible for notifying the parents of a troubled employee? Heck no! It is not their place just as it is not the place of a learning institution to get involved.

If a college student or even a Coke employee threatens someone, let the law handle it. If a college student or a Coke employee’s behavior is out of line, send them to a doctor.

By jennifer

April 24, 2007 9:50 AM | Link to this

This kid was a danger. As soon as it was noticed that this young man was seriouasly disturbed, the police should have been called. The lack of proactive measures means, unfortunately, his blood, and the blood of those he slaughtered, are on the college’s hands. Just as he had claimed, if not exactly for the reasons he stated.

Do you want to know why we don’t hear about this kind of thing happening in England? Citizens are not legally allowed to have guns, period. No permits, no exceptions. To have a gun means jail.

We need to take guns out of citizens hands. If someone is carrying one, boom, it’s jail, no excuses, no exceptions. We have proven, time and time again, that we cannot handle tools of death without causing one.

GET RID OF GUNS!!

By jennifer

April 24, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this

I would want to know as soon as ANY consistent signs of depression are noticed! This is my child, and I want what’s best for her, no matter how old she is. The rest of the school population does not need to know any of it, as it is not their business, but it absolutely is Mom & Dad’s business!

What happend at Virginia Tech should not have happened, if the college had done their job! The university clinic, the parents, and the police should all have been called as soon as the warning signs were displayed. If I were his parents, I would sue.

By Mary

April 24, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this

Like several people have said, there was no one connecting the dots to see the total picture of mental illness. I certainly wouldn’t lay all the blame with the university. The New York Times reported that as a child Cho was thought to be autistic and had trouble speaking. In high school he was very withdrawn and hardly spoke. One article said his parents were apprehensive about leaving him at college. In his junior year he told his suitemate he had an imaginery girlfriend who was a model from outerspace. He also told the suitemate he spent the holiday with the president of Russia who he knew when he lived in Moscow. So there were many signs along the way.

By leen

April 24, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this

Yes, an 18 yr old is, for most purposes, an adult. However, my college student is not paying his expenses, we are. And since he is out of state, what we hear is only what he wants to tell us. I would like to see colleges offer waivers to students to sign, allowing the college to contact the parent in case of legitimate concerns regarding their mental state. I would rather get that phone call than find out my child had been committed for observation. I doubt anything would have helped in this case though. Cho parents seem seriously disconnected from his mental state. There were warning signs for many years that he was unstable.

By forheaven'ssake

April 24, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

The shooter’s parents should sue? Are you kidding - where have they been for the past 18 years while, according to story after story, their son has been depressed, antisocial, unresponsive, beligerent…and now its the school’s fault? I feel for them, they grieve like the other people who lost a loved one last week, and they grieve with out the loving support of a nation, but do they have a right to sue - I don’t think so.

By Jesse's Girl

April 24, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this

I have heard so many people blaming the school for “allowing” this to happen. With the time gap between the first shootings and the second spree, the school had every reason to believe that it was an isolated case. And even if they canceled classes….people were already enroute, they could not have avoided this confrontation. This guy was too hell bent on killing people. Causing panic may have increased the damage done by this lunatic. I do however agree that the school should have warned his parents, school and/or local authorities that his writings and actions were disturbing. Although, it sounds as if his family already knew of his proclivity for odd behavior. I know that when something horrible happens, it is natural to look for someone to blame….to point the finger at. Unfortunately, the blame for this ultimately lies with the shooter. Since he is no longer around to answer for what he did, others will have to shoulder the responsibility. But the family, in my opinion, has just as much to shoulder as the school. They knew he wasn’t right, just as his professors knew he wasn’t right. This situation has nothing at all to do with how easy it is to buy a gun in this country. When someone is determined to take a life or lives, they will get a weapon. Taking away the rights of law abiding citizens to buy/own/sell fire arms is not the answer. Having a better screening process won’t even do it. If we make them next to impossible to get, some thug will recognize the business potential and step in to fill the gap. There is no good answer here. What happened is tragic, but it will very likely happen again. Just like guns, knives, and all other weapons…..crazy people will always exist to abuse them.

By InWonder

April 24, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

Uh, taking the guns out of good citizen’s hands is pretty much us handing them over to the criminals. The criminals would be raising the crime rate on a wider scale. We would have no way to protect ourselves other than waiting for 30 minutes to an hour for help to come, that is if the criminal hasn’t cut your telephone and that you have a cell phone right on you. Hopefully the criminal hasn’t tied you up making the cell phone or any phone useless and you just sit there hoping that someone will miss you.

By high school teacher

April 24, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

*What happend at Virginia Tech should not have happened, if the college had done their job!

What happened at Virginia Tech could have happened even if the student had been kicked out of school and if his parents notified.

I said it last week as well; go to any college campus during school hours, and you can walk into any classroom building you want. You don’t have to be a student (with the exception of certain science labs). They are open to the public. Short of giving each student a key card to each building for which they need access, colleges can’t change this fact. Smaller colleges might already be tackling this problem, but universities with over 30,000 students might have a logistics problem with this.

Stop blaming officials at Virginia Tech for this tragedy.

By jim d

April 24, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

Jen,

I’m sure you have heard it before but let me reiterate. Guns don’t kill people, people do.

Now to andrea’s questions.

would you want a phone call from school officials?

Yes

When would you expect one?

Since I will be providing insurance coverage for him while he is a full time student or until he turns 21, I’d expect a call anytime medical services were rendered that would be filing a claim on my insurance.

What, if anything, should colleges do to make sure more students get help?

I’m with Jeff on this one. I wouldn’t want a wannabe shrink or 3rd year student attempting a diagnosis.

By Dave

April 24, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

This is a good example of how lawyers can erode he fabric of this country. Decades ago, the legal profession dismantled the ability of the state to confine people who were a danger to themselves in mental institutions.

Now the only way we can confine the mentally ill is after they have commited a violent crime and then we put them in prison. Once they get out, its just a repeat of the previous behavior.

The prisons are full of the mentally ill! They are not getting treatment and in many instances they are getting worse.

The solution is to rebuild institutions for the criminally insane. Move the mentally ill people in prison to the high security areas and put guys like this one who did the mass killing in a medium security area.

Who is to blame? The ubiquitous bad guy, the lawyer.

By jim d

April 24, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

Actually HST,

With available technology today card systems can effectively allow access to designated persons during designated times. It really wouldn’t be that difficult to set up.

By jct

April 24, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

Jeff you are so on target.

I had a roommate in college who did not speak. In fact, I believe she said about 1,000 words that we lived together. She never spoke to anyone on the entire floor. She would walk with her head down along the wall. There was something clearly wrong with her. She did not harm anyone but there were clearly mental issues. Her parents never visited and called maybe once per month.

She was still at the university when I graduated and she still was not speaking.

It has been 15 yrs and hopefully she is more verbally engaged now.

Jennifer if you want to know if you son/daughter is depressed than I would suggest that you stay in contact by email and telephone. Visit him or her so that you can notice the subtle changes. It is not the schools responbility to call you.

By SET

April 24, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

Currently the law does cut off parental rights and controls at age 18. This is another product of the Great Society legislation in the 1960s. The age of majority was 21 which is part of the factor of 7. Below 7 no one was subject to criminal law. At 7 to 14 there was a presumption that the actor did not understand the consequences of his acts (rebuttable). At 14 to 21 there was a presumption that the actor did understand the consequences of his acts (also rebuttable). 21 and up was in the standard adult proceedings.

People decided that because we used 19 year olds as cannon fodder in VietNam we should declare them adults, cut off their rights of parental support (housing, health care, etc) and essentially dump them on the streets - and keep using them for cannon fodder. The 18 year olds were estatic. Plus they could get welfare on their own and move into party central - and the parents were no longer liable for their necessities of life. There was something for everyone and the Army no longer needed parental permission to sweet talk someone (desperate?) into joining either.

As you see changing the age of majority damaged the “family” the conservatives lie about wanting to protect by disrupting control and support at a crucial time of the child, while increasing late adolescent dependance on the government.

We see the results in our cities today.

Back to topic. Psychos in school are easy to eliminate if the school has a decent police service. As long as they are just depressive and maybe suicidal - they are no problem for those who don’t entangle themselves with the mentally ill - just let them sleep. If they become violent or threatening the “new” laws for the control of violent and threatening people are so severe they will be in and out of jail and related court supervision so they won’t be a “student” any longer.

In California felony criminal threats (Penal Code §422) is a strike. Stalking is (court option) registerable for life as a sexual offense. We have good and sufficient laws on the books to take out people like Cho.

The problem is (previous) systematic refusal to make arrests and to get court proceedings going on people who act out - especially if the person is in a protected class on a campus run by loony tunes liberals. When enough people get hurt a la VA Tech, this will stop very suddenly. Actually that has started now all over the country as colleges are at this moment listing their problem children and moving against them.

By this time next year the Paranoid or Aggressive Mentally Ill will likely have been run off most of the colleges in the US. Of course it takes a massacre to get any bureacracy to do it’s job.

As if this wasn’t enough there will likely be new legistation in the wake of VA Tech - I’d suggest a criminal records check/fingerprinting before allowing anyone to register at college. Don’t laugh. that requirement is already in place for all campus workers from the janitor to the college president in our state schools. And for all students entering certain vocational training. This is obstensibly to prevent felons from taking courses that handle guns and drugs - and keeping sex offenders from concealing their presence (you can still hire them). It is also a crime, a felony - not to register with the campus police if you have ever been convicted of listed sex crimes prior to taking classes.

Cho was not typical - most campus violence is from outsiders and after that, domestic violence related. The redically increased DV laws are still being felt. Once a person has ever been charged with DV (including non-criminal restraining orders) they have a computer record for life as well as their court file if any. Schools, prospective employers, prospective In-Laws, and Landlords, etc can find this in commercial databases and avoid both the defendants and the plaintiffs.

Brave New World!

By Rod

April 24, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

If the parent is paying the bill at the school - you better believe they have a right to know EVERYTHING they want to know!

By JustMe

April 24, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

You guys are kidding, right?

Parents paying a bill does not mean that the ADULT forgoes their consitutional rights.

Are you really saying that if an 85 year old mother buys her 45 year old son a car, she has a right to know if he gets a speeding ticket? Give me a bloody break!

You guys that believe this are feakin idiots. No institution, be it a college or a company, should answer to parents when the person is a legal adult. Should they follow the law, yes. Should they report offenders, yes. Should they report nutty behavior to authorities, yes. Beyond that, heck no!

By high school teacher

April 24, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

With available technology today card systems can effectively allow access to designated persons during designated times. It really wouldn’t be that difficult to set up.

True, but at the expense of the students. Expect a tuition hike again to implement that technology!

By lucky

April 24, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

The blame is with the parents - solely. They had the authority and responsibility to provide whatever help or security that he needed. This kid had a hit list in 8th grade - they did not need a telephone call from the college, they were probably wondering why they weren’t contacted.

He did not work yet had money for school and necessities like guns and ammunition. Where did the bills for that go?

His lackluster family knew he was troubled, and no amount of medication and counseling can help paranoid schizophenrics - they need supervision not higher education. His roommate said he never talked. Why weren’t his parents engaged enough to at least call his roommate to check on any bizarre behavior.

So, now they apologized. Big deal. They could have had him committed, involuntarily if necessary, until he was no longer a threat. Legal adult or not - they still have the responsibility to help him manage his environment.

By HLB

April 24, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

Um, does anyone here remember that little amendment between the 1st and 3rd?

Abolishing the Second Amendment will only guarantee that the guns are taken away from the good guys. If there’s a will, there’s a way to get a gun whether it’s legal or not. Instead of trying to change the Bill of Rights, maybe we should try to tackle the issues at hand.

By Lisa B.

April 24, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

Mental illness often manifests itself before children are college bound. The parents and family of the Va. Tech shooter new he was troubled. I’ve seen mental illness occassionally in fourth graders. It often continues to worsen, and I read about those students later in the newspaper.

My point is that its unfair to lay all the diagnostic resposibility on the university.

As has been posted before, college students are adults. I know there are often signs that something is wrong with a person before he or she becomes an adult and leaves home.

By catlady

April 24, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

We have children in elementary school showing signs of serious mental illness. The parents deny the problem, and we are helpless to get anything done. Even if they attack and injure others, at the most they might get a few days of suspension, then they are right back at it. Someone tell me what can be done! We have 8 year olds putting 700 people a day at risk, but no one seems empowered to demand that something be done-that their parents act like parents and get the child help, or that dFACS step in and get the child help, or whatever!

By JustMe

April 24, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this

It just “kills” me how a stupid little catchy phrase created by some so-called witty person can become reality for so many. I am referring to the phrase “outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns.”

If you believe this, then you are a fool.

All the US has to do is make it illegal to buy, sell, possess, trade, etc. any gun. Once the current stock of guns is gone, no one could get one - or at least it would be highly improbable. Why? Smuggling guns is very difficult - ever hear of metal detectors?

And the most frequent criminal, like a store robber, couldn’t find a gun much less afford one (if they were illegal and rare).

If the general public would use its brain and stop with the stupid witty phrases, we would all be better off!

By InWonder

April 24, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this

Ah, JustMe, you make me laugh and you look like the fool… mainly because that is impossible and will NEVER happen. Look at all that is illegal or has been illegal in the past…. And, sorry, it is TRUE. If you take away the guns from those who have them legally, only those who are criminals (who don’t care about the law) and those who want to protect themselves and don’t care what the liberals and the minority says will have guns. You will NEVER be able to take away all the guns from the criminals….and those who believe in their consitutional right to own a gun.

By InWonder

April 24, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

And, JustMe, by your statments you obviously have never been properly educated about guns and a lot of your thoughts must of been made in “LA-LA” Land because they are very illogical and would NOT work. You forget that guns can be manufactured anywhere and people are smart enough to figure how to get them around without a worry to your “ideal world” and you wouldn’t have a clue and would believe that guns don’t exist. Well, what are you going to do if people start using bow and arrows, knives, nail guns, hammers, bats to kill people? OH WAIT!! People already have!

By Aquagirl

April 24, 2007 1:03 PM | Link to this

Justme, it’s illegal to bring drugs or yourself into the country (if you don’t have proper paperwork). Both are here in great numbers. Just how do you think we’re going to keep guns out?

And the ones here will last an awful long time. You can still fire a civil war musket. Or a .45 from WW II.

I will refrain from making any comment about “brain use” on your part, but you don’t seem to be using a lot of logic in constructing your totally gun-free LaLa land.

By Nja

April 24, 2007 1:09 PM | Link to this

If a criminal wants a gun- they will get one. Regardless if the U.S. makes it illegal to buy, sell, possess, trade, etc. Don’t let a law give you a false sense of security.

By Aquagirl

April 24, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this

Ah, InWonder@12:55, you beat me to it.

Perhaps I should take the Neal Boortz route and trademark the phrase “LaLa Land” in reference to those who think we can control guns.

By jim d

April 24, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this

A proposed ban on Small Arms is old news. So y’all lighten up. Just me is entitled to an opinon regardless of how wrong it is.

Keep in mind that Globalists have been trying (and failing) to disarm would-be resisters for a very long time. Department of State Publication 7277 (http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/7277.html ) Disarmament Series 5 was released in September 1961.

The mere perception of an armed citizenry scared Japan during World War II. Admiral Yamamoto said: “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”

Yamamoto’s comment was hyperbolic and not accurate. However, the perception of the U.S. served as a real impediment to mitigate a Japanese invasion.

Likewise, after the Cold War, a group of former KGB agents and CIA agents were reportedly meeting in Europe when the question was raised about Soviet invasion. The Russians reportedly said: “Not unless your government could have disarmed citizens. You have too many guns.”

Again, the strategic perception of American cowboys and armed grandmothers intimidated an enemy.

I suspect that this discussion will be ongoing a hundred years from now as no politican that has aspirations of re-election would ever support such legislation. Since clearly polls indicate that Americans overwhelmingly support the second amendment by a minimum of 80%, any politico that favored banning guns would be committing political suicide.

By Cletus Snow

April 24, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this

Justme @ 12:33 everyone has heard of metal detectors, they had them at the Fulton County Courthouse when Brian Nichols went on his killing spree. Brian Nichols didn’t have to worry about affording a gun he did what all criminals do he stole it.Smuggling guns is very easy, of the cargo containers entering the US from Mexico only one in fifty is actually inspected while three of fifty are scanned. There is no way to know for sure about containerized freight entering through Miami it’s all handled by a private company,who knows how much of it is inspected on the west coast entering from China, Japan and other Asian countries. When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have them If you don’t believe that you are a moron.

By InWonder

April 24, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this

Aquagirl, I have never listened to Neal Boortz (all my thoughts are from either personal experience, our own country’s and other country’s written and proven histories, things that have actually happened and proven truths[aka - FACTS], my partical libertarian beliefs, and common sense) but I think all of us who agree about that should be the “owners” of that phrase LaLa Land. Because, face it, that is where they live with “Big Brother”. They are the ones proving what a lazy society we are becoming expecting someone else to take care of every aspect of our lives and not ourselves.

By Aquagirl

April 24, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this

jim d @ 1:18, you are correct, JustMe is entitled to his/her opinion. But there is a huge problem in this country with people who have opinions that are ill-formed, baseless, and won’t stand up to even a moment’s thought. Because they want to make laws that affect others, based on those opinions.

JustMe was proposing a legal solution. I think it was Thomas Jefferson that said a Democracy required an informed populace.

Perhaps those who don’t know s* about guns could refrain from advocating implementation of their ideas. They would also, by doing this, avoid getting deservedly flamed.

By Jo

April 24, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this

I’m not saying life was PERFECT 50 years ago, but there were certain things that were not tolerated then that are now & things were safer. For instance, there should be institutions for the criminally insane. If someone shows obvious signs of being looney-tunes, toss the wack-job into one of these places & throw away the key. And they shouldn’t be country clubs either. They should use restraints, shock treatment etc. I am SO sick of bleeding-heart, touchy-feely liberals enabling disgusting criminal sick-o trash! Wait till it’s one of THEIR children that get shot! Then they’ll sing a different tune. But, I want to see things change BEFORE that happens & more innocent lives are violently ended.

By Aquagirl

April 24, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this

InWonder, I was referring to Neal Boortz threatening lawmakers who use the words “Fair Tax” on a bill. He has apparently appropriated the word “FairTax”. I’d love to see the lawyers get hold of that mess.

I just thought it was interesting that we both used the same phrase to describe JustMe’s thought processes. Those who think passing a law solves a problem are indeed in (non-trademark) LaLa land.

If you hadn’t guessed from my posts, I lean Libertarian too—-that probably accounts for it.

By InWonder

April 24, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this

The thing is this: this is a no-win situation. One side sees the writing on the wall on what the other side will do, and guess what… they are starting. Forget the FACT that it was a person, who had mentally ill, did the crime. So, one side completely takes that out of the picture and puts the spotlight on the gun (that is just how liberals LOVE to do it). The gun did NOT commit the crime, the PERSON committed the crime. Again. Liberals don’t want us to look at accountability. They will just take away all those things WE can use against another and act like they are saving humanity. What a joke. They are taking out the MOST IMPORTANT part to the crime…. the CRIMINAL. Liberals don’t want you to think, act or breath - because to them, you need them to do so properly. That they know best and so does the government - and hey, they are “perfect”. But god forbid the government does something that is not “perfect”. Then it is all the governments fault and they need someone to fix that and just think that their liberal “friends” have all the answers. God forbid they look at their own actions, it may or may not be their OWN fault….

By jim d

April 24, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this

Aqua girl,

I’m afraid I don’t lean—I’m totally tipped. However, This nation was founded on people taking their God given rights to speak on that which they believed.

While just me and I totally disagree on this issue I still respect just me’s right to speak. I also reserve the right to disagree or not listen if I so choose.

By InWonder

April 24, 2007 2:14 PM | Link to this

jim d - we may love that right to speak, but we also seem to love to have someone else take care of everything for us and we consider that a “right” too…

By jim d

April 24, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this

Perhaps, however this is one ol boy that has enough fire power to protect myself and mine. I sure as hell am not dependent on someone else to provide that sense of security for my family.

I have no intention of ever surrenering my rights, but I have no problem with others surrendering theirs if they wish to. Like I’ve indicated. Gun Control and bans will never happen in this lifetime nor in my childrens lifetime. Too many people own weapons that would never give them up. So all of gun control lobby’s rantings amount to nothing. Let them rant.

By Aquagirl

April 24, 2007 2:29 PM | Link to this

I respect JustMe’s right to speak too; What I’m blasting is the tendency to advocate silly, wishful, or illogical laws that infringe on another’s rights or screw things up in general. Anyone is welcome to an opinion. I often exercise my right to free speech in regard to gun control, and I rarely encounter a decent response.

Adults who act like children should be addressed like children. I still hold that JustMe’s flaming was well-deserved.

I do agree with your opinion to lighten up a little; no matter how bizarre a statement, the best response should make someone think, rather than run and hide.

Problem is, most people will respond with name calling, etc., or simply ignore the matter. They then line up on election day to vote like they feel—- kind of like a four year old who has been promised a cookie by a creepy guy lurking in a windowless van.

By InWonder

April 24, 2007 2:30 PM | Link to this

jim d - I agree with your statement. You know who they call those who quickly give up their rights to have a gun and have no problems about it (and letting you know too)? A victim. (Sorry, if that “offended” anyone, but that is EXACTLY what you are. You have no way to protect yourself. You ARE a victim. I personally don’t ever want to be a victim so I have no plans to ever give up my arms, and my family is the same way and have been for several generations - and NO ONE has been hurt in my family by a gun shot due to stupidity.)

By SET

April 24, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this

Jeff: Your original post reflects a dreamworld of how the law works. Not unusual - hardly anyone realizes how the law works anymore.

It is illegal to threaten people implicitly in CA. You don’t have to come right out and say it. Words and guestures are quite enough for a felony and a strike under CA law and I expect the same is true most other places now. I’ve previous mentioned that in CA misdemeanor child molesting (w/lifetime sex registration) can be done verbally. Most of these defendants don’t get that one either until they’ve done it and been charged.

The criminal justice system has been referred to as the “electronic plantation” by one writer (Google this…). Most of the defendants neither know nor care what laws they break. Once you are caught up in this system - because you broke the law without ever having been taught what it is or how it works, you are in an endless cycle of probation, search conditions, court appearances and new criminal charges for missing them, restraining orders (violations of some of them can be felonies), forced probation and psychiatric reports, and jail and prison time, annual registration with the police, exclusion from neighborhoods, and loss of and denial of occupational licences & driver’s licenses, etc.

Until you have sat and watched court for awhile you have no idea how bad “bad” can get. And everything that happens is being filed in many jurisdictions on the Internet available to everybody, to closed law enforcement computer systems available internationally (complete with your booking photos) (just try traveling to Canada nowadays..), paper records at the courthouse available to everyone, and proprietary data services available to everyone who pays a fee.

When you have come from the public schools and have been taught nothing (or the reverse) about public deportment - turn 18 - and chimp out in public - there it goes. You’re on the electronic plantation. And you never get off.

Between vicarious liability (which young people used to “get” but now never do) and the fact that everything that is immoral or fattening has been made a crime - it is not easy to stay off the electronic plantation if you are raised to think that the world revolves around you and your “rights”.

If you have one really bad day you are on the plantation for life.

The mentally ill are prominent fixtures in the electronic plantation. Once society or colleges really want to move on them, they will not be able to be protected by the ADA. All you have to do is start banning people convicted of certain crimes from campus. It’s easy to do. We are already forcing people convicted of a single sex crime 50 years ago to live under bridges and in industrial zones. Once the ball gets rolling society will do the same to anybody who is a problem.

Brave New World.

By jim d

April 24, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this

LOL, WOW.

I gotta share this one. Here’s a blog from the UK re: the Va. Tech shootings. These folks, while adamently against gun control are entertaining a couple of conspiracy minded bloggers worse than I ever would have thought.

They’re blaming Bush.

Ya gotta read this blog.

By jim d

April 24, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this

oops forgot the link.

http://stephi.blog.co.uk/2007/04/16/guncontrolwontstopschoolmassacres~2105485

By JustMe

April 24, 2007 3:27 PM | Link to this

Ever been to England? Don’t they have gun control? Do the police carry guns? Have you ever heard of anything happening in England like VA Tech?

What happened with Brian N. in the courthouse was because the law had guns. If they had tazers, what would have happen, ya think? Maybe Brian would have taken a single tazer gun and maybe he would have tazerred the judge or one person, but the others would have jumped on him quickly and no one would be dead.

You gun enthusiast are ridiculous.

And if there WERE NO GUNS IN THE US it would be very difficult to “manufacure” them here or import them here illegally. Ever personally try to make a gun barrel? And to compare smuggling guns to smuggling drugs is STUPID!!! Guns are metal and metal detectors can find them easily. There is no gate for “drug detection”.

Yes, crazy people can still attack with a baseball bat or whatever, but I firmly believe that the number of deaths would be far less compared to crazy people with guns.

The above posts clearly demonstrate how the general public doesn’t use their brain and adopts whatever BS Neil Boortz or whatever nut has to say. People jump on the bandwagon of some colorful commentator without thinking through the issues themselves.

I fully realize that I am in the minority. But, I am happy to be in the minority when I see the type of people that are in the majority.

By InWonder

April 24, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this

Like I said eariler - I have NEVER listened to Neal Boortz and have no idea what he believes, etc.. So, that ends that agrument. I am not a “gun enthusiast”, I AM a person who believes that people have a right to own and carry a gun. What the problem IS is that there are people in our country who are mentally ill… that IS the issue. They are the ones committing the majority of the crimes like VTech, Columbine, etc.. They are the ones whos parents stand their clueless when some tragic thing happens asking “how”, yet the signs have been around for a LONG time. We also have a generation of kids now going into college who are entitled, lack self-control, think the world revolves around them, have never been told “no”, get whatever they want, everything has been taken care of by mom and dad (and there parents always get them out of trouble), been medicated since they have been 2 because they were “too active” (hey, what do you expect when you keep your kids inside all day due to the “fear” that something MIGHT happen because it happened to some kids three states away 2 years ago - and you also don’t take them out yourselves because you are too busy talking to your friends or taking tennis lessons while the nanny watches the kids inside.) - then suddenly all that changes - they have NO coping skills what so ever. What do you expect?

By InWonder

April 24, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this

What if this kid decided since he couldn’t get a gun that he would plant bombs through out campus. That would of killed more than a gun. All that would take would be a trip to Wal-Mart or Home Depot. What are you going to do? Ban stuff that everyone uses around the house to clean, do yard work, building a house? Or you could just punish the person who commits the crime (if living) for HIS actions. Oh, no, be a liberal - ban the supplies and hug the criminal.

By Aquagirl

April 24, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this

Does Scotland count?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_Massacre

But regardless, the U.K. is the U.K. Societies are different. You can’t necessarily compare what one country does to another. Japan has very restrictive gun laws, but it also has a cultural hangup about killing oneself with the whole family. That has nothing to do with our culture or laws.

I can’t believe you really think we could control illegal guns coming over the border. Types of detection devices make no difference (BTW, you’ve never seen a drug-sniffing dog?). The point is, a whole bunch of illegal stuff gets inside the U.S. Despite billions of dollars spent to stop it. Do you think we’d do better with guns because they’re metal? And what the crap does that have to do with anything? You’re going to run cargo ships through metal detectors?

I take it you don’t want to comment on the millions of guns already within our borders. Nice omission. Nobody has to manufacture a thing. If you think you can go collect them all, knock yourself out.

What you “firmly believe” is inconsequential. Lots of children “firmly believe” in Santa Claus. So what?

Think through the issues. You’re in the minority because you offer no workable solutions, just what you “firmly believe”. If you would put aside your firm beliefs and consider real problems, you might change your mind.

Oh, and for the record, that maniac should have been locked up long ago. Why he was loose is a complete mystery, except the fact that we don’t take a little stalking too seriously in this country.

By Jesse's Girl

April 24, 2007 4:00 PM | Link to this

@ JustMe…I will have to respectfully disagree with everything you have said. You are right on one count however, Great Britain does have a smaller percentage of gun related crimes. One small problem they do have….their rape,incest and child porn cases out weigh us. Every country has it’s problems….with or without guns. Guns are not the issue. You cannot look at this one incident and draw such generic conclusions. You cannot look at Columbine in the same light either. These shooters were bad seeds, pure and simple. Regardless of how easy or difficult it was for them to obtain a weapon…it still would have happened. They still would have found a way. I carry a gun…registered of course….and I know how to shoot it. You’d better believe if someone tries to harm me or my family, I will use it. I pray it never comes to that. But I look at it this way…..if someone attacks me or breaks into my home, they already have the mindset needed to harm or kill me. I risk nothing by fighting for my life when it is already being threatened. It is much better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

By Em

April 24, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this

I was diagnosed bipolar when I was 20 years old, while a student in college. My parents HAD to be contacted because I was involutarily commited so medicine could be administered. (I was super manic and needed meds to come down.) Since mentally ill people can’t make healthy decisions for themselves, I think family should be contacted. And after the Virginia Tech nightmare, I think students should be expelled for non-compliance with medicine/counseling or for just plain weirdness, frightening others. After all, since the college can’t tell who’ll be the next psycho, they should err on the side of ultra-caution.

By jim d

April 24, 2007 4:02 PM | Link to this

Just me,

Ever been to the UK?

Indeed I have. Police with automatic weapons, riot gear and dogs patrolling the train stations and the airports in abundance.

Here’s a snippet borrowed from a blog in the UK.

In the Britain we have the tightest gun control laws in the EU and possibly the World but we still have a gun problem, we still have kids shooting each other dead. In Britain anyone can buy a gun and walk onto a university campus and would know that the University security wouldn’t be carrying firearms.

Gun control won’t stop school massacres.

When guns are widely in circulation banning them doesn’t decrease their availbilty. If anything it makes them easier for kids and criminal to get hold of - the guy selling illegal guns, doesn’t run a criminal convictions check, ask to see proof of age or make you wait a three day cooling off period. If you want an automatic weapon, if he’s got it and you’ve got the cash - it’s yours.

Also if it was just about the availbilty of guns this would have been a problem in America over the last 100 years but it hasn’t. The real question is why is this happening in schools and universities? Maybe because it’s one place in America that you know that people aren’t allowed to carry firearms!

By SET

April 24, 2007 4:24 PM | Link to this

JustMe: you live in a dream world if you compare the behavior of the UK population to the USA population. We have both the Mexican Invasion underway as well as a sizable population of American Blacks. Our population will not behave as if we were all Scandinavians given welfare. We are a diverse population getting less white. The behaviors move accordingly… for example, DUI’s as the percentage of Hispanics rise in a city..

People are different. Vive Le difference!

Not only that, but I’m not giving up my gun!. You see, for generations we know exactly how much “protection” we can expect from the government. The Korean Store owners in Los Angeles during the Rodney King Riots found out the same thing the hard way. They have deer rifles now.

You give up your guns. Not me and not my friends.

Speaking of which, the Rodney King Riots and the Katrina Savagery is just a taste of what is coming as this government increasingly loses control of the streets. Anybody living within striking distance of an underclass ghetto knows this. CA and LA residents have lived it. Sell your gun control to college students who were born yesterday. My generation knows better.

We need more armed taxpaying, law abiding, home owning people, not less. Oh, and our children don’t have gun “accidents” - I’ve had access to handguns and ammo since I was 5 - generations ago. So did my cousins. No “accidents”. We haven’t had car wrecks to speak of either. Maybe it was the way we were raised by intact marriages and parents who would hurt us if we were careless or silly.

I don’t care if other people raise their kids badly and they get hurt. And we can safely manage the schools if the federal government will butt out.

Think of it as evolution in action.

By jim d

April 24, 2007 4:37 PM | Link to this

Just me,

A few more stats you may find of interest.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/crimurwitfirpercap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

By jim d

April 24, 2007 4:48 PM | Link to this

Gun control twisted outcomes.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

By catlady

April 24, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this

SET, you can’t say “evolution” on a Georgia blog!

By Lee

April 24, 2007 6:48 PM | Link to this

So, anyone who doesn’t agree with Justme’s opinion on gun ownership is a “fool” or “stupid”.

Each day that passes, I am increasingly amazed at the genious of those individuals known as this country’s “founding fathers.” Perhaps Justme should spend less time blogging and more time reading about these great men and their beliefs…..

By Kevin

April 24, 2007 6:49 PM | Link to this

We don’t need more gun control. We need more bullet control. Charge $100 per bullet and you’d decrease the ease these psychos find in using cheap ammunition to take innocent lives.

I’ve owned handguns since I was 21 and have only fired it at a range. I’ve had the same box of hollow points for over 15 years. So, the expense of bullets wouldn’t be a concern for law abiding citizens because we wouldn’t friviously discard them.

To answer the question. Colleges/Universtities should not have the responsibility of notifying parents. Students at that age are old enough to be responsible for themselves. I do believe that professors and school officials should, however, pass information on to professionals when they notice disturbing behavior.

By Liz

April 24, 2007 6:54 PM | Link to this

On mental illness and privacy : it seems like some people want gun control and less privacy rights for people sounding threatening but not yet acting on it. In other words, prevention of violence (at the expense of privacy) and reduction of citizen’s individual need/right to protect themselves with guns.

Others want full rights to gun access and more privacy. In other words, let people do what the want until they act to harm another, and then stop them with your gun. Either way works, but I prefer the first way.
For one thing, reducing privacy in cases of mental illness should be just like doing that in the case of serious brain damage or other hospitalizable injury. Next of kin as named by the person to the university should be contacted.

My sister has schizophrenia and if someone had recognized it and told me about it, I could have helped her before she ended up in jail. Now with my help, she takes her meds regularly and is working and living on her own and doing pretty well. But before that, she was hallucinating and frightened and striking back before “they” could get her. Anybody would do the same if they saw what she did, even if it wasn’t real. Why wouldn’t next of kin be contacted when their loved one is clearly psychotic (shown by the fact that Cho was talking about a girlfriend from outer space and contact with the Russian President?)

Secondly, the number of these massacres is really tiny as are the number of victims, despite the hysterical press coverage. I don’t want to carry around a life-threatening weapon all the time on the off chance that an untreated mentally ill person, or someone angry at me for taking their parking space, is going to attack me suddenly. If i’m one of the unlucky few massacre victims, that is a price I’m willing to pay to not carry around something that can kill someone at the drop of a hat. Or worry about every else packing either.

By fer

April 24, 2007 8:46 PM | Link to this

InWonder, before you stereotype any more kids, you need to read about EVERY one of the people killed at Va Tech. Not a single one fits your profile!

By InWonder

April 25, 2007 9:00 AM | Link to this

fer - I am not talking about those who were killed… I am talking about those who could do the killing. The person who did the killing had signs for years and it seems to me by what I’ve read and heard, the parents really didn’t do their job. Sorry, if your kids is OBVIOUSLY having issues, just denying it or not doing anything was not the right thing. But the thing is is that parents today are like that. They deny anything is wrong with their kid(s) - even that which is right in front of their face. I have come across WAY to many parents like that - and so have many teachers. It is not the parents job to be friends with their kids when something is wrong and just consider it a phase or whatever. I cannot tell you how many friends I had in high school who did heavy drugs and are now not able to have a sentence without them coming across as “crazy” (they hear voices, etc - only after taking the drugs, not one problem before hand, that I know because I knew some of these kids since we were babies) - all thanks to the drugs… all these kids grew up in very well off or extremely wealthy homes and went to the best schools, but had parents who denied anything was wrong. Now their kids will not be able to be productive citizens without their help and are heavily medicated on real, doctor given drugs so the voices will stop, stop seeing things etc. that they did on their own because of a intervention by close friends (notice, the parents were never involved because NOT one of them thought anything was wrong with THEIR kid(s), nor could there be - still, years later.) I am not stereotyping with what I saying because it happened and I KNOW firsthand that it is still happening today with these “kids” younger siblings and their friends, family member’s children located all over the US…..

By SET

April 25, 2007 9:46 AM | Link to this

InWonder has really hit the nail on the head. We are getting more and more defective people - most notably male. Some of their parents were themselves on Rx drugs or were alcoholics. There seems to be an endless cycle of generation of defective people. To stop this cycle I think we have to remove the underpinnings the Great Society has built to perpetuate defectives.

I do predict that because of the VA Tech massacre at least the Colleges by nect year will have begun to wholesale remove the problem children - the aggressive and paranoid students. They have always had the power to do so but were too weak, irresolute and PC to use the criminal laws to do so. You can’t be on campus when you are in jail and in most colleges the computer excludes you when you flunk enough courses.

If would be best to screen these personalities out of admission in the first place. Since juvenile laws are designed to protect and conceal criminal children the usual method of fingerprinting and criminal records checks won’t work. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Colleges start requiring endorsement of college candidates by their secondary school faculty and administration with express statements of no deportment issues.

Colleges are not state hospitals and they must stop collecting sick and defective students. Sick and defective female students tend to me promiscous, suicidal and depressive. That’s bad enough. Defective Male students have proclivity to be aggressive, paranoid and hyper. I predict it will be the male rather than female mentally ill that will draw the ire. Women act in and Men act out. Colleges will attack the males first.

By Concerned

April 25, 2007 9:56 AM | Link to this

Yes, notifiy the parents if students are suspected to be mentally ill. But don’t be surprised if they don’t do anything. Some of those parents have been burying their heads in the sand for years, finding it easier to ignore signs of trouble than to do anything about it. But don’t be so hard on them - most are just ignorant or couldn’t afford to get the help they suspected was needed. Check with someone in DJJ and you’ll learn that teenagers whose parents are above the income threshold for free help, often get little help because parents can’t afford to pay for the counseling needed. Question why we can’t provide free counseling from the state as a way of protecting both the teenager and his/her potential victims if he/she is not helped due to lack of funds. And about the gun control, I can’t remember details, but surely you can recall cases where someone intent on harming others has run people over in the street or in parking lots. Sure, the numbers are smaller, but the potential is great. And what about stealing fertilizer and making bombs? For people who plan to do way with themselves, anyway, the worry about getting caught doesn’t exist. There are so many ways to hurt people that we could never get rid of all the means. Something all of us can do is to pay attention to each person we come into close contact with. Be kind, if possible. Look someone in the eyes and acknowledge him as a person just by speaking. Parents, pay attention to your children! Don’t think they’re okay as long as they’re out of your hair! What are they learning from video games and violence on tv? But I ramble …

By sharon

April 25, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

If you are truly in touch with your kid then you don’t need a phone call from the the school. You will know by talking to him/her whether or not there is some disturbing behavior. You will know during those visit home if something’s not right mentally. I call my son almost everyday just to say hello and to get a handle on how he’s adjusting socially and mentally. Parents need to be held accountable not the school. However, if I miss some signs and my child is admitted to the hospital for a pysch evaluation I do feel I should be called because I’m his next of kin.

By SET

April 25, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

Sorry about the typos. To answer the base question, Yes it would be nice if the colleges warned the families of the defective students that their child is in real trouble. But that is not going to happen.

In the massive 1960’s legislation that generated most of the “new” social problems we now have, “children” were legally transformed to adults at 18 rather than the normal age 21. So we have people with less than fully formed brains with no right to support from family and with family unable to legally control or interfere with them. This was actually done to facilitate military access to the “students”.

It’s the opposite of what we have done with unwed mothers and the improvident men who impregnate them. There we magically “marry” them legally in a nightmare of “family” support and visitation “rights” so that people with no committment to each other are forced to interact, thus making the bastard children nuttier than ever. Without this arrangement presumably the mothers would develop real ties with a man (by financial necessity)who would then willingly commit to her and her child - a child who would be free for adoption. With our current arrangement these women are less likely to marry and as a rule go on to produce more bastards. In turn these children are far more likely to wind up in institutions (like jail) and have lower standards of living. Dumb social engineering but lots of cannon fodder for the American Empire.

When the government - especially the central government - meddles in interpersonal relations things always turn out worse in the end. The benefits are like a narcotic that prevents anyone from dealing with the root problems. Brown vs Board of Education is a great example of this.

Hindsight is 20/20.

By V for Vendetta

April 25, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this

LOL, I came late to this one. I just think it’s funny that gun control has come up yet again. If this is a taste of what the next few years leading up to the election are going to be like, god help us. :-)

By SET

April 25, 2007 2:30 PM | Link to this

V: Good to see you again!

I Don’t think education is a viable campaign issue. The gun control issue needs to be debated endlessly so no one forgets how important that issue is. Anyway, elections are fun… I never thought Hilary had a chance to win and look what’s happening! If she’d stay out of sight and have Bill go on TV yelling “Vote For Clinton!!” she’ll win by a landslide.

And I’m not saying that is a good thing - just that I love watching an underdog become the Emperor. I admire her tenacity. She can actually win. God help us?

Anyway I believe this quagmire in Iraq will dominate the election cycle unless and until the War with Iran start, or some other disaster invited by the incumbents occurs.

By Stacey

April 25, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this

My niece was diagnosed with schizophrenia when she was 15. My sister, brother-in-law, nephew and my mother are the ones who lived in the same household with her and were the only ones able to see that her behavior was “bizarre”. Although they live in another state, I saw her a couple of weeks before she was diagnosed (and talked to her several times a week) and just thought she was “being a teenager”. Thankfully, my sister recognized the changes in her daughter and got help. Despite being on medication, she has been hospitalized several times over the past 10 years.

What if her symptoms didn’t manifest for another few years and she was out of state at college? Would my sister be able to tell from phone calls or a week’s visit at Christmas that she was mentally ill? I realize that these are rhetorical questions that don’t necessarily apply to the situation at VA Tech but they do make me think. Just being in that situation makes me say yes, as a parent I would want to be notified.

By InWonder

April 25, 2007 5:33 PM | Link to this

Stacy, the sad thing is that too many parents claim their teens “are just being teenagers” when there is actually something wrong and completely pass it off. Often to the point that you cannot tell them anything without worrying that they will sue you, scream at or hit you.

By WFC

April 26, 2007 9:20 AM | Link to this

I sincerely wish that gun control would solve the problem. It won’t. I haven’t owned a gun since 1971 (none of my three ex-wives would tolerate it.) However, if I want a gun, I have three friends with arsenals who would sell me one. Does anyone truly believe that a criminal or psycho could not get a gun in the USA regardless of restrictions?

Conservatives (I’m kinda conservative) must bear some of he responsibility for the VT type incidents. It was during the Reagan years that moneyy was cut off for mental health care and many damaged people ended up on the streets.

Cho and his family. I recently retired after 30 years as a teacher. I had many wonderful Korean students and a couple of potential “Chos.” One thing we tend to ignore is cultural differences. One important one is that few other cultures share what I call the “american cult of the child.” Most Korean kids I encountered had to work their asses off in the family business in addition to their school work. And all around them they see the “children of privilege.” I’m not at all defending Cho’s psychotic “class warfare” rants. I’m just saying that this particular component of his rage probably would not have developed had he still lived in Korea.

Laws don’t solve all problems. To people who commit terrible crimes, the consequences of breaking even the most draconian laws simply are not REAL.

By JustMe

April 26, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

Lee and others….

You simply cannot justify gun ownership using history. Today’s world is far different from the times of civil war or revolutionary war. To try to do so is ridiculous.

If there were no guns around, then the nuts wouldn’t have them. Can we all agree to something as simple as that? That is the basis for my previous posts.

Yes, the nuts may use baseball bats or whatever, but as I mentioned, there would be far fewer deaths IMHO.

By jim d

April 26, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this

just me,

*If there were no guns around, then the nuts wouldn’t have them. *

I will agree with that statement.

Banning guns world wide and actually seeing they are all destroyed might work to stop killing with guns. But then the human race is pretty good at comming up with alternative methods of accomplishing whatever it is they wish to do, so I’m not sure it would eliminate murder all together.

You are welcome to go for it though.

By SET

April 26, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

JustMe: History is why we want the Law Abiding US Population to be armed - and heavily so. You are the one who doesn’t care for the lessons of history.

The world has not changed at all - People have not changed at all. You are just as reckless as all those who have gone before you in believing that this government, any government, will protect you and not enslave you are terrorize you. The rest of us see history repeating itself before our eyes.

An armed population is the bedrock of defense from tyranny - both tyranny of the government and tyranny of roving hordes of rape gangs such as we saw in the Katrina natural disaster and roving gangs of killers and looters that we saw in CA during the Rodney King riots. In both those cases the government knew in advance and during the occasion what would happen - just as I know what will happen in the even of a large scale CA earthquake. the government allowed the population to be looted, raped and killed on thoses occasions and they will again. The government - whether state or federal - actually confiscated guns from peaceful homeowners during Katrina - rendering them defenseless.

I also know exactly who will be the feral predators when these occasions occur. Maybe you don’t.

Your position on gun control is a form of evil. I’m not buying that you mean well.

We don’t even need the data from the collapsed Soviet Union that their planning to attack the USA was frustrated by the level of araments within the US population - or the experience of the Jews in Europe in the early 20th Century.

We live within striking distance of feral black ghettos here, where there is no doubt whatsoever what will happen when an opportunity permits. These places are already so savage that the police - who by the way are now carrying machine guns in their cars - won’t go into without backup. And that’s under today’s conditions.

I might add that these ghettos never existed prior to the “Great Society” - we had “Black neighborhoods” - all of us (blacks) lived in them… We didn’t have war zones.

And if you haven’t heard, the Mexicans are in the process of ethnic cleansing some of these places in southern CA, killing any blacks that won’t move or walk into these territories after the Mexicans move in. They are doing this because they have decided not to live under the conditions they found. I’m not surprised.

And you want to take guns from law abiding homeowners?

You do not mean well. Your position is just as evil as the other threats we face here in CA.

By JustMe

April 26, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

SET -

I am sad for you…..

To expand on one of your examples: if the Mexicans did not have guns, they could not shoot the Blacks. Allowing Blacks to have guns have not and will not stop the Mexicans from shooting Blacks.

Those “feral black ghettos” that you mention are dangerous because they have guns. Do you really think that the police (or anyone) would be afraid if all they had were baseball bats?

Today is not like history. Using the trite quote of ‘history repeating itself’ does not make it so. Today, there are more guns available than before. Guns will not stop tyranny or roving gangs of thugs. Do you really think that you having a gun in your living room will stop Bush from doing whatever he wants? Get real.

If Bush wanted to increase income taxes to 60%, will your gun help? No.

Will your gun help stop Iran from sending a nuclear bomb to the US? No.

And, the idea that we are ‘safe’ because we have ‘more’ guns went by the wayside with the cold war. It is now about weapons of mass distruction.

Our world is far different and the sooner you realize it, the better off we will all be.