I'm just adding a postscript. I've just read the news online and I know a lot of you in the US are going to be waking up to the news that Cho's family has finally spoken out. What they say validates everything I have said in my post.

Also, I remember the Amish people who lost their children to the gunman extended their charity to the wife and children of the man who murdered their children....when asked, they said that they recognized that the gunman's family were victims, too...

I hope people will now realize that Cho was also a victim of his illness, and Cho's family have to live not only with losing their son, but with the guilt over what he did...that's a terrible thing.

thanks for the perspective and I agree with the vast majority of what you have said.

MEDC

From Penalty Kill

Friend4life, thank you for your post. Your perspective as someone who has watched a family member struggle with mental illness is very valuable.

My son is thisclose to his Eagle Scout award. He and his father handle firearms for hunting and target shooting. He has passed hunter safety courses and is quite a good shot. Nevertheless, I cannot see how arming more people is the solution to violent crimes such as this. It seems illogical. I would prefer that guns were more difficult to obtain.

I have spoken to my children about how the days of cooperating with armed and desperate individuals and hoping for the best are over; after all, no one cooperates with hijackers anymore - we all know better after 9/11.

This story hits close to home. I know people with children at VT. We had three obituaries in the paper yesterday from the shooting, all outstanding young men and women. My daughter goes to college in Virginia, very close to VT, at a school named for two famed US generals. (As an aside, one of them stated that his greatest regret was taking a military education.)

When my daughter was a baby, a young man in my in-laws neighborhood went on a rampage. He was armed with a knife. He was an Ivy League student of Asian descent who was suffering from a mental disorder. He stabbed his mother, brother and a neighbor who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The neighbor's daughter witnessed her father's murder; she was five at the time.

If he had a gun, I'm sure that the body count would have been much higher.

Just my thoughts.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9706123

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9750908

These perpetrators are not necessarily bad people. They are sick people.

Cho's parents are victims, too. Just imagine the pain and stigma they feel. Not only have they lost their son, they have to live with what he did and how they and others failed him.

Having read this entire thread (more like a small novel), I had decided to stay out of this discussion. But friend4life has raised the issue of “what would Jesus do” and has argued from the perspective that he would have healed the mentally ill and not shot him to protect others (assuming he was “packing”). She has argued that the “answer” is not “carry guns” but is one of more mental health treatment.

Since everyone is created in the image of God, no matter how good or bad, sane or insane, healthy or sick, I do concur that the issue is “what to do with aberrant behavior individuals.” I also think that God will heal everyone and banish sickness and death, because that is His will and that is what He has revealed to us is the “state” that is awaiting believers in the new heaven and the new Earth that He will create to replace this current one. Until then, however, the “ruler” of this Earth is Satan, and it and everyone in it is corrupted by sin.

So the issue, from a Christian perspective, seems to be first of all the fundamental one of “good and evil,” “saved and unsaved.” When Jesus walked this Earth he walked it with a God-given purpose. Jesus did NOT go around healing all the sickness and demon possessed. He DID do some of that, but it was for the purpose of showing His power so that what He was saying and doing FOR all of humanity could be “validated” by His miracles. With one word, Jesus, the creator of all, COULD have banished all sickness and mental illness, but He did not. Why not? That would seem to be the question.

The answer is that was not “what He was here for.” He was here to suffer and die for us to provide redemption for our souls, not to usher in the “Second Earth.” We who are believers are, as a result of what Jesus did for us, “in the world but not of the world.” We are still subject to the “problems” that this fallen world and that fallen people cause in our lives. We still get sick, have accidents, contract fatal diseases, etc. It is NOT how others treat us that is the “point.” It is our own individual relationship with Christ that is the “point.” So how WOULD Jesus, if He were here, “handle” sinful situations, and how, but extension, should we handle things “as if” we were doing Christ’s work here on Earth?

I don’t know that anyone has the definitive answer or can “speak for God” on this issue. All that we can do is to look to the Word of God to see how it might apply, how it might guide us should we faced with a life or death situation.

Peter, we know, carried a sword since he used it to attempt to defend Jesus from arrest by “evil people” intend on killing Him. Jesus did NOT stop Peter because it was “wrong” for Peter to be armed and to act to protect someone else. Jesus stopped Peter for two primary reasons. First, He stopped him because “to die” is WHY Jesus came here in the first place. Second, He stopped him because He was fulfilling Scripture that the Messiah would lose none of His followers, except for the son of perdition who was never a “true believer,” Judas Iscariot.

God has several times “intervened” against sin and fallen man. He wiped out everyone except for Noah and his family because there was “evil continuously in the world.” God told Abraham that He would spare the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah IF there were but TEN “good people.” There were not, so God told Lot and his family to flee the city because He was going to “treat them” with destruction, ending their ability to hurt others.
God passed judgment on Nineveh and set Jonah to tell them how God was going to treat them. THEY responded by submitting to God (at least for a while) and God withheld His judgment. But the message was clear…sin must be confronted because it is an affront to God.

We tend to “humanize” the conditions, be they mental illness or harm to others as in the case of adultery. But the primary issue remains the individual’s relationship, or lack of relationship, with God, in Christ. We are told, in the case of adultery, that the Wayward Spouse is “mentally ill,” “mentally abducted by an alien (Satan?),” etc., and that we can “kill the marriage” as a proper response or we can forgive and attempt to rebuild a new marriage. Without Christ, we attempt to rebuild under our own power only. With Christ, we have the resurrection power of Jesus to help us, because we HAVE been hurt and WILL continue to be hurt. We are told to “expose” the affair to all who need to know about it. Why? To put additional “pressure” on the WS to realize their sin and to repent of their sin of adultery (expressly forbidden by God). But NO ONE can “force” a WS to repent and return to the dying marriage.

Even a forgiving Betrayed Spouse has the right to “execute” the marriage, even though God hates all divorce, in order to protect the BS from the evil that has already been DONE and it’s long lasting harmful effects on the BS and their own “mental and spiritual health.” God gave that “right” to the BS, to USE or NOT USE as the BS sees it needed for their self protection.

In biblical times there were even “Leper Colonies” for people infected with a highly contagious disease. They were “separated” from the “healthy,” rather than killed outright, but I’m willing to “bet” that if one of the lepers decided to not stay in the place provided for them and wanted to spread his disease to others that some of the “others” would “take action” and kill that Leper in order to protect others from suffering at his hands and his “right” to be sick and still be allowed to be “in general society.”

Our compassion SHOULD be for the diagnosis and treatment of serious mental problems. People who are a danger to themselves and to others should be committed for treatment before they cause harm. But our society severely limits what should be done because of many reasons, not the least of which is the “stigma” that treatment for mental illness carries. Thus, instead of doing what should be done, people find “excuses” to ignore the problem. Instead of needed treatment, mentally ill people are left to “fend for themselves” or left with their “voluntary” choice to seek help for what is wrong with them. In the case of this shooter, there were many significant warning signs that should have resulted in mandatory treatment. Had that occurred, there would have been a record of it and the guns he purchased would have been “flagged” and he would not have been able to purchase them. He may have been able to obtain guns some other way, but he would have risen to the “awareness” level of law enforcement for just attempting to purchase the guns.

So what is the general population supposed to do to protect themselves not only from the evils of an individual, but also from the “touchy-feely” society that likes to deny the reality of real threats and evil intent?

In the context of friend4life’s question and apparent admonishment of believers who have supported the carrying and use of firearms for protection, Jesus has said: “But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive much gain. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.” (Luke 6:27-36 KJV)

In all these things Jesus was speaking about our material goods and their “place” in the Christian’s life. He was speaking out those who SPEAK or USE people for their own gain or profit. He was speaking of our witness to those around us that God is our Lord and that the “things” of this world are unimportant compared to knowing Christ.

There is also for consideration, the Ten Commandments. Among them is the 6th Commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.” (Exodus 20: 13, KJV) The word “kill” used here is one that speaks to premeditation, to motivation for evil.

The Lord spoke further to Moses about this issue of killing:

“He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. And if a man lie not in wait, but God delivered him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee. But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with a guile; Thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.” (Exodus 21:12-14, KJV)

“Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death.” (Exodus 12:12-14, NIV)

The command against “killing” is because we are all created in the image of God. God does not “outlaw” the taking of a life, he “outlaws” the evil premeditation of MURDER.

The “evildoer” is to be killed. We don’t “like” that judgment of God and we don’t “like” to perhaps have to be the instrument of that judgment against evil ourselves. In part, we have given that authority to the courts, to the State, to execute judgment, to determine “murder” versus “accidental death” versus “justifiable homicide.” But where “justifiable homicide” comes in is in the exercise of our own understanding of God’s commands for us PERSONALLY. We cannot impose our own belief on someone else, nor can we deny God’s judgment of the premeditated murderer. Each of us must decide if we are being obedient to God in NOT defending the innocent, preferring to let “someone else be the instrument of God’s judgment” rather than standing in defense, putting our own life on the line for others, to resist evil and to kill the perpetrator in order to resist a malignant evil. When the “officials” who are supposed to “stand” for the innocent are not available, are we to deny our own individual responsibility to do all that we can to protect the innocent from the murderous intent of an evil person?

We each need to choose. We need to determine the “severity of any resistance” by WHAT is being taken and whether or not we ourselves are, at that moment, the “last line of defense” against evil. Take all my goods. Take all my money. Take all my credit cards. Take the keys to my car. But please don’t take the life of my girl or my man or my child or anyone else’s life.

The Constitution of the United States recognizes that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They (the Founders) lived under such oppression and “whim” of the powerful. They chose to establish the Second Amendment to protect all Americans from the abuses of the powerful. The “problem” is not the gun. It never has been. It has always been the intent of the wielder of the weapon.

I choose to defend life from evil-minded people. I resist when it is forced upon me. I allow the government to “stand in for me,” to seek out evil and confront it when it has manifested itself and it’s intent to do evil BEFORE it breaks down the door of MY home. I support those who put themselves in harms way for us, both in the military and in law enforcement, so that I don’t have to “take up arms” myself unless absolutely necessary.
I will not stand meekly and passively by while someone is raped, nor will I stand meekly and passively by when a murderer is attempting to kill innocent people. If I have a weapon, I will use it to stop the murderer. If I don’t I will give my life if needed (as did the heroic teacher) so that others may live, in an attempt to stop the murderer. I KNOW where I am going after this life. And I also know that evil must be resisted because it profanes God.

To “carry” or “not to carry” is an individual choice and is a RIGHT granted to all good citizens of the USA. It is NOT to be “infringed upon.” This is what the “liberal” thinkers have been trying to do for a long time. It is little different than their focusing on “separation of Church and State” issues (which is NOT in the Constitution) while conveniently IGNORING that the Constitution prohibits the State from passing ANY law that prohibits the FREE exercise of religion anywhere in the Country. The result they are looking for is to take away freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and to consolidate power in the hands of the governmental “elites,” who love to make “double standard” rules, one for the people and a different one for the “elites.” As MM has so eloquently stated, America elects people to SERVE the people, not so the people can serve the people in power.

What should be done then, in a case such a Virginia Tech? Mandatory treatment of the mentally ill, in my humble opinion. If the Commonwealth of Virginia is looking for a law to pass, let them start with that one.

How about requiring that all teachers/professors be trained in firearms and required to keep a gun in their desk? They are supposed to be responsible for the students and the school is supposed to be providing a safe environment for the students. Since it seems that more and more schools are being “targeted,” perhaps the message that “if you show up here and try to shoot someone, the “teacher posse/militia” will be ready and able to oppose you…with force, not merely with words. Think of it like “sentry duty” in the military. They are required to be “under arms” while on duty. “Advance and be recognized” or be ready for deadly force to be applied if needed.

Taking guns away from law abiding citizens is not the answer any more than taking cars away from law abiding citizens would be the answer to drunk drivers or reckless drivers who don’t care who they might hurt. Even taking the license and driving privileges away from someone who has been convicted of DUI isn’t “THE” answer because so many of them drive without a license anyway, just like a disturbed or evil person could get a gun if they wanted one. And one thing is certain. Far more people are hurt and killed by drunk and reckless drivers (ask Teddy for example) than by guns but no one is suggesting that we ban cars.

No easy answer to the unbalanced, mentally ill, problem that some people suffer with. But neither can they be allowed to “roam free” if they are potentially harmful to themselves and/or others. Treatment, mandatory treatment, would seem to be the most “loving” way to try to get them some help, as well as protecting the innocent from violent behavior.

Just to respond a little to what's been said since I posted - to ForeverHers - my post was not to raise the issue "what would Jesus do", and I wasn't arguing against carrying guns, either.

I am speaking up for the mentally ill, who are unable to speak for themselves, and asking people who judge them to consider them as human beings and have compassion, not only for their victims, but for them, and their families.

Like was said above - ill people sometimes do evil things - that doesn't mean the person was "evil" or his family were "evil".

I was simply saying that - in this case - my opinion is that this is a case of serious mental illness going untreated, and people should try to understand that Cho may very well not have done what he did if he had received treatment.

As to locking people up even if they haven't committed any crime - that is extremely difficult, as the two links posted above show....sometimes I think I would be in favour of that...but with the proviso that the person's case is reviewed regularly...you can't lock people up indefinitely when they haven't done anything...and yet....sick people do kill....very near my town, a mother and daughter were hammered to death by a man who was a recognized danger to the public, but the law didn't allow for him to be hospitalized....they are still trying to change the law, but...it's a civil rights issue...it's just not that simple....

I do firmly believe that gun laws should be radically overhauled. I see no need for anyone to own an assault rifle or semi-automatic weapons. And I think all guns should be sold only if thorough background checks are made...that might make some difference. But more probably, if you want to get ahold of a gun to use it for violent purposes, the truth is that even in a country with strict gun laws, you can still get ahold of one. I live in the UK now, and the gun laws here are strict - after Dunblane, which in case you haven't heard of that, a crazed gunman went into a primary school in Scotland, barricaded himself in the school gym with the kindergarten class and hunted down and shot something like 16 tiny kids and their teacher - that guy was a member of the gun club and all his guns were licensed. The UK was so horrified they outlawed handgun ownership. No person except the police can own or carry a handgun in the UK now. Even so, we still have gun crime, and knife crime is a huge problem - if people don't use guns, they use knives - lots of stabbings, lots of throats cut. Occasionally someone runs amok with a samurai sword or a machete. My point is that these kinds of tragedies happen, whether they use guns or not - but guns in the hands of someone running amok probably kill more people than knives.

My main point is that people should have compassion for the mentally ill and try not to make snap judgements about the people who commit these terrible crimes. I have to say that the crimes that truly trouble me are the Ted Bundys of this world. To me, that is true evil.

Mental Illness is a terrible fate...You'll hear no argument from this daughter of someone with Bipolar Disorder on that...HOWEVER, mental illness does NOT remove culpablity for heinous acts...Cho clearly was able to attend college and make it to his senior year which means that he DEFINITELY had more than just moments of lucidity and sanity...It is in those times that his culpablity lies...He had a CHOICE to go and get HELP...It is NOT society's responsible to force help upon these individuals all of the time, though I am for simpler involuntary commitment requirements...

While Cho's mental health may EXPLAIN his behavior it in no way EXCUSES it...

Mrs. W

I'm not excusing his actions, Mrs. W., I'm simply pointing out that people on this thread were showing the usual prejudices against people they perceive as mentally ill.

However, I would have to disagree with you about his culpability. Just because he was "lucid" and "sane" enough to continue with his class schedule does not mean he was in a normal frame of mind where he was capable of "choosing to go get help". It is for just such cases as Cho's POSSIBLY was, that there is the legal defense of "not guilty for reasons of diminished responsiblity" - which usually results in a long-term stay in hospital for the criminally insane....

I believe that what Cho did was evil. What I am saying is that it is possible he was extremely ill and should have received better treatment....

Also, in the case of schizophrenia, as I understand it, there are several "danger windows" when a schizophrenic breakdown usually occurs, in a person's life - these are: at puberty, then around the age of 19-23, and in the late 30's - I don't think anyone knows why that is, but they are periods in life when the body goes through hormonal changes and life stresses. It is conceivable that Cho fits into that second "danger window" period. He had obviously been having trouble for several years before this happened.

Friend4Life...

Here are some definitions of the word culpable as copy/pasted from dictionary.com...If Cho isn't to "blame" then who is?


Mrs. W

The question is not whether he is guilty of having committed a terrible crime. Obviously no one MADE him do it. The fact that he feels that "you" i.e. everyone else in the world besides him, made him do it, as he says on the video, is a sign of his illness - he is totally paranoid - in his mind, there is only himself against the world. He doesn't take any responsiblity for his crimes and sees himself in grand terms. These are classic signs of schizophrenia.

The issue is whether or not he was mentally ill, and if he was mentally ill, could or should he be considered responsible for his actions.

Are you saying, Mrs. Wondering, that even if a person is mentally ill, they should be tried as if they were a sane person, put in jail, or face the death penalty? Because that's what it amounts to - if someone like Cho had not committed suicide and stood trial for what he did, his mental state at the time of the crime would have to be assessed. He would first be assessed as to whether or not he was "fit to stand trial". And that, IMO, would be humane and proper. If this did not take place, then you risk making the court a venue for vengeance and not a place for justice. Justice encompasses all parties. It is a barbaric practice to try and condemn the mentally ill without taking into account their mental state at the time of the crime.

Whether or not you realize it, our jails are full of the mentally ill. Mentally ill people need help and treatment, not cruelty.

And so I still, respectfully say that there is a legal defense of diminished responsibility. Is that not so? That is a valid defense.

However, none of us has the facts on this case, so we cannot make a judgement ourselves on whether or not Cho was totally and completely responsible for his actions.

My point was that if he was mentally ill, he and his family deserve compassion. I know that is a difficult thing to say at this time.

I have deep sympathy for the victims. I was once threatened by my brother and had to look straight into his eyes while he was threatening me. It was a terrifying experience because I got it deep down inside myself in an instant that someday I might be forced to kill my own brother in self-defence. He also nearly strangled my mother once, and there was a period when my father said it was better that he didn't know where I lived. I have never been more frightened of anyone than I was of my own brother. But I knew who he REALLY was. And that's why I say that if he had ever done anything terrible, he would not have been to blame. He was not himself. He was ill.

So I am saying that it looks like Cho was ill. He did not get treatment.

By contrast, its the Ted Bundys of this world who are truly frightening. They fully and consciously choose evil. I saw an interview with Ted Bundy before he was executed. He took full responsiblity for what he did and admitted that he did what he did because he chose to, willingly - it was what he enjoyed and what he wanted to do. He also wanted to be stopped, but wouldn't stop himself. He committed his last murder in Florida because he knew he would get the death penalty. And he says he found God while in prison. I suspect that Ted Bundy was grandstanding for an audience in that interview, and I seriously doubt that he had "found God". I don't believe that Bundy was mentally ill. The law makes a distinction between mental illness and psychopaths. I am extremely troubled by the idea of trying to forgive someone like Ted Bundy, so I give that up to God. I know that it is God who will be able to pass judgement on whether or not his "repentance" was genuine. In his case, I think the death penalty was deserved. He had forfeited his life by willfully taking the lives of others, moreover, he had proved (deliberately, by escaping from prison to kill again) that he could not be stopped by anything except death. He consciously refused to stop himself. He was an extreme danger to society and there was no other way to stop him.

That is a whole different thing.

From a legal standpoint, this person would most likely NOT be classified or found to be incompetent to stand trial. The standard is that he KNEW his actions were wrong and some of the steps he took would indicate he was able to distinquish the difference. I am not saying the man does not have a mental illness... just that he would be found competent to stand trial.



His family SHOULD have sought out help for their child earlier in life... from what I have read, not nearly enough was done to help him. They do not deserve our scorn though as they could not have forseen what was to happen. I feel bad for the whole lot of them and pray that even Cho has found peace and understanding in God. He obviously had mental problems that, while they would not excuse his actions in our legal system, drove him to this horrible outcome.

Perhaps at this point, emotions are too raw to be having a discussion that speaks to compassion for the murderer. I understand where you are coming from and agree with much of what you have to say. I had neighbors that suffered a terrible tragedy in their life... on a much smaller scale (although not for this family).. and I got to see first hand how the mental problems of one could so violently tear the lives of an entire family to shreads. As it was with this family, it will be up to the ones that have lost loved ones to find forgiveness (much as the Amish have done in our community after the Nickel Mines shootings) for the hurt inflicted by Cho. We as a community are stirred by these horrible events. I always hope that some good comes from these things....but right now...for many, for most... it's just too soon.

MEDC

It may very well be that Cho, had he not chosen suicide, would have been found fit to stand trial. That would be for the experts to decide.

I am not going to add anything more to this discussion, as I feel I have made my point. It is not my intention to come into a forum for the sake of being contentious.

My contribution to this thread was to take issue with the labelling of the mentally ill as "nutjobbers", and to point out that it was POSSIBLE that Cho was actually extremely mentally ill, and his actions were not necessarily the actions of someone who was "evil", or that his family were "evil".

Since I first posted, I think news reports have contributed more weight to the points I have made here.

And you can criticize the family all you like for not paying enough attention "sooner", MEDC, but I think if you had ever experienced serious mental illness in the family, you would know that the mental health services in most areas of both the US and the UK are totally inadequate to cope with the needs of the mentally ill and their families. You speak of watching a family close to you crumble under the weight of the problems they were grappling with, so you have some idea of how great the impact mental illness can have on a family. It is often extremely difficult to tell just how "ill" a person really is - they can appear largely normal, or eccentric, or attention-seeking, or whatever...then they snap. I've seen someone snap - someone I know extremely well. I also know someone who killed. I didn't know that person well - he was someone at work, a technician for our department. His crime horrified our whole town and he is now in prison doing life for murder. In his case, no-one EVER thought he was capable of that - he really did seem to be a nice person.

So until all the facts are known I think people should try to refrain from judging Cho and his family.

That's all I really have to say on this issue, so I am now bowing out of this thread, as I feel I have made my point.

We don't KNOW that Cho had a mental illness...Speculation about it is really pointless...Pandering pity for a MURDERER is distasteful to me...Right now it is the VICTIMS of Cho's crime that should be getting sympathy...We judge by ACTIONS and in this case I believe the actions speak quite clearly...

Mrs. W

I was going to leave this thread, but what you have said, Mrs. W., is actually deeply deeply offensive to me....

In all my posts, I have stated that we do not know the FACTS about the Cho case, but quite frankly, it is MORE than speculation to suggest that Cho might had a mental illness....

"Pandering pity to a murderer is distasteful to me" - that is NOT what I was suggesting - I am sorry you have chosen to interpret my posts as that. Asking people to consider the possiblity that Cho was extremely mentally ill and to have compassion for his family is NOT "pandering pity". I am very sorry that you choose to see it that way.

I have never tried to minimize the suffering of his victims or their families. Ever.

Friend4Life...

I'm sorry that you are offended by how I choose to FEEL about this particular case...I believe that my feelings are grounded in reality and the facts of the case thus far...My feelings, btw, are just as valid as yours...You are welcome to feel as you like, but so are others here and YES, I do believe that you are using emotional tactics (citing your own PERSONAL experiences with DIAGNOSED mental illness) to try and pander pity for the UNDIAGNOSED perp here...That's just the way I see it...*shrug*

No Worries...

Mrs. W

Of course your feelings are valid. No-one ever said they weren't.

I don't believe it was wrong to raise this issue or to dare to suggest that the shooter was possibly mentally ill.

I'm sorry that you believe that my sharing of my personal experiences, and the feelings I have which have developed as a consequence of those experiences amounts to "using emotional tactics". You make it sound as if my sharing of personal experiences is a cynical calculated tactic (to pander sympathy for a murderer) - it was not.

I'm certainly capable of living with having offended someone...if I was afraid of offending someone, I wouldn't have posted.

You obviously have a problem with what I have said. I can live with that.

COOL...

Mrs. W

Camille Paglia and others had an interesting piece about the possible whys..

~ Marsh

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1686784.ece

Didn't know this.

Thanks, Mortarman.

~ Marsh

Congressional Testimony of Darrell Scott, father of one of the Columbine Shooting Victims.


http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/darrellscott.htm