I am so depressed. I've been watching the news all morning about the deadliest shooting rampage in US history.

Then my co-worker pointed out that 600,000 civilians have died in Iraq and 500 die every day.

I was like "Oh thanks I feel alot better now."

Then I started thinking about Darfur.

Maybe I should call my doctor and go on anti-depressants.

I don't think anyone here has advocated eliminating private gun ownership completely, Jack. Much as I may agree with Green and wish our society were more gun-averse, I understand the frontier mentality will never leave us completely. And certainly there are situations where it makes sense for responsible homeowners to be protected, such as in Sunta's story where there are known risks. But it should be MUCH harder for people to obtain guns, and there should be rigid national standards.

Jack, is your neighborhood particularly crime-ridden?

Yikes. The conditions you describe would certainly make me think about wanting some sort of home protection. Thankfully, not all Americans live in such areas. Your community might want to think about investing in some more law enforcement personnel.

Jack, you live in an area with about twice the national crime rate. To me, that is more of a signal that either your community needs to harass its leaders to hire more police or you need to move to a safer locale than a signal that you need a gun.

And it really seems odd to me that your community has such a high crime rate, yet apparently won't bother to hire more police officers. Doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me.

Well, be glad you don't live in Memphis, where there is a crime rate that is a little over 3 times the national average. Heck, I go visit my brother there regularly, yet I don't consider getting a gun just for that purpose.

I realize this is probably politically incorrect, and may even provoke angry responses, but I can't help but notice that there is virtually no coverage in the news of the 170 civilians killed today in Baghdad bombings. On CNN.com there are about 25 stories about the incident at VA Tech that occurred two days ago, and just one line about today's harvest of souls in Iraq. I have a hard time with that because I feel like we are largely responsible for the unimaginable terror and heartache taking place in Iraq right now. And I feel like the Iraqi's lives are worth just as much as those of American college students.

In my view there is not much we can do about a madman like Cho Seung-Hui. People in this thread have said that people like Cho can be spotted in advance and dealt with. I'm very skeptical about that. I've known my share of weirdo loners. None of them ended up killing anyone. What are we supposed to do every time someone acts weird? Put them in jail in advance of any wrongdoing?

But of course the situation is different in Iraq. In the Iraqi situation, we can actually do something to stop this. So, to me, the story that needs to be talked about is the one where you can actually do something about it. Fortunately for the world Cho Seung-Hui is gone and no one needs to be afraid anymore. Unfortunately for the world, Cho W. Bush is still president. And as a result, millions of our fellow human beings must live a life of unspeakable horror and terror.

What are we supposed to do every time someone acts weird? Put them in jail in advance of any wrongdoing?

No, but we should be able to say, "you can't buy a gun". And I think there's a difference between someone "acting weird" and someone that was obviously fantasizing about killing people.

I am more curious about what led up to this event and why the shooter felt this was the only option available to him. (Yes I realize I may be focusing on the wrong issue in your opinion, but I am a social worker and the workings of the human mind have always fascinated me).

I wonder about his upbringing, his childhood, his parents, his obvious lack of self-control and hatred of women and the "rich," and his generalized feelings of anger. Where did it all come from? He had been referred to the school's counseling office. People were starting to see the kid had some real issues. It might surprise you to hear me use the word "kid;" I realize at 23 he was a grown adult but, mentally and emotionally, he did not appear capable of acting like one, and let's face it, us "older people" know how naive one can really be at age 23....

Perhaps exploring these issues may help us humanize this person. No I am not trying to justify what he did. Just trying to figure out why on earth he would do it, why anyone would do it, and what we can do to recognize signs in people that they are capable of such horrific acts, in an attempt to prevent them.

To tell you the truth the psychological environment north of the border with respect to gun ownership is entirely different. Canadians are not accustomed to welcoming fire arms into our lives even though we are now aware that gun ownership is filtering into our criminal element.

We are accustomed to living in a fairly peaceful and structured environment and we operate on the assumption that our self-elected government and our judiciary and police will act in a transparent in fashion, one that will serve us, the people.

Of course these bodies do not always do this and may display themselves, sooner or later, as being corrupt. Canada does find itself going through periods of turmoil which do hinge on corruption in one or another area of state governance.

No, but we should be able to say, "you can't buy a gun". And I think there's a difference between someone "acting weird" and someone that was obviously fantasizing about killing people.

So who will be the one who gets to say "Hey, your thoughts have crossed over now from normal angst and frustration with life's challenges, and in my opinion you have now started fantasizing about killing people to the degree that you are now forbidden from doing something that is otherwise legal, even though you have done nothing wrong." Who gets to make that call?

To the extent that you are saying we need to try to pay more attention to the people around us and get help for someone who is in trouble, for our own safety. I agree with that. But I don't know how you pick the committee who gets to decide someone is "fantasizing" too much, and they should have their freedom and legal rights curtailed because "I" say so.

But of course the situation is different in Iraq. In the Iraqi situation, we can actually do something to stop this. So, to me, the story that needs to be talked about is the one where you can actually do something about it. Fortunately for the world Cho Seung-Hui is gone and no one needs to be afraid anymore. Unfortunately for the world, Cho W. Bush is still president. And as a result, millions of our fellow human beings must live a life of unspeakable horror and terror.

I completely agree with you Marjon. When I heard today's Iraq death toll as I was driving to work, the tears just started pouring down my face. It's appalling in the extreme. The story about VA Tech is very close to home and at this point we're all waiting for the complete victim list to be released so we can all find out how close. But the drama will pass, and innocent Iraqis will still be dying in droves.

No, but we should be able to say, "you can't buy a gun". And I think there's a difference between someone "acting weird" and someone that was obviously fantasizing about killing people.

And I completely agree with you, Laurend (which is no surprise). Cho's psychological history should have set off red flags in any situation where he tried to buy guns. Sure, he could have gone and bought fertilizer and made a bomb, or driven his car into a crowd, or whatever. But he went and bought an automatic handgun made for no other purpose than killing people. And that's exactly what he did with it.

So who will be the one who gets to say "Hey, your thoughts have crossed over now from normal angst and frustration with life's challenges, and in my opinion you have now started fantasizing about killing people to the degree that you are now forbidden from doing something that is otherwise legal, even though you have done nothing wrong." Who gets to make that call?

As I understand it a VA magistrate said in December of 2005 that Cho was a danger to himself and others, and he was committed to a mental institution for a time. He wasn't just someone with occasional destructive thoughts. He was a whackjob and lots of people knew it.

I could definitely support gun control for all. I just have a hard time doing it selectively based on subjective criteria. With this guy Cho, perpaps the criteria were not entirely subjective. By the time someone is placed in a mental hospital, perhaps they should not have a gun.

But what about his creative writing where he fantasized about killing people and wrote things that his teachers found "disturbing." Is that enough? I have a hard time with that.

But again, I can certainly support gun control for all.

But what about his creative writing where he fantasized about killing people and wrote things that his teachers found "disturbing." Is that enough? I have a hard time with that.

I don't know if that would be enough to strip him of his right to own guns, but it should have been enough to require him to undergo a psychiatric exam. The results of that may have been enough.