Family and friends of a Virginia Tech victim

[iverglas]

http://www.thestar.com/article/413825

Virginia Tech massacre leaves behind 'legacies'
Classes in slain teacher's memory help husband cope with his grief

... Last year, the professor (Jerzy Nowak, the teacher's husband) sought a role in designing a Centre for Peace Studies and Non-violence, an interdisciplinary institute that will promote conflict resolution and study methods to reduce violence.

Nowak said one of the key objectives of the centre will be to address the issue of gun control.

"Without these changes, other things are cosmetic," he said in an interview.

Nowak's stepdaughter, Francine Dulong, 25, Couture's daughter, stressed that her mother "was very anti-violence" and feared the rise of gun-related deaths on U.S. campuses. "I can understand why she was fearful of guns, because these things happen so frequently," she said in an interview from Vancouver.

Like her stepfather, she is speaking publicly of the need for handgun owners to be licensed.

Jocelyn Couture-Nowak was the instructor in the Virginia Tech classroom and was one of the victims.

She was particularly committed to French-language education for francophone children in Nova Scotia. Some of her former students at Virginia Tech are teaching French to children at an elementary school near the campus, in her memory.


I'm embarrassed to say that I had not realized that the instructor in the classroom where the murders occurred, who was one of the victims, was a Canadian.


Before anything else is said, I would like to point out that the statement that Couture-Nowak was "fearful of guns" can only be interpreted as meaning that she was fearful of firearms violence.

[bossy22]

1. i never understand this

"Like her stepfather, she is speaking publicly of the need for handgun owners to be licensed."

why only handguns? Are rifles less dangerous?

The only thing that makes a handgun more dangerous its concealability- everything else a rifle is better at- all and all a rifle is more lethal than a handgun. It's something i just don't understand and i believe is based on evidence that shows a correlation rather than an actual connection or causation.

[iverglas]

2. well

As you know, owners of all firearms in Canada require licences, and all firearms must be registered.

Therefore, I assume the reference is to the US. Canadians calling for a public policy to be adopted in the US. Since they're the family of a Canadian murdered in the US in a rather infamous cluster of handgun homicides, maybe they'll be forgiven.

Are rifles less dangerous? You should probably ask BenEzra.

Handguns are certainly used vastly more frequently than rifles in homicides in the US; I guess that's the correlation to which you refer. Since the people speaking are family of a victim of homicide, perhaps that's what they're thinking of. If Cho had actually had to apply for and get a licence before he could acquire handguns, who knows what would have happened, or not happened?

[bossy22]

3. yes

"Handguns are certainly used vastly more frequently than rifles in homicides in the US; I guess that's the correlation to which you refer. Since the people speaking are family of a victim of homicide, perhaps that's what they're thinking of.

that was the correlation i was talking about-

If Cho had actually had to apply for and get a licence before he could acquire handguns, who knows what would have happened, or not happened?"
you make a good point but its my belief VT would still happen. Licensing requirements are just beefed up NICS checks with more paperwork- only NYS has a real in depth handgun licensing system- and in many counties- the procedure is actually ignored. It is a sad reality that police just don't have the resources- nor do they want to commit the resources- to operating a strict licensing system. Many local sheriff departments just simple cannot do it.

back to my things with the rifles
the canadiens are probably seeing this correlation- and based on it, it would "make sense" to go after handguns but i believe in the law of unintended consequences. IF handguns are no more, rifles will become big- weapons with much more killing power- this could actually increase violence- then again im just speculating

I understand why they push for it- it just seems silly to me to say one gun is dangerous- another is not. I like uniform laws- id like uniform laws that are the most minimal possible.

[iverglas]

4. no disagreement

Licensing requirements are just beefed up NICS checks with more paperwork- only NYS has a real in depth handgun licensing system- and in many counties- the procedure is actually ignored.

I started to add a parenthetical comment but decided not to get off track; it would have gone like this:

If Cho had actually had to apply for and get a licence before he could acquire handguns (under a procedure that actually involved some factual investigation and allowed for denial in the interests of the public or individuals who could be at risk if a licence were issued -- and preferably, although one knows it's too much to ask, simply did not allow for casual handgun possession by anyone who qualified and wanted one), who knows what would have happened, or not happened?


IF handguns are no more, rifles will become big- weapons with much more killing power- this could actually increase violence- then again im just speculating

Both Marc Lépine and Kimveer Gill, Canada's own notorious school mass murderers, had both semi-automatic rifles and handguns. They used the rifles to kill their victims. Lépine then used the handgun to kill himself; Gill presumably planned to but was shot by police who were on site at the time.

In Canada, long arms account for a much higher percentage of homicides than in the US, the line being roughly that family homicides are committed with long arms, which are present in many households, and gang-related homicides and homicides in the course of other offences are committed with handguns, although long arms are also used. But overall, the rate of firearms homicide is a fraction of the rate in the US, and lack of access to handguns obviously plays a role.

There are innumerable instances, in both countries, where lack of access to a handgun would have meant no death or injury -- for instance bystander/crossfire shootings by people who simply would not have been carrying long arms around with them.



edited to clarify

[gorfle]

11. Probably the same thing...

If Cho had actually had to apply for and get a licence before he could acquire handguns, who knows what would have happened, or not happened?

Probably the same thing as happened to the NIU shooter, who had to get a license before he could acquire firearms. Nothing.

[iverglas]

15. well, it wasn't me attempting clairvoyance

One effect that a licence requirement could have is to reduce incidents of impulsive violence. A person who did not already have a licence would have some wait time before being able to carry out a plan.

I sure don't regard a licence requirement for handgun acquisition/possession as an adequate preventive measure, do remember.

But there's not much reason to think it would not have *some* effect on the incidence of firearms crime/violence.

[gorfle]

18. Of course...

One effect that a licence requirement could have is to reduce incidents of impulsive violence. A person who did not already have a licence would have some wait time before being able to carry out a plan.

Of course such a requirement would not have effected either of our last two university shooters, who bought their weapons far in advance of their crimes.

One effect that a licence requirement could have is to reduce incidents of impulsive violence. A person who did not already have a licence would have some wait time before being able to carry out a plan.

I sure don't regard a licence requirement for handgun acquisition/possession as an adequate preventive measure, do remember.

But there's not much reason to think it would not have *some* effect on the incidence of firearms crime/violence.

No doubt there are many things we could do to increase our safety. It then becomes a debate over how much freedom we are willing to give up to enjoy that safety. Today in the United States, the tide seems to be for the "more firearm freedom" boat.

[KSinTX]

6. Rifles are better, but ...

"everything else a rifle is better at"

One thing - a shotgun for home defense sure makes a lovelier sound!

[iverglas]

8. now we just know

that someone is going to come along and remark on what a compassionate person you are, posting such compassionate things in a post about a homicide victim, the way a bunch of people have been doing in a thread about a related topic. Just thought I'd warn you.

[KSinTX]

16. Yikes! Thanks for the heads up ... n/t

[Turbo Teg]

19. Yeah, and if I was gonna commit Mass murder

I could just chop down my shotgun and put it under my coat. If your gonna kill people, I guess violating the NFA isn't that big of deal. Yeah, licensing of handguns would deffinatly have stopped this crime. I know I would care if I was on way to kill a bunch of people and then stopped and thought "You know, I don't have a license, I can't do this!". I'm sorry for all the families involved, but this is just stupid. Sorry to sound like a broken record, but I have to add that if she had had a firearm, this COULD have been stopped, or at least minimized. I saw a thing on the News about a college that has a class or something that teaches students what to do if a person with a gun comes into the classroom with a gun, the SOP is to throw books. Your throwing books, he's firing bullets. To me, that doesn't really seem effective. I'd much rather just have my CCW piece.

[iverglas]

20. so there we are

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but I have to add that if she had had a firearm, this COULD have been stopped, or at least minimized.

And here's your, er, little problem with that.

This woman was actually a real human being, not a cardboard cutout player in your make-believe world. She had her own ideas, and made her own choices. And was entitled to do both.

She DID NOT WANT to have a firearm. She would never in a million years have had a firearm. She wouldn't have had a firearm for a million yankee dollars, or loonies, regardless of the exchange rate. That was NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

So now what? You gonna REQUIRE that classroom instructors carry firearms? Maybe you'll REQUIRE that every classroom have at least one person carrying a concealed firearm? -- and if there are no volunteers, volunteer somebody?

Or just blame the victim for not behaving in a way that met your approval?

No guarantee there will be a cop on the corner when you need one?

Well where exactly is your guarantee that there will be a firearm in a classroom, and a person who can be relied on to use it effectively and intelligently when it's needed?

Seems to me you all are going to have to get together and establish a genuine large-scale vigilante organization, with membership lists and executive committees and schedules, to make sure that you have coverage in all the places that might be needing someone with a concealed firearm, at all times. And then you'll be needing liability insurance, and pretty soon somebody's gonna start saying u-nion! u-nion! ... and you'd better be prepared for the lawsuits by the families of victims you DIDN'T save ...

Have we identified someone in that classroom at Virginia Tech yet who would have had a firearm on his/her person had it not been for the rule against it?

What I can tell you is that Jocelyn Couture-Nowak would NOT have been that person.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

5. Hmmmm

I know are conversations usually devolve but, just a quick question or two.

You wrote, "Before anything else is said, I would like to point out that the statement that Couture-Nowak was "fearful of guns" can only be interpreted as meaning that she was fearful of firearms violence."

Why can this statement only be interpreted to mean that? Why can't it be read exactly how it was stated?


David

[iverglas]

7. exactly how it was stated

was this:

"I can understand why she was fearful of guns, because these things happen so frequently".


So someone could try divorcing the first part of the sentence from the second part, so that it was no longer "exactly how it was stated" at all, and representing it as meaning that the individual was afraid of inanimate objects. My advice would just be that nobody bother.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. I just wondered why it could only be read that way.

Lots of people are scared of inanimate objects. I used to work with a girl in the fire department that was deathly afraid of clowns and stuff doll clowns. If you read it your way, she could have meant she was scared of insane people or criminals or anyone with a gun. But that would mean that she was scared of police officers. It always gets a little tricky to try to know exactly what someone meant.

David

[apocalypsehow]

10. A colleague of mine had left Virginia Tech

to take a position on our campus. His sister-in-law was still teaching there when this horror occurred. After several frantic hours of he and his wife trying to get in touch with her, it turned out she hadn't been at work that day.

"Nowak said one of the key objectives of the centre will be to address the issue of gun control."

I wish them all the best in their endeavors, but particularly this one. One thing I was unclear about - and it may well just be I'm not reading it right - is the institute itself. Is it based in Virginia, or Canada?

[iverglas]

13. Virginia, I believe

I think I saw mention of it in the other thread here on this subject, or in an article linked to there.

... Linked article, I guess.

Can't find anything but the article in this thread. Oh, right. "Centre", not.

I dunno. Rhode Island has one: http://www.uri.edu/nonviolence/
And a broader network: http://www.earlham.edu/~psa/membership/PSA-Membership-1998-99.html


The title was a bit off:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/us/21brfs-tech.html

Virginia: Peace Studies Where Gunman Struck

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: December 21, 2007

The classroom wing at Virginia Tech where a student gunman killed 30 people and himself and wounded two dozen others on April 16 will be turned into a place to study peace, the university said. Having vowed never again to use Norris Hall for general classes, university officials said the rooms would house a Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention. “It was an opportunity for something new and different and hopeful to emerge,” said Mark McNamee, the university provost, who headed a task force that reviewed proposals for the building at the campus in Blacksburg. Besides the peace center, the second-floor classrooms where the gunman, Seung-Hui Cho, killed 30 of his 32 victims will be an interactive learning space.

And of course, one yahoo with a webcam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQoFUYBmiKA


I really liked the part about her students teaching French locally in her memory. She would have loved everything about that, I have no doubt.

[aikoaiko]

21. "I really liked the part about her students teaching French locally in her memory."

I liked that part too.

[gorfle]

12. Interesting

... Last year, the professor (Jerzy Nowak, the teacher's husband) sought a role in designing a Centre for Peace Studies and Non-violence, an interdisciplinary institute that will promote conflict resolution and study methods to reduce violence.

Nowak said one of the key objectives of the centre will be to address the issue of gun control.

I find it interesting that they are designing a whole center to study methods to reduce violence, but appear to be in favor of heavier restrictions on the most effective tool to use to defend oneself against violence.

The fact is, when you need a gun, throwing a textbook on conflict resolution at your aggressor probably isn't going to buy you much.

[iverglas]

14. maybe you could get a position on the faculty

throwing a textbook on conflict resolution at your aggressor probably isn't going to buy you much

Or at least a visiting lecturer position, to spend an hour with each class making sure that everyone understands that profound thought.


I find it interesting that they are designing a whole center to study methods to reduce violence, but appear to be in favor of heavier restrictions on the most effective tool to use to defend oneself against violence.

And I find it fascinating that you would say that. Well, not really.

Predictable, and predictably dumb, of course.

[gorfle]

17. You must be tired this evening.

Your rebuttals are not up to your usual snuff tonight.

[bossy22]

22. i dont see whats to get worked up about

"Nowak said one of the key objectives of the centre will be to address the issue of gun control."

i think if you had a course about this i would expect there to be a large part about gun control. This does not mean it is advocating for more gun control- but gun control no matter what is a big part of the debate when it comes to violence

edit- typo

[iverglas]

23. kind of what I thought ... nt

[gorfle]

24. I'll have to see it to believe it.

This does not mean it is advocating for more gun control- but gun control no matter what is a big part of the debate when it comes to violence

Normally when an "anti-violence" group starts talking about "addressing the issue of gun control" it isn't discussion for the mere sake of discussion - usually it's to advocate more of it.

[bossy22]

25. true

but my personal experience with a class like that my sophmore year was quiete eye opening. It was about voilence in america and gun control was a topic that took an entire 1 week to discuss. The professor gave the hint that gun control is not the most effective way to lower violence....though it may help he said. He also admitted that current gun legislation has had questionable effects on violence-citing the book "can gun control work".

The class was more focused towards the underlying causes and what can be done to help.