Virginia Tech Shooting: At least 33 Fatalities

In listening to the news coverage, and reading articles online, I've observed an unsettling trend toward knee-jerk stupidity. Granted, everyone is shocked and disgusted, and we're all seeking answers in our own way. Yet, the media has this nasty habit of inundating the airwaves with useless filler; they have to say something because saying nothing (due to lack of confirmed information and respect for the deceased) is bad for ratings.

"Was this attack premeditated?" - Offhand, I'd say hell yes. I don't understand how this is even a question. He chained a classroom door closed; he had chains. Not to mention multiple clips of ammunition. This isn't the sort of thing that's kept in a gym bag, alongside sweat socks, a water bottle and "Jock Jams Vol. 16", just in case a situation arises and you really wish you could take a few hostages. Of course it was premeditated.

"How could he just freely walk into a campus classroom?" - Virginia Tech's campus is public, the very definition of which is that everyone has open access to the facilities. With the thousands who come and go daily, it's nigh impossible to inspect everyone. The greater outrage would be if all basic presumptions of innocence were abandoned and every campus entrance was treated like airport security.

"How come the entire campus wasn't alerted?" - Allow me to speak as the voice of reason here, but how could anyone know that a single, isolated gunshot in a dorm would become a bloodbath, two hours later, in a random building across the campus? Is it now a matter of saving ourselves from all liability that we need to incite widespread paranoia at the first sign of trouble? If a smoke alarm goes off, should all buildings be evacuated for fear of a potential arsonist? In all reality, it probably took that first couple hours for campus security to confirm that there'd been an early morning gunshot, at which point there was nothing to prove a subsequent assault would occur. A cautionary e-mail and advisory to all dorms was a sensible reaction. It's only in hindsight that we know it was inadequate. Nobody fucked up. Nobody dropped the ball. We're simply not all psychics.

"Was the gunman shot or did he kill himself?" - I fail to see the direct relevance of this question. The end result is the same: he's dead. I suppose the only reason it's asked is so the media knows whether it can call into question the efficacy of the police who responded to the scene. If the police shot him, why did it take so long for someone to act? If he killed himself, who can the media scapegoat into resigning from his or her position as police chief? Either way, it's a loaded question.

"What could've been done to prevent this tragedy?" - This is a completely ludicrous question that's been asked on television umpteen times already. Nothing! Nothing could've been done within plausible reason to stop this. It's unsatisfying but true. People, especially those close to the victims, will expect changes to be made so that these things aren't repeated elsewhere. I don't know what they expect that won't result in systematically converting our nation into a police-state. Crazy people do crazy things; this is why they're considered crazy. Trying to predict the actions of the imbalanced is futile. Enacting safeguards that restrict and punish the innocent only serves to erode what few basic freedoms we have left. All the metal detectors and security cameras in the world won't stop a determined assailant. I say it's better to go about life as normal than trying to change our surroundings in capitulation to our fears.

"This was a gruesome act of terrorism." - A fantastic, knee-jerk reaction by an over-sensationalist media. This man was not a terrorist. He was a jilted lover and a obsessive whackjob. This wasn't an act of political or religious significance; he wasn't trying to make a profound statement to the world. He was angry and wanted others to suffer too. The media has become too quick to latch onto the term "terrorist" to describe anyone commiting a damaging act. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. The Unabomber was a terrorist. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were terrorists. These people had sociopolitical agendas. The Virginia Tech shooter, not so much. An act against one's fellow man may be terrifying, but it's not necessarily terrorism. I guess merely being "crazy" isn't so newsworthy these days.

They'll be discussing the ins and outs of this tragedy for months. They'll examine the uncanny timing, how it's only within days of the anniversaries of the Columbine High School shooting and the Oklahoma City bombing. They'll try to psychoanalyze what went wrong in the life of a spurned gun lover, as if it's that difficult to determine. Every guest expert under the sun will be called in to give meaningless testimony on the events. It's the sort of parade the networks love. Personally, I'd like to go about living my life without fear of everything that could conceivably, possibly, perhaps, someday, maybe, ostensibly kill me.

But that's just me.

Most amazing jew boots