Political Punch

No, not anything short of "lock 'em up," but just the simple failing to prohibit EVERYONE who is deemed an "imminent danger to oneself and others" to purchase a gun! How else would you explain the Virginia state legislature's REASONING behind baring inpatient's from purchasing guns YET ALLOWING outpatients to purchase guns when they are BOTH still deemed an "imminent danger to oneself and others?"

I've never heard anyone voice any reticence about "discriminating" against people who are imminent dangers to themselves and others. The question is what is the appropriate way to handle such people. If you mean that a legislature tried to conduct an appropriate balancing (that's what they do)and failed, that's fine, but it's not political correctness. I guess in your mind, anything short of "lock 'em up" would be evidence of political correctness run amok. That's pretty thoughtless.

One definition of political correctness is "the use of expressions or ACTIONS that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult groups who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." In this particular case, apparently, the Virginia state legislature didn't want to discriminate against those who might be considered an "imminent danger to oneself and others," particularly if the court allows the individual to freely walk the streets as an outpatient. I, personally, believe that all of the legislators that voted for this distinction should have THEIR heads examined.

update #2: CNN is pulling all of the controversial footage of Cho. Better late than never. I'm sure Nancy Grace's has already milked it for what it's worth anyway.

update #3: NBC and ABC indicated that they would exercise restraint in playing the video, NBC specifying that this means it will air no more than 10x a day.

I still think it's wrong that NBC aired it and that anyone else published it.

I guess if anything you don't like can be called "political correctness," then you have a point, but that seems more like simple "bad legislation." I just don't see a hint of what is usually considered "political correctness."

DKNY, funny! In Virginia, being declared an "imminent danger to oneself and others" does not determine whether a person is placed on the federal list barring the purchase of guns. Instead, the determining factor is whether a person is committed to inpatient or outpatient care. The former bars him from purchasing weapons and the latter does not. Making THAT distinction is political correctness gone amok.

Yes, political correctness is at fault. If only political correctness couldn't fire off so many rounds so quickly. If only it weren't so easy for a person on record as mentally disturbed to buy political correctness. If only certain political correctness with no use other than to kill human beings were not sold to anyone who walked in the door of a store. That political correctness is a real killer.

Jake, I disagree with the premise of your question, "How did society miss red flag after red flag?" The red flags weren't missed. Authorities were notified about Cho's behavior. And a court actually declared that he posed imminent danger to himself and others. The problem is political correctness and confidentiality laws. For example, just last month Virginia passed a law which prohibits public universities from punishing or expelling students with suicidal tendencies. Yet the universities can't even warn anyone, as that would violate confidentiality. How many more Cho's are out there?

Cordelia: Again, respectfully, the fact that you reached the same conclusion as Fox News should make you wonder whether your reasoning is sound in this case. I have no doubt that Fox will use its decision as a cudgel against other news outlets. I also have little doubt that that is why they decided as they did.

I'm not asserting that the photos are entirely without probative value. But the probative value must be weighed against the network's social responsibility. For example, networks refrain from publishing information that compromises national security. Here, the network is rewarding the killer and perhaps incenting future killers. And it's tactless to the friends and family of the victims. It's beyond tactless. It's hurtful.

Now I know I'm reacting on an emotional level. Cho's image disgusts me. But the fact that the editors at Fox News and salon reached the same conclusion leads me to believe that my reasoning is sound.

Cordelia: I respectfully disagree. The photos and video are part of the story. News organizations should use them to tell the story responsibly.

update: FoxNews has stopped publishing the controversial photos and videos. And when FoxNews is taking the high road, and you're not on that high road, you really need to reexamine what you're doing.

All of your theories are certainly possible and quite plausible, Jake. Overarching all of these potential explanations is the clear influence of violent behavior which the killer observed and seemed to absorb in the same way a sponge does water.

I think that media outlets should stop showing the video footage and publishing the photos. The guy wanted infamy (sp?). Well you're giving it to him. What kind of message does this send to the next sociopath with a video camera and a manifesto? But like I wrote on the other thread, the media is just doing what it does best: terrorizing people in the name of ratings. Well done, NBC and every other MSM outlet that's following suit. Yeah, you too Jake. Keep it up and we'll all be sleeping with a gun under our pillow.

As for the tat: I'm sure it's a video game reference. This guy has anti-social gamer written all over him. (No offense, gamers.)