è¡€æ¡ˆåŽå°é•‡åŽäººæ‚²æƒ…è®²è¿°ï¼šä¸€å ‚å¾…æŽˆçš„çƒ¹è°ƒè¯¾
This photo was captured on the football field at the Virginia Tech convocation. Original Source:ä¸­æ–°ç½‘ http://www.heb.chinanews.com.cn/news/gjcz/2007-04-18/20527.shtml
This photo was captured outside the football field at the Virginia Tech convocation. Original Source:ä¸­æ–°ç½‘ http://www.heb.chinanews.com.cn/news/gjcz/2007-04-18/20527.shtml
ç¾Žå›½æ ¡å›­æžªå‡»æ¡ˆèƒŒåŽçš„ä¸­å›½æ°‘ä¼—
æŽæžå†°ï¼šç¾Žå›½æ ¡å›­æžªå‡»æ¡ˆæŠ˜å°„ä¿¡æ¯ç¤¾ä¼šå›°å¢ƒ
ç¾Žå›½æ ¡å›­è¡€æ¡ˆèƒŒåŽä¸è¯¥è¢«é—æ¼çš„äººå’Œäº‹
2007å¹´04æœˆ28æ—¥18:45 ã€ŠçŽ¯çƒäººç‰©ã€‹æ‚å¿— ç¾Žå›½å¼—å‰å°¼äºšå·žå¸ƒèŽ±å…‹æ–¯å ¡å¼—å‰å°¼äºšç†å·¥å¤§å­¦çš„ä¸Šä¸‡åå­¦ç”Ÿï¼Œè‡ªå‘åœ°ã€ç¥žè‰²å‡é‡åœ°åœ¨ä¸€å—ç™½å¸ƒä¸Šç­¾ä¸‹äº†è‡ªå·±çš„åå­—ï¼ŒåŒæ—¶é€ä¸Šä¸€æžæžçº¢è‰²çŽ«ç‘°ï¼Œç—›æ‚¼åœ¨æ ¡å›­æžªå‡»æ¡ˆä¸­æ®’å‘½çš„å¸ˆç”Ÿã€‚ ã€€ã€€4æœˆ16æ—¥ï¼Œå¼—å‰å°¼äºšç†å·¥å¤§å­¦å‘ç”Ÿäº†ç¾Žå›½æœ‰å²ä»¥æ¥æœ€æƒ¨çƒˆçš„æ ¡å›­æžªå‡»æ¡ˆã€‚23å²çš„éŸ©è£”å­¦ç”Ÿèµµæ‰¿ç†™ï¼Œæ‰‹æŒä¸¤æŠŠæ‰‹æžªï¼Œåœ¨ä¸¤ä¸ªå°æ—¶çš„æ—¶é—´é‡Œï¼Œè‡³å°‘è¿žå¼€200æžªï¼Œå°„æ€32åå¸ˆç”Ÿï¼ŒéšåŽé¥®å¼¹è‡ªå°½ã€‚ ã€€ã€€æƒ¨æ¡ˆéœ‡æƒŠäº†ç¾Žå›½å’Œæ•´ä¸ªå›½é™…ç¤¾ä¼šã€‚ç¾Žå›½æ€»ç»Ÿå¸ƒä»€ç«‹å³ä¸‹ä»¤å…¨ç¾Žé™åŠæ——å“€æ‚¼æ­»éš¾è€…ï¼Œå¹¶äº²è‡ªå‰å¾€å¼—å‰å°¼äºšç†å·¥å¤§å­¦å‚åŠ å“€æ‚¼æ´»åŠ¨ã€‚ä¸Žæ­¤åŒæ—¶ï¼Œä¸å°‘å›½å®¶çš„é¦–è„‘çº·çº·å‘æ¥æ…°é—®ç”µï¿½ï¿½ ã€€ã€€å“€æ‚¼ä¹‹åŽï¼Œç¾Žå›½ä¹ƒè‡³å…¨ä¸–ç•Œéƒ½åœ¨é—®ï¼šç¾Žå›½æ ¡å›­ä¸ºä½•æ€»æ˜¯å†’å‡ºæ€æ‰‹ï¼Œä¸ºä½•æ€»æ˜¯å‡ºçŽ°æžªä¸‹å†¤é­‚ï¼Ÿäº‹å®žä¸Šï¼Œåœ¨ç¾Žå›½ï¼Œæ€æ‰‹å’Œæžªä¸‹å†¤é­‚ä½•æ­¢æ˜¯æ ¡å›­é‡Œæ‰æœ‰ï¼ ã€€ã€€è‡ª1963å¹´çº¦ç¿°Â·è‚¯å°¼è¿ªæ€»ç»Ÿé‡åˆºä»¥æ¥ï¼Œç¾Žå›½å›½å†…çš„æžªä¸‹äº¡é­‚ï¼Œå·²è¶…è¿‡æ•´ä¸ª20ä¸–çºªæ­»äºŽæµ·å¤–æˆ˜åœºçš„ç¾Žå›½äººæ€»æ•°ã€‚ç¾Žå›½çš„æžªæ€äº‹ä»¶ä¹‹æ‰€ä»¥åƒå®¶å¸¸ä¾¿é¥­ï¼Œé™¤äº†å› ä¸ºç¤¾ä¼šçŸ›ç›¾å’Œäººçš„å¿ƒç†é—®é¢˜å¤–ï¼Œä¸€ä¸ªå¾ˆé‡è¦çš„åŽŸå› åœ¨äºŽ"ç¾Žå›½äººå°±åƒä¹°å¤§ç™½èœä¸€æ ·ï¼Œå¯ä»¥éšä¾¿æ‹¥æœ‰æžª"ã€‚ç©¶ç«Ÿæ˜¯ç¾Žå›½çš„"æžªæ–‡åŒ–"ï¼Œè¿˜æ˜¯æžªæ”¯ç®¡ç†åˆ¶åº¦å‡ºäº†é—®é¢˜ï¼Ÿè¿™æ¬¡æžªå‡»è¡€æ¡ˆï¼Œè®©äººä»¬çœ‹åˆ°å…¶èƒŒåŽçš„é‚£äº›äººå’Œäº‹...... ã€€ã€€ä»…2005å¹´ï¼Œç¾Žå›½å°±å‘ç”Ÿäº†1.4ä¸‡èµ·æ¶‰æžªè°‹æ€æ¡ˆå’Œ1.6ä¸‡èµ·æžªå‡»è‡ªæ€æ¡ˆã€‚å¯¹ç¾Žå›½äººæ¥è¯´ï¼Œè¿™æ˜¯æ€Žæ ·çš„ä¼¤ç—›ï¼Ÿï¼ä¸€æ—¦ç±»ä¼¼4æœˆ16æ—¥æ ¡å›­æžªå‡»æ¡ˆçš„äº‹ä»¶è·¨è¶Šç§æ—ã€æ–‡åŒ–ï¼Œå°±å°†å¯¹å¾ˆå¤šäººã€å¾ˆå¤šç§æ—ä¹ƒè‡³æ•´ä¸ªç¾Žå›½ç¤¾ä¼šï¼Œé€ æˆä¸å¯ä¼°é‡çš„ä¼¤å®³ã€‚ ã€€ã€€æœ¬åˆŠç‰¹çº¦è®°è€…â€ƒé³â€‚çŽ® ã€€ã€€4æœˆ16æ—¥ï¼Œå‘ç”Ÿåœ¨ç¾Žå›½å¼—å‰å°¼äºšç†å·¥å¤§å­¦çš„æžªå‡»æ¡ˆï¼Œåœ¨éŸ©è£”ç¾Žå›½äººå’ŒéŸ©å›½äººç¤¾å›¢ä¸­å¼•èµ·å¼ºçƒˆéœ‡åŠ¨ã€‚ä»Žä¸€å¼€å§‹çš„ç¥ˆç¥·ï¼Œåˆ°åŽæ¥çš„è€»è¾±æ„Ÿï¼Œå†åˆ°çŽ°åœ¨çš„æ‹…å¿§ï¼Œä»–ä»¬çš„å†…å¿ƒåœ¨ç»å—ç…Žç†¬ã€‚ä»–ä»¬çŽ°åœ¨æœ€æ‹…å¿ƒè‡ªå·±å¯èƒ½å—åˆ°ç¾Žå›½ä¸»æµç¤¾ä¼šçš„æŽ’æŒ¤å’Œæ­§è§†ã€‚ ã€€ã€€é‡‘ç’è ä»Šå¹´27å²ï¼Œæ˜¯ç”Ÿæ´»åœ¨æ´›æ‰çŸ¶çš„ä¸€åéŸ©è£”ç¾Žå›½äººã€‚æ´›æ‰çŸ¶çš„éŸ©è£”ç¤¾åŒºï¼Œæ˜¯ç¾Žå›½æœ€å¤§çš„éŸ©è£”èšå±…åŒºï¼Œæ€»äººæ•°è¶…è¿‡50ä¸‡ã€‚è€Œæ•´ä¸ªç¾Žå›½åˆ™æœ‰200å¤šä¸‡éŸ©è£”ã€‚å¼—å‰å°¼äºšç†å·¥å¤§å­¦æ ¡å›­æžªå‡»æ¡ˆå‘ç”ŸåŽï¼Œä»–ä»¬éƒ½å¯†åˆ‡å…³æ³¨ç€æ¡ˆä»¶çš„æ¯ä¸€æ­¥è¿›å±•ã€‚æœ€åˆæœ‰æ¶ˆæ¯è¯´å‡¶æ‰‹æ˜¯äºšæ´²äººæ—¶ï¼Œå‡ ä¹Žæ‰€æœ‰åœ¨ç¾Žäºšè£”éƒ½æ„Ÿåˆ°ç´§å¼ ï¼ŒéŸ©å›½äººä¹Ÿä¸ä¾‹å¤–ã€‚é‡‘ç’è å‘Šè¯‰è®°è€…ï¼š"æˆ‘å½“æ—¶çš„ç¬¬ä¸€ä¸ªå¿µå¤´å°±æ˜¯â€”â€”å‡¶æ‰‹ä¸è¦æ˜¯éŸ©å›½äººï¼Œæˆ‘ä¸åœåœ°ç¥ˆç¥·ï¼š'åˆ«æ˜¯éŸ©å›½äººï¼Œåƒä¸‡åˆ«æ˜¯éŸ©å›½äººã€‚'"å½“æœ€ç»ˆç¡®è®¤å‡¶æ‰‹æ˜¯éŸ©å›½äººèµµæ‰¿ç†™æ—¶ï¼Œç»å¤§éƒ¨åˆ†åœ¨ç¾ŽéŸ©è£”å’ŒéŸ©å›½äººéƒ½å¯¹æ­¤è¡¨ç¤ºäº†é—æ†¾ï¼ŒåŒæ—¶äº§ç”Ÿäº†å¾ˆæ·±çš„è€»è¾±æ„Ÿã€‚"ä½œä¸ºä¸€ä¸ªéŸ©å›½äººï¼Œæˆ‘è¡¨ç¤ºé“æ­‰ã€‚æˆ‘è§‰å¾—æˆ‘éœ€è¦åšå‡ºé“æ­‰ï¼Œå› ä¸ºä¸€äº›æ— è¾œçš„äººè¢«é‚£ä¸ªå’Œæˆ‘æ¥è‡ªåŒä¸€ä¸ªå›½å®¶çš„äººæ€å®³äº†â‹¯â‹¯æˆ‘å‘¨å›´çš„æ¯ä¸ªäººï¼Œéƒ½å¯¹æ‰€å‘ç”Ÿçš„ä¸€åˆ‡æ„Ÿåˆ°ææƒ§ä¸Žéœ‡æƒŠã€‚å¤§å®¶éƒ½è§‰å¾—ï¼Œä½œä¸ºéŸ©å›½äººï¼Œä»–(èµµæ‰¿ç†™)ä¸åº”è¯¥æˆä¸ºç¾Žå›½åŽ†å²ä¸Šæœ€å¤§çš„æ ¡å›­æƒ¨æ¡ˆçš„åˆ¶é€ è€…ã€‚ä»¥å‰ï¼Œç¾Žå›½äººä¸€èˆ¬ä¸ä¼šæŠŠæŠ¢åŠ«ã€å‡¶æ€å’ŒéŸ©å›½äººè”ç³»èµ·æ¥ï¼Œæˆ‘æ‹…å¿ƒç»è¿‡è¿™æ¬¡äº‹ä»¶ï¼Œç¾Žå›½äººä¼šè®¤ä¸º'éŸ©å›½äººå¾ˆæš´åŠ›'ã€‚" ã€€ã€€é‡‘ç’è æ‹…å¿ƒï¼Œ"9Â·11"äº‹ä»¶åŽï¼Œç¾Žå›½ä¸»æµç¤¾ä¼šå¯¹é˜¿æ‹‰ä¼¯è£”ç¤¾åŒºçš„æ­§è§†å’Œéªšæ‰°ï¼Œä¼š"ç§»æ¤"åˆ°éŸ©å›½äººèº«ä¸Šã€‚"æˆ‘ä»¬æœ‰ä¸€ç§ä¸ç¥¥çš„é¢„æ„Ÿï¼šç¾Žå›½äººå¾ˆå¯èƒ½ä»Žæ–‡åŒ–ä¸Šæ¥è§£è¯»è¿™èµ·æžªå‡»æ¡ˆã€‚ä»–ä»¬ä¼šè®¤ä¸ºï¼Œæ˜¯éŸ©å›½æ–‡åŒ–é€ å°±äº†èµµæ‰¿ç†™ã€‚"é‡‘ç’è è¯´ï¼Œæœ€è¿‘ï¼Œå¥¹å’Œèº«è¾¹çš„éŸ©å›½äººéƒ½å°½é‡ä¸åŽ»é…’å§ç­‰å…¬å…±åœºæ‰€ï¼Œå› ä¸ºäººä»¬æœ‰å¯èƒ½å°†ä»–ä»¬æŒ‘å‡ºæ¥åŒºåˆ«å¯¹å¾…ã€‚"æˆ‘æ€•æˆä¸ºè¢«å…³æ³¨çš„ç„¦ç‚¹ï¼Œä¹Ÿå®³æ€•åœ¨ä¹˜åœ°é“æ—¶é­åˆ°æ”»å‡»ã€‚" ã€€ã€€é‡‘ç’è è¿˜å‘Šè¯‰è®°è€…ï¼Œå¥¹å‡†å¤‡å‚åŠ åœ¨æ´›æ‰çŸ¶ä¸¾è¡Œçš„å®ˆå¤œæ´»åŠ¨ã€‚"å°½ç®¡æˆ‘å¹¶ä¸è®¤è¯†èµµæ‰¿ç†™ï¼Œä½†æ˜¯æˆ‘è¿˜æ˜¯æ„Ÿåˆ°æƒ­æ„§ï¼Œæˆ‘è§‰å¾—åº”è¯¥ä¸ºé‚£äº›é‡å®³çš„äººåšäº›ä»€ä¹ˆã€‚"å¥¹å¸Œæœ›é€šè¿‡å®ˆå¤œæ´»åŠ¨ï¼Œå‘ç¾Žå›½äººè¡¨æ˜Žï¼ŒéŸ©å›½äººä¹Ÿä¸ºæ­¤æ¬¡æƒ¨æ¡ˆæ„Ÿåˆ°æ‚²ä¼¤ã€‚å¥¹å¸Œæœ›äººä»¬åœ¨è°ˆè®ºèµµæ‰¿ç†™çš„æ—¶å€™ï¼Œä¸è¦è¿‡åˆ†å¼ºè°ƒä»–çš„æ°‘æ—æˆåˆ†ã€‚"çºªå¿µæ´»åŠ¨ä¹Ÿæ˜¯å¯¹å—å®³è€…å®¶å±žçš„ä¸€ç§æ…°ç±ï¼Œå¦åˆ™äººä»¬ä¼šé—®ï¼š'åœ¨ç¾Žå›½çš„éŸ©å›½äººéƒ½åˆ°å“ªé‡ŒåŽ»äº†ï¼Ÿä»–ä»¬ä¸ºä»€ä¹ˆé»˜ä¸ä½œå£°ï¼Ÿ'æˆ‘å¸Œæœ›é€šè¿‡è¿™ç§æ–¹å¼ï¼Œèƒ½å¤Ÿæ”¹å˜ç¾Žå›½ç¤¾ä¼šå¯¹äºšæ´²äººçš„æŸäº›çœ‹æ³•ã€‚" ã€€ã€€é‡‘ç’è è‡³ä»Šä»éšçº¦è®°å¾—ï¼Œ10å¤šå¹´å‰ï¼Œå‘ç”Ÿåœ¨æ´›æ‰çŸ¶çš„é‚£åœºç§æ—éªšä¹±ã€‚1992å¹´ï¼Œä¸€ä½éŸ©å›½å•†åº—è€æ¿ä¸Žä¸€ä½é»‘äººç”·å­©å‘ç”Ÿå†²çªï¼ŒéšåŽå¼•å‘äº†ç§æ—éªšä¹±ã€‚åœ¨é‚£åœºéªšä¹±ä¸­ï¼Œ 2000å¤šå®¶éŸ©å›½äººçš„å•†åº—è¢«æ¯ã€‚éªšä¹±ä½¿éŸ©å›½äººä¸Žå…¶ä»–å°‘æ•°æ—è£”ä¹‹é—´çš„è£‚ç—•è¿›ä¸€æ­¥æ‰©å¤§ã€‚"å½“æ—¶ï¼Œæˆ‘çš„çˆ¶æ¯æŠŠæˆ‘ä»¬å®¶çš„é¥­é¦†å…³äº†ï¼Œå¹¶æŠŠæˆ‘ä»Žå­¦æ ¡æŽ¥å›žäº†å®¶ã€‚"é‡‘ç’è è¯´ï¼Œ"æœ€è¿‘ï¼Œæˆ‘èº«è¾¹çš„æœ‹å‹éƒ½æ‹…å¿ƒï¼Œæˆ‘ä»¬ä¼šè¿›ä¸€æ­¥é­åˆ°å­¤ç«‹ã€‚" ã€€ã€€ä¸Ž1992å¹´æ´›æ‰çŸ¶ç§æ—éªšä¹±å‘ç”Ÿæ—¶ä¸€æ ·ï¼Œè¿™æ¬¡æ ¡å›­æžªå‡»æ¡ˆï¼Œä¸ä½†åœ¨éŸ©å›½äººå’Œç¾Žå›½ä¸»æµç¤¾ä¼šä¹‹é—´é€ æˆäº†æ–°çš„éš”é˜‚ï¼ŒåŒæ—¶ä¹Ÿåœ¨éŸ©å›½äººå’Œå…¶ä»–äºšè£”äººä¹‹é—´åˆ¶é€ å‡ºä¸å’Œè°çš„éŸ³ç¬¦ã€‚å‡¶æ‰‹èº«ä»½è¯å®žåŽï¼Œå¾ˆå¤šåœ¨ç¾Žäºšè£”ï¼Œçº·çº·è®¾æ³•å°†è‡ªå·±å’ŒéŸ©å›½äººåŒºåˆ†å¼€æ¥ã€‚é‡‘ç’è è¯´ï¼š"æˆ‘çœ‹åˆ°ï¼Œæœ‰äº›äºšè£”äººå°†ä¸€äº›å›¾æ ‡è´´åœ¨è¡£æœä¸Šï¼Œè¡¨æ˜Žè‡ªå·±ä¸æ˜¯éŸ©å›½äººã€‚""è¿™è®©æˆ‘æ„Ÿåˆ°å¾ˆç—›è‹¦ã€‚"é‡‘ç’è å¾ˆæ— å¥ˆåœ°è¯´ã€‚ -- Original Source:ã€ŠçŽ¯çƒäººç‰©ã€‹æ‚å¿— http://news.sina.com.cn/w/2007-04-28/184512890822.shtml
By: EDDIE LEE Posted: 8/6/07 I recently received an e-mail from a graduate student at Virginia Tech. She asked me if I would be willing to release any articles that The California Aggie had written on the school's tragedy in April to be part of a larger database that is working to preserve and present stories from around the country. When I read the e-mail, it quickly reminded me of that terrible day on Apr. 16, when a lone student went on a shooting rampage on the Virginia Tech campus leaving 33 people dead, 25 injured and scores more scarred for life. College campuses across the country, including UC Davis, began reviewing and reevaluating their emergency response services in the case a similar attack should happen. Schools were no longer safe and seemingly anyone was capable of committing such a horrific act. Eventually, though, these thoughts became memories. Students here at UC Davis were able to continue to attend class, eat at the Coho and play intramural sports without worry. Of course, that's how it should be, and not just here, but everywhere. We should never have to live in a world of constant fear and trepidation, and should instead strive to live our lives as normally as possible. However, it is clear that normalcy is a status that many students in Blacksburg, Va. understandably continue to seek. Virginia Tech is not so different from UC Davis. It is a public institution with an undergraduate population of nearly 22,000. Blacksburg, like Davis, is also dominated largely by the local university. The population of the town is nearly 40,000 citizens, 60 percent of which is college students. Compare that to Davis, with a population around 60,000, about 50 percent of which is comprised of students. If you think that it can't happen here in quiet Davis, you are sorely mistaken. That being said, however, this is not a column trying to scare the population here on campus or the city at large that an attack is imminent. Instead, it is to serve as a reminder of how fortunate we are that we have been able to avoid a tragedy of such magnitude, and how easily we can undervalue every day that we walk on campus. In addition, we should not forget our brethren in Virginia. While many of us may not know any students over in Blacksburg personally, we can nonetheless imagine the pain and shock they continue to go through and the ongoing healing process. Last week the first football practice of the season for the Virginia Tech football team took place. The Hokies are the pride of Blacksburg and will once again be a top-25 team. But much more importantly, on that first game of the season when the team runs out of the tunnel and onto the field, the cheering students and fans can remember what it is to be normal again - for at least four quarters of football. Here at UC Davis, we as students should never take normal for granted. -- Original Source:The California Aggie - April 6, 2007
FM slashes U.S. untruthful reports on campus shooting
www.chinaview.cn 2007-04-18 16:42:35 BEIJING, April 18 (Xinhua) -- Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao Wednesday criticized some U.S. media's irresponsible reports on the Virginia Tech shooting before finding out the truth, calling on relevant sides to eliminate baneful impact of the incident. Following Monday's shooting tragedy at Virginia Tech, some U.S. media reported the gunman was a Chinese student. Later, the U.S. police identified the gunman who killed 32 people as a student from the Republic of Korea, Cho Seung-Hui. Calling the mass shooting a "very serious" incident, Liu said it was a terribly wrong move to give irresponsible reports before finding out the truth, which had violated the professional moral of the press. The Chinese government and people are very concerned about this incident and lamented the deaths, the spokesman said, adding China expresses sincere sympathy and condolences to the families of the victims as well as the injured, hoping they will recover at an early date. Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing conveyed condolences to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice over the shooting in a telegram Tuesday, expressing sincere concern to the U.S. government and those affected by the shooting. Monday's shooting rampage is the deadliest mass shooting in the U.S. history. Liu Jianchao said on Tuesday evening China is "shocked" by the tragedy and strongly condemns the violence. -- Original Source: XINHUA Online, China http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-04/18/content_5993865.htm
Editorial: UCLA needs emergency notification system now
Friday, May 18, 2007 UCLA and university police proved Wednesday that, far from their recent assurances of campus safety, their emergency response does not provide nearly enough immediate notification, leaving the campus unaware of possible danger. Around 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, local authorities received reports of an individual in the possession of some sort of weapon - possibly a rifle - in Westwood's North Village. The reports sent a swarm of Los Angeles Police Department cruisers to the North Village. Cars blocked several streets in an attempt to control traffic and prevent individuals from walking into potentially dangerous areas. About three blocks away, UCLA continued to go about its business as if there were not a care in the world. In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, it is remarkable - and unacceptable - that any immediate danger to the UCLA community was not communicated promptly to the entire campus. Given the recent announcements and assurances made by UCLA officials regarding campus safety, it is natural to think the university would have a short-term plan in place to deal with emergencies until a more comprehensive plan were in effect. Thankfully, the individual was not in possession of a rifle, but rather a crossbow, and no one was injured. But the situation could have been very different - and more dangerous - based on the initial reports. In a recent public meeting, Acting Chancellor Norman Abrams addressed how UCPD has been prepared for active-shooter situations since the 1999 Columbine shootings, so we know the police do have a plan in place. Of course, it is not expected that at the slightest hint of danger UCLA would break out megaphones, sound alarms and call in the National Guard. But to leave the community completely in the dark until more than an hour after the incident is over is simply unacceptable, and the university should be working more vigorously with UCPD to develop a response plan for reports of danger in and around UCLA. As it was, many students, faculty and staff were left completely unaware of the situation unless they were at a computer to check either the UCPD or the Daily Bruin Web site for breaking news updates. By the end of the day, the only notification of the incident sent to any members of the UCLA community came in the form of an e-mail by K.C. Kainsinger, UCPD emergency medical services manager, sent to the Campus Safety listserv at 4:33 p.m., well after the incident had been resolved. One wonders why the one resource available to administrators - a campus-wide mass e-mail - was not utilized earlier to alert students, staff and faculty to the situation, a resource which could kill two birds with one stone by dispelling rumors about the incident simultaneously. In the end, regardless of the endless reasons UCLA officials can provide in order to explain the response - or lack thereof - there is really no excuse. The bottom line is that there was a potentially dangerous situation very near UCLA, in the heart of the off-campus student community, and both UCLA and UCPD did nothing to proactively alert campus community members. This needs to change immediately. It is understandable that a stronger plan for emergency response is in the works, but basic responses, such as campus-wide notification, need to be in place now. -- Original Source: The Daily Bruin - May 18, 2007
Aug. 20, 2007 Anytime a tragedy occurs we ask ourselves how it could have happened and how it can be prevented from ever happening again. So in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre, gun rights advocates began calling for the repealing of bans on carrying concealed weapons on school campuses. The national organization of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus is one such group. There are eight chapters of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus in Texas, the most of any state. Current Texas law forbids the carrying of concealed weapons in places like school campuses, places of worship and government property -- even if a person is licensed to carry. Arlington senior Andrew Sugg, head of Baylor's SCCC chapter, seeks to make it possible for students to arm themselves at Baylor. Groups like these have to use circular logic to reach their conclusions. Because a deranged individual brought guns onto campus, Sugg and others believe they should be allowed to bring theirs in order to protect themselves. What the gun lobby conveniently forgets is that the mental history of Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho should have prevented him from ever obtaining a gun in the first place. Cho's mental history was recognized by a Virginia court in 2005, and due to inconsistencies between federal and state law, he was not entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The problem is not with the laws, but with the ability of the system to work properly. If it did, Cho would not have been able to purchase a gun and the conversation may not have gone in this direction. While it is clear that the response time of Virginia Tech's campus police was inadequate, this does not mean we should allow anyone who has gone through a criminal history check and a safety course to be a substitute for law enforcement. This vigilante attitude of circumventing the responsibility of law enforcement could potentially create many serious problems. The majority of people who receive licenses to carry concealed weapons are responsible individuals, but they do not receive nearly the same level of training to handle situations that police do. Although they do not receive the same amount of press coverage as a school shooting, accidents involving guns are far more common. According to the Centers for Disease Control, there were 776 accidental deaths and 75,685 injuries from firearms in 2001. It would be naÃ¯ve to say that if bans on guns at these locations are repealed, there would be no accidents as a result. The purpose of banning concealed weapons in certain places is because the state has a responsibility to ensure the safety of its citizens in those locations. How wise would it be to allow someone to carry a concealed weapon to a stadium? A church? Better yet, how about an airport? Baylor police chief Jim Doak was quoted in Baylor Line magazine saying it would be "unwise" to lift campus bans. We couldn't agree more. Baylor SCCC has good intentions at heart -- making campus safer. But before we arm ourselves, there are other steps we can take that are both easier to implement and less double-edged. One step is to have better emergency planning. School lockdowns for threats are commonplace at our nation's high schools -- the capacity for emergency response should be no different in colleges. Another step is to better enforce the laws and have tighter background checks. Too many loopholes in state and federal laws are allowing people who shouldn't be able to, to get guns. Even if state laws are changed, Baylor as a private institution has the right to ban concealed weapons on its own. We hope it continues to keep its rules in place, even if state schools allow concealed carry on their campuses. -- Original Source: Baylor University http://www.baylor.edu/Lariat/news.php?action=story&story=46387
April 27, 2007 By Editorial Board It is a tough line to walk: simultaneously respecting those affected by tragedy and reassuring the community in a time of crisis. This year has seen numerous examples of the administration's sincere efforts to negotiate that line with the handful of student suicides and most recently with its response to Stanford students on the Virginia Tech shootings. But in each of those cases, we wish the administration would have spoken directly to all of us, or in instances in which they did, perhaps spoken sooner. An unknown number of classmates have taken their lives this year with no acknowledgement at all by the administration. Last week, it was more than 24 hours until we received an official response to the Virginia Tech tragedy. Undoubtedly, many factors go into the process for announcing a death in the community or responding to a tragedy at another school. In phone and email conversations, Director of University Communications Alan Acosta and Vice Provost for Student Affairs Greg Boardman said that the issue of family privacy rights should not be overlooked. While Acosta acknowledged that "there are a number of things you have to do right away" when dealing with tragedy, we don't understand entirely how the University's support network of Counseling and Psychological Services, the Bridge Peer Counseling Center or the Office of Religious Life assists students who are merely trying to determine if the rumor of their classmate's death is true or not. This year alone, rumors of numerous suicides plagued the student body, and in those times it was hard to find a student who really knew the truth of what was happening at Stanford. Boardman's email to the student body the day after the Virginia Tech shooting was appreciated. Students needed to hear his support â€” we just wish it had come a little earlier. Those who live and work here expect Stanford to be there for them. The student body was never notified after some suicides. We do not expect a front-page story in the Stanford Report from the administration, but we do hope for a brief message to acknowledge a friend has passed away. Comments on this article: Stupid editorial - 4/27/07 What exactly is the editorial board asking for? The administration to send out mass e-mails detailing every aspect of a community member's death? The Stanford News Service already acknowledges (in a tasteful way!) Stanford community members who pass away. Maybe it was a slow news day today, but the Stanford Daily needs to realize that a student death is a rare occurrence, but if one does occur, the utmost sensitivity is required and respect for the families should be a top priority. This is obvious to everyone but those intrepid Daily writers? We need to remember that these are very private, delicate matters and families might not wish to broadcast all kinds of details to the world. That is perfectly understandable and, absent any danger to campus safety or any other issue that might require the immediate attention of the campus at large, there is no reason why the widespread dissemination of all details surrounding a particular death ought to be required for Stanford News Service. The following line from the editorial is particularly ridiculous: "This year alone, rumors of numerous suicides plagued the student body, and in those times it was hard to find a student who really knew the truth of what was happening at Stanford." So the paper is basing this whole editorial on rumors? What evidence does the paper have that a particular death was never acknowledged by the administration? Sometimes it seems like the Stanford Daily editorials are written hastily and with little regard for common sense. Re: Stupid editorial - 4/27/07 I totally agree that this is a stupid editorial. The Stanford Daily was recently criticized for a long delay before they reported the death of Mo Morsette. And even when they did report it, it was not the top story of the day. It looks like, after some soul searching, the editorial board has decided that Stanford Administration is to blame, because the administration doesn't acknowledge student deaths quickly enough. After all, if someone doesn't tell the Stanford Daily that there's a death on campus, then how are they supposed to know? It's not like they're a NEWSPAPER with JOURNALISTS who are supposed to so FOOTWORK before they print stories. Daily is grasping at straws - 4/27/07 The Daily's editorials have been going downhill for quite a while now. This one is perhaps one of their worst ever. What exactly is the benefit of criticizing the administration's response to the VT massacre? Brave Editorial - 4/27/07 Stupid Editorial, it's your kind of overly sensitive, well-meaning but ultimately silly thinking that lets Bush get away with banning the media from soldier's funerals. I can understand respecting the family's privacy, but Mo Morsette was also a fellow member of this community - I would expect a complete investigation into what led him to take his own life, not in the interest of airing dirty laundry, but in the interest of helping other people who feel the same emotions that plagued him. This school is an intense psychological environment filled people whose incredible intelligence often dovetails with complete social maladjustment - it does not reflect well on Stanford to sweep things like this under the rug in the interest of "privacy." -- Original Source: Stanford Daily - April 27, 2007
Permissions granted by James Hohmann Editor-in-Chief The Stanford Daily <jhohmann@stanford.edu>
More gun control doesn't infringe on right to bear arms By: Editorial Board Posted: 4/23/07 It took little time for the journalists and political pundits to start talking gun control. This editorial is not just about last week's Virginia Tech shooting. It's also about the North Mecklenburg High School student who brought a gun on campus last Wednesday, threatened two other students and then left and shot himself. It's about the rumors of a planned shooting that circulated around Orange County High School last Friday and about the student who killed his father, then injured two others at that same school last fall. This editorial isn't about the Second Amendment or taking away Americans' right to bear arms. It's about how to keep guns away from those who are unfit to use them. It's about taking away an easy means of suicide for the roughly 16,000 Americans who killed themselves with a firearm in 2004. It's about limiting the 14,000 murdered by guns in 2005 and the 650 fatal accidents the year before. One reason to study history is to avoid making the same mistakes as in the past. Stricter gun control laws might not prevent tragedy from striking, but they can make it far less likely. Even simple regulations such as background checks can make a huge difference. If somebody has a history of mental illness, that should certainly show up in a background check and prevent that person from buying a gun. And there is no sense in destroying information gathered during those checks after 24 hours, as is mandated by national law, when, in some states, that person can return to buy another gun 30 days later. A comprehensive registration system of gun owners would not hurt anyone but criminals. In Texas, residents do not need a permit to own a gun and do not have to register their firearms. The authorities don't even know how many guns are in the state. In addition, 80 percent of prisoners who own guns received their gun from family or a friend or bought it on the street or illegally. These person-to-person transactions go unrecorded. Automatic and semiautomatic weapons - for instance, a 9 mm Glock - only are available to police in almost every other country. You can buy an AK-47 online for $379.99, and nobody in their right mind - and certainly nobody not in their right mind - needs one of those. The assault-weapons ban, which expired in 2004, should be renewed. Gun-related crime has fallen since the mid-1990s, but rose sharply again in 2005. Unfortunately, the rates are still exorbitantly high. The gun-murder rate in America is more than 30 times that of England. Tighter gun control won't necessarily bring that down. If somebody has a strong enough inclination to kill another, that person likely will find a gun regardless of how strong the restrictions are, but it sure won't hurt to conduct thorough background checks and ban automatic weapons. We're not trying to take away Americans' rights to hunt or own a gun in case anyone feels the need to start a militia and revolt against tyranny. But nobody should complain if America is a safer place. -- Original Source: The Daily Tar Heel - April 23, 2007
By: Editorial Board Posted: 4/19/07 With the tragedy that occurred on the Virginia Tech campus on Monday we are forced to ask hard questions about the safety of students here at UR. Surely, as statistics show, we live on a very safe campus, even given the large city to which we are adjacent. Students are kept safe by a very respected and well-trained team of Security officers and a very thorough Security system, which includes blue light phones, among other precautions. But given the recent violence, our placement as a University surrounded by a large city and our ever-expanding campus, which includes URMC and the Brooks Landing project in the 19th Ward among other areas, is the current level of security enough to protect the thousands at UR? Further, is the current level of training and certification that our Security officers have enough given the jobs we ask them to assume? Currently, Security officers are severely limited in the actions they can take by their current level of training and certification. They cannot make arrests, investigate crimes, set up traffic stops or access criminal records to check for warrants. They carry no offensive or defensive weapons with them, lethal or non-lethal - that means no guns, nightsticks, mace or stun guns. Rather, they are expected to carry out their duties with just handcuffs and possibly a flashlight. The jobs of Security officers often put them in harm's way. They deal with affiliated and non-affiliated people on the UR campus every day. This includes violent criminals at Strong Memorial Hospital along with other potentially violent people in all of their patrol areas, including Brooks Landing or even the Fraternity Quad on a normal social night. Yet, in the presence of violence, Security officers are expected to detain the person with just the handcuffs they carry and just wait for RPD to arrive. It is simply not safe for anyone affiliated with UR to have the first responders to any scene, violent or not, unprotected and severely limited in the actions they can take. No matter what RPD's response time is to the scene, having to wait for the police to arrive takes valuable minutes while people are potentially in severe danger. We cannot expect this system to keep the students, or the Security officers, safe any longer. -- Original Source:Campus Times - April 19, 2007
Alexander Moeller <amoeller@mail.rochester.edu>
Our View is prepared by the Editorial Board which operates independently from the newsroom. By The Editorial Board On April 20, 1999, the United States watched in horror as the shootings at Columbine High School unfolded and sparked a series of high school violence that has ensued in the years after. As the shock of the initial shooting subsided, educators and students across the country scrambled to both understand and prepare themselves for this new and horrifying threat in American education. In the wake of last week's tragedy at Virginia Tech we can relate the emotion and logic of our response to Columbine as we struggle with the processes of grieving, understanding and preparing ourselves to trudge forward. While we will never entirely understand Seung-Hui Cho's motivation, feelings of anguish flood our mind as we try to comprehend the progression of his deadly thought-process. Although it is extremely difficult to find comfort following the deaths of so many, we can see as we did eight years ago that perhaps our best tools in the grieving process are overcoming and preparing as best we can for such events. Key to our understanding of these tragedies, is our attention to their most obvious similarities. The gunmen of Columbine, Virginia Tech and other schools across the country all felt they were waging a personal war with the world. While we are angry at them for their actions, if we can set aside those emotions and view them as victims of psychological disorders and an increasingly impersonal society, we can better grasp what led to these horrors. In doing such, we form a deep respect for our individual ability to prevent these atrocities by consciously guiding ourselves in being more aware, respectful and interactive with people we see on a daily basis. Our generation and the generations that will follow, live in a world where technological advancements allow us to move so rapidly that we can leave individuals behind and not even notice. While preventing these events must be our priority, we must also prepare for our reaction if they occur. Here at UMD for example, we can install locks on our classroom doors, public address systems, electronic command stations, etc. We can also publish lock-down procedures and ensure every campus community member knows what to do if anything were to happen. As we grieve for the victims of Virginia Tech, let us also move forward by devoting our individual and collective selves to preventing and preparing for a similar disaster. The most effective tool in ensuring our health and safety, which should be our number one priority, is not any piece of technology. Rather, it is our own attention to the people in the world around us. EDITORIAL BOARD: Karin Gelschus ~ Content Editor Joshua Newville ~ Editorial Writer Anna Woodwick ~ New Writers Editor -- Original Source:The Statesman - April 26, 2007
Statesman Editor-in-Chief Desk - Suraj Rambhia <eic@sbstatesman.org>