I would disagree with this statement "That's what they're designed for - a weapon to direct an explosive in attack against some physical body/structure to penetrate to kill (for consumption), destroy, seize power, control" the opposite is also true, they are for protection, to regain control to defend. As long as government has guns, so should the populace, else you get government run amok.

Also the problem with the young mans commitment, since the psychiatrist didn't commit the young man, he was able to buy a gun. So no the federal law didn't apply because the commitment wasn't upheld. if there is an outside fault, its that dang psych who was not able to see the problem here. well imo.

"the opposite is also true, they are for protection, to regain control to defend."

Not really, they weren't initially designed to defend or protect - walls were built for those purposes, and regaining control is a counter-attack.

Obtaining guns for self defense (with the intention to use as such is then really for purpose of counter-attack) occurs after the notion that some perceived threat of attack has already arisen - arming self in defense is a thought-after-the-fact, based in a fear some sort of deprivation will occur.
And fear can & does lead to irrational behaviour of varying extremes.

We saw with this young man what happens when someone feels under constant threat of attack - in fear - in his case to a paranoid extreme (severe self-esteem problems, all fault projected on his perceived aggressors), who, to put an end to this perceived threat, went on the attack in a highly organized/methodical manner.

From "The Anatomy of Motive", by John Douglas and his associate, Mark Olshaker, the chapter entitled "Shadow of a Gunman" that I saw online:

"Assassin personalities tend to be white male [add in: not limited to white males] loners with self-esteem problems - no surprises there, since that describes a huge chunk of the violent predator population. More specifically, they tend to be functional paranoiacs.

They shouldn't be confused with paranoid schizophrenics, who have a serious psychosis often described as shattered personality.

The people we're dealing with may be delusional, but they're not hallucinatory. Rather, their paranoia may be described as a highly organized or methodical delusional system...

In other words, if you accept the basic (but delusional) premise that everyone is out to get a particular individual and is ready and able to do harm, then it becomes a convincing argument that this individual should strike out and neutralize these enemies before they can act against him.

Sometimes the delusional system will be based on a kernel of truth, but there will be no correlation between the defined problem and the action taken to deal with it."


and ...

"Assassins try to "compensate for what they see, either consciously or subconsciously, as their emotional shortcomings...

"One of the most common way, as you might suspect, is gun fetishism... they begin to stockpile weapons and ammunition.
[ed. note: While it is still unknown whether Cho had more guns than the 2 he used in the shooting, it was found that he had more than 320 rounds of ammunition stored in his car. They haven't even thoroughly investigated his dorm room or house yet. It would not be surprising if more was found.]

"The gun is a means of empowering this inadequate personality, ensuring them that when they want to, they can attain our three old standbys of manipulation, domination, and control".

"As long as government has guns, so should the populace, else you get government run amok."

The general populace should get guns - be armed with weapons - because they're afraid of what the government might do some time down the track?

Civilians can hold a government in check and force it to act responsibly (according to who's vsn of responsibility?) by holding a gun to its head - either by way of the threat implied or in reality?
Who then does that make the tyrant?

An action based upon a fear that the government will run amok and turn the military upon its own people?
Why would it do that?

That also appears reflective of the grand trine in the event chart. At some point in time there's a requirement to pass beyond Mars, and come to terms with Saturn.

Guns in the hands of the populace for this reason is self-defeating.

A general populace already exhibiting numerous divisions doesn't stop or prevent (by way of possessing such a threat) its government from running amok.

A general populace armed with weapons, unorganized, untrained and largely unskilled in combat stands little to no chance against a well trained and organized national military who are skilled in the arts of war and on call by the administration. The national military knows the local terrain just as well, if not better, and they're better equipped on all fronts.

The populace would come unstuck (it's the tax payer's dollar that funds military training, gvt throws lots of money at that area).
If such a thing was to occur, then the populace fragments into guerilla bands of militants.

An alternative way of tempering a government - aside from the election process etc - is for the public purse to dry up, to stop supporting and financing its efforts. Taxpayers money is what gvt draws upon to do what it wants and needs to do, including the keeping and provision of a military.

What is somewhat disturbing about this notion though is that if this is a prevalent idea, then the people holding to that idea are living in a constant state of fear and tension inside their own borders, on constant defensive against each other and against the various states and administrators, not united under democracy (forget what's going on overseas, problem's at home).

People buckle under such tension.

And any notions of peace are unattainable under such conceptions, it's one that simply perpetuates and spreads fear and ultimately results in wars ... within individuals, between individuals, within communities, between communities so on and so forth as people are on the defensive, constantly vigilant, reacting to real or imagined fears. And if re-acting, then already on the backfoot.

If it's for personal self-defense of another kind, well having a gun is close to futile if someone's already pointing one at you.

And in the event of an attack, aside from the element of surprise, the attacker if physically larger etc can by sheer force often quite easily over-power someone smaller with less strength, lacking confidence in such a situation, and turn the weapon against the one who holds it. In unskilled and untrained hands many mistakes get made.

Knowing one's own physical capabilities via a proper self defense course or the discipline of learning a martial art is as effective a form of self defense as any - if not moreso, because it genuinely increases self confidence and self esteem, and this self esteem is in itself often a natural deterant to predators who look for vulnerability, instinctively can sense it.

For the purpose of defending, any number of things can be turned against an unexpected attacker and stop them in their tracks.

For someone to extend their physical capabilities artificially before they know what they themselves are personally physically and mentally capable of in such situations is more of a liability than an advantage.

However, I don't see anything here so far that gives a reason for why there shouldn't be uniform gun controls which allow those with an interest in guns to pursue that interest safely and responsibly without posing a risk to other people, but gets many of the loose and dangerous arms floating around out of circulation.

"if there is an outside fault, its that dang psych who was not able to see the problem here."

This young man's actions were the result of an accumulation of events over time which at no point did anyone bring to a halt.

For example, how is it that a judge's report that he was an imminent danger to himself and others didn't make it into his record?

"The magistrate ruled in 2005 that Cho presented ?an imminent danger to self or others as a result of mental illness, or is so seriously mentally ill as to be substantially unable to care for self and is incapable of volunteering or unwilling to volunteer for treatment.?

The magistrate released him for outpatient treatment.

"The same 1968 federal gun law that bars convicted criminals from buying firearms (passed in the wake of the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy) also prohibits gun purchases by those who have a history of mental illness. Indeed, when Cho bought the guns, he had to answer the following question on Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Form 4473: ?Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective or ? committed to a mental institution?? Cho answered ?no.?
"He should have been in the FBI?s NICS system, but apparently states don?t always provide mental-health records as fully as they might or should."

Two girls put out a restraining order against him.

He purchased the gun from an on-line gun dealer who shipped it to the Pawnbrokers ... after the purchase did the federally-licensed dealer conduct a background check (CBS).

And then there's the concept of "if you see something suspicious report it".

A proliferation of guns in a community circulating for reasons of fear about what might be hidden around the next corner is a precursor to an extreme manifestation of this fear ... which is what this young man manifested ... it's also a fear that's manifesting by way of killing the equivalent of it would appear 1 US town per year.

That's not really public protection.

And obtaining a gun because of fear doesn't demonstrate courage, actually quite the opposite, it reveals more about how fearful a person has become, and to extend that, a community etc.

No amount of guns are going to eliminate such fear.

If someone's really intent on carrying out a particular mission, they will find a way of doing so using whatever means are available. For example, the suicide bomber who penetrated 8 lines of US forces security checkpoints to blow up Parliament.

More guns in circulation aren't going to prevent them doing so, just gives them more opportunity to get their hands on a means to an end.

Paying attention, listening and responsibly following through at the appropriate time it appears would've largely circumvented this escalation.

Kind regards,
TS

Hi Gunhilde,

"I just think the fabric of the world is somehow ... stretching... "

I think that's a great way of describing it.

Might also be of interest at some stage to take a look into what larger cycles of time are culminating.

Cabbage Patch dolls?! Lol!!! I remember those, they seem to have disappeared.

"to somehow change the collective worldview that there is no need to have them"

Yes, I agree, how people view needs - and what's needed - is key.
All it takes is a moment, starts with a thought, an idea, and ideas can be changed ... that's everyone's prerogative!

People are free to choose, and free to experience the consequences of those choices, as well as the cumulative consequences of those choices - made individually & collectively. If the consequences are destructive, better choices can be made.

Kind regards,
TS.

We saw with this young man what happens when someone feels under constant threat of attack - in fear - in his case to a paranoid extreme

Attack? Who attacked him in such a manner that required this kind of response? There is an excellent little essay on the last page of the April 30, 2007, issue of Time magazine by David Von Drehle. His point is that after such horrific events people are always looking for excuses for the behavior such as guns, video games, movies, pornography, music, bullying, alienation etc. The real culprit according to the author is "raging narcissism." A narcissism so profound that the killers whose concern for the lives and feelings for others are completely absent and believe therefore, they have a license to kill them. They're just bugs.

Cho is such a case. We are told of his terrible lonliness yet ignore the oft repeted fact that when people spoke to him or approached him he would usually refuse to answer them. Of course he was lonely and alienated. He chose to be that way.

He has this characteristic in common with Ted Bundy, who once expressed surprise that anyone would miss his victims, Charles Manson, and Harris and Kliebold of Columbine infamy. They all are or were totally self-absorbed.

If anyone wants to do some astrology with this, then I suggest looking for indications of exreme narcissism, self pity, and other symptoms of self absorption, if those can be found. Freud argued that narcissism in adults was a result of the refusal to grow up. That might be another clue. Babies are completely self absorbed (and understandably so). We're expected to grow out of that. What might prevent that development?

Tom

Tom,

Attack? Who attacked him in such a manner that required this kind of response?

There was not any mention of anyone attacking him in what you grabbed, ie.

--"We saw with this young man what happens when someone feels under constant threat of attack - in fear - in his case to a paranoid extreme (severe self-esteem problems, all fault projected on his perceived aggressors), who, to put an end to this perceived threat, went on the attack in a highly organized/methodical manner." --

Narcissm is usually a character trait of "self love".
To all reports I've encountered this person was on the defensive, described as a loner (loner's have defenses up, shutting self off from others) which also can give rise to over-compensatory behaviour when drawn, ie. the arrogance reported also an over-compensatory defense for low self esteem (his frequent repetitions on video of not being good enough for x,y,z).

Low self esteem is not usually a trait of self love, more a trait of a lack of self love and self respect, and he also took himself out of the picture, committing suicide.

In the videos he forwarded he raged against what he saw in his own mind as wealth and symbols of wealth etc of others, what for example Christopher Lasch in his book "The Culture of Narcism" defined as "one in which every activity and relationship is defined by the hedonistic need to acquire the symbols of material wealth" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism.

Whether Cho's fears were a result of what had occurred in physical reality or imagined, it was also reported he was bullied for speech difficulties through middle and high school years - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre - many overcome such difficulties and being bullied, others don't.

Kind regards,
TS.

when someone feels under constant threat of attack - in fear - in his case to a paranoid extreme

That was my point. He was not attacked. That he felt under attack is a sign of mental illness, not an excuse for mass murder. One could argue that he sufferred ridicule at the hands of high school classmates, but who hasn't? His actions weren't self-defense, they were calculated, he probably didn't know a single one of his victims, and any sense of attack is therefore quite irrelevant to his actions. He wanted attention and rejected it, pehaps as insufficient. Maybe he wanted to be worshipped.

Narcissm is usually a character trait of "self love".

Couldn't disagree more. Self love or even self respect does not reach the extremes of the viewpoint that the only thing that matters is oneself (narcissism). A mother can experience and feel self love, but she might still be willing to sacrifce herself for a child. A narcissist wouldn't dream of that; he's too important. In several hours of interviews, Ted Bundy expressed regret over only one death - his own. Lee Harvey Oswald believed he would be "Prime Minister of the United States." It's one thing to love yourself. It is quite another to love yourself to the exclusion of all else.

To all reports I've encountered this person was on the defensive, described as a loner (loner's have defenses up, shutting self off from others) which also can give rise to over-compensatory behaviour when drawn, ie. the arrogance reported also an over-compensatory defense for low self esteem (his frequent repetitions on video of not being good enough for x,y,z).

While all of this and more is probably true the point of my post which is really the point of the author in Time is that these are the trees that block our view of the forest. It was not others' fault that Cho was what he was. He believed that his suffering, his pain, his lonliness (Nobody knows the trouble I've seen) must be dealt with by spilling the blood of others then his own. He chose to shut himself off from the society of others. Others reached out to him and he rejected them. He rejected psychological help. Privacy and other laws prevented forced intervention. He had only himself to blame. The genuine victims of his madness have a better case against a society that protected him at the extreme expense of innocent lives lost.

Low self esteem is not usually a trait of self love, more a trait of a lack of self love and self respect, and he also took himself out of the picture, committing suicide.

a) Self esteem is the most overrated human characteristic. Test after test has shown that career criminals have the highest "self esteem." Most recently it was reproted that only 9% of Korean kids (I think 5th graders) felt "confident" about their math ability compared to 39% of American kids the same age. The Americans had higher "self esteem." Problem is that the Korean kids vastly outdid the American kids in standarized math tests. Score one for low self esteem?

b) His suicide and the murders are just a extreme expression of the childish "See what you made me do?" He compared his death to that of Jesus Christ and told us all that his blood was on "our" hands. This is not self love, but self absorption and it is not "our" fault. He needed to get over himself, and if he couldn't, then he should have been put away.

Christopher Lasch in his book "The Culture of Narcism" defined as "one in which every activity and relationship is defined by the hedonistic need to acquire the symbols of material wealth" -

Interesting that you should bring up Lasch, to wit:

"A generation ago Christopher Lasch diagnosed narcissim as the signal disorder of contemporary American culture. The cult of celebrity, the marketing of of instant gratification, skepticism toward moral codes and the politics of victimhood were signs of a society regressing toward the infant stage. You don't have to buy Freud's explanation (i.e. narcissim is the result of not growing up - tc) or Lasch's indictment, however to see an immediate danger in the way we examine the lives of mass killers. Earnestly and honestly, dectectives and journalists dig up apparent clues and weave them into a sort of explanation. In the days after Columbine, for example, Harris and Klebold emerged as alienated misfits in a jock culture of their suburban high school. We learned about their morbid taste in music and their violent video games. Largely missing though was the proper frame around the picture: the extreme narcissim that licensed these boys, in their minds, to murder teachers and classmates." David Von Drehle, Time Magazine, April 30, 2007 p 76.

Self love can be healthy; Narcissism is not. Let's go back to astrology.
Tom

Tom,

"That was my point. He was not attacked. One could argue that he sufferred ridicule at the hands of high school classmates, but who hasn't?"

There is a difference between ridicule and bullying.

http:
//www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/nationalnews/
bullied_chos_hs_death_list_nationalnews_leela_de_kretser_
in___blacksburg__va___and_hasani_______gittens_in_
new_york.htm?page=1

In view of reports, he was out for revenge.

It's already been stated that he was mentally unwell, several times.
And I haven't seen anyone making any excuses for mass murder.

"any sense of attack is therefore quite irrelevant to his actions."

Please explain how what someone feels/senses is irrelevant to their actions, to how they behave.

"A narcissist wouldn't dream of that; he's too important."

And a narcissist repeatedly seeks out avenues for validation of that importance, the extreme disorder. It appears this young man didn't, he avoided attention wherever possible.

Neither Oswald or Bundy committed suicide.

Bundy stayed around for as long as he could and Oswald was shot.

"Media outlets routinely compared Cho's motives and mental state to those of the Columbine killers, despite the fact that Harris and Klebold's motives and mental states were not even similar to each other."
http://www.slate.com/id/2099203/

Imo, his actions were more comparable to a suicide attacker/bomber ... on his own personal crusade of predatory martyrdom ... more simply - revenge - against all those who he perceived in his own mind as representing his tormentors.

Re - a) "Self esteem is the most overrated human characteristic."
Lol! Healthy self esteem is never over-rated. Thought the super-ego rated higher?
He was not a career criminal.
That Korean kids vastly outdid American kids in a standardized math test demonstrates I'm not quite sure what exactly.
That self esteem is drawn from a standardized test ... and he was somehow like all other Korean kids, which he appears to have clearly demonstrated he wasn't?

b) Any anger expressed to the detriment of others which is also to the detriment of oneself is 'childish'.

"This is not self love ... "

Seem to also recall mentioning that.

"... but self absorption and it is not "our" fault."

And fear also causes self absorption - in his case to an extreme where he completely turned, which is already something previously mentioned, ie. extreme paranoia & blaming his perceived aggressors.

"Self love can be healthy; Narcissism is not."

"The term narcissism means love of oneself, and refers to the set of character traits concerned with self-admiration, self-centeredness and self-regard. The name was chosen by Sigmund Freud, from the Greek myth of Narcissus, who was doomed to fall in love with his own reflection in a pool of water.
Whilst everyone is narcissistic to some degree, extreme narcissism can be highly dysfunctional, and is classified as a pathology called Narcissistic Personality Disorder."

"Let's go back to astrology."

I've already shared some of my thoughts on the astrology of the event, the one point in particular that stands out to me being the Jupiter rx contra-parallel (opposition) to Venus. You?

TS.

Let's go back to astrology.

After you?ve had your lengthy non-astrological say?

How about doing it rather than suggesting it to others?

Star IQ reports that Cho's birthday was Jan 18 1984 in Seoul, South Korea. Mars-Pluto conjunction in Scorpio. On Star IQ it was stated that that can be an indicator of an intense sexual drive. Any other thoughts?

After you?ve had your lengthy non-astrological say?

How about doing it rather than suggesting it to others?

How about paying attention Kirk. TS had a very lengthy non astrological remark and I followed with same. That's one apiece. And I'm not sure that you were appointed class supervisor recently.

Tom

I was going to do this privately, but Kirk insisted I do it this way:

There is a difference between ridicule and bullying.

Not much - how do you bully with dignity?. One can be part of the other and I'm not going to get into a semantics argument. Furthermore this is quite beside the point. The point was that everyone is at some time ridiculed and/or bullied and some suffer greatly but very few retaliate with mass murder. This is just the current rage in pop psychology - blaming bullies. I say we blame the killer - how quaint.

In view of reports, he was out for revenge.

He said that, and he didn't say he was trying to draw attention to himself, but so what? The guy made a videotape and sent it to a major media outlet. Now why would he do that if his motive was simple revenge against strangers, an idea that is frankly senseless. "They picked on me in high school and I refused to socialize in college, I'll fix them. I'll go kill a bunch of strangers and then myself." I don't think so.

If you're out for revenge, you pick and choose your target. You don't pick symbols. If you are just a deranged narcissist you kill anyone who is handy to draw attention to yourself It's all about you, isn't it?

It's already been stated that he was mentally unwell, several times. And I haven't seen anyone making any excuses for mass murder.

The whole idea that these killings were the result of others "bullying" or ridiculing or rejecting him is a theme that is endlessly replayed for one purpose, to in some way make rational a wholly irrational act. Once we rationalize his actions we are making excuses for him and for Harris and Klebold and Bundy, although his is a tougher case as his childhood wasn't as bad as, say, Manson's.

Please explain how what someone feels/senses is irrelevant to their actions, to how they behave.

Misundestood. It's irrelevant to me. The fact that he was bullied and to what extent does not in anyway justify or even explain his actions which, to put it mildly were way out of proportion to the injustice he felt. Woud you try to explain the relevance of his actions to parents who lost a child? And isn't it amazing how the true victims are lost in all of this? They aren't mentioned; it's all about him - the way he wanted it. Can you name a single individual or even where any of the victims were from? Of course not. He is glorified and the media and the ghouls participate in the glorification of a monster. while the pop psychologists look for someone else to blame. More than one idiot even blamed George Bush.

And a narcissist repeatedly seeks out avenues for validation of that importance, the extreme disorder. It appears this young man didn't, he avoided attention wherever possible.

Wasn't that the purpose of sending the tape to a national news network? That is one big avenue. He wasn't satisfied with simply killing people for attention. Ever been to Blacksburg, VA? It's in the middle of nowhere. He had to be sure it got on the national nightly news and NBC needed the ratings, so they helped him realize his dream.

Neither Oswald or Bundy committed suicide.

Harris and Klebold did. Not all narcissists do. So what's your point?

"Media outlets routinely compared Cho's motives and mental state to those of the Columbine killers, despite the fact that Harris and Klebold's motives and mental states were not even similar to each other."

This is again, what seems to be missed by media outlets everywhere. This is again the point of the forest and trees analogy. Harris and Klebold blamed the jock culture and the fact they were bullied. So what? Regardless of the claimed motivations they were as narcissitic as Cho, as Bundy, as Oswald. If we concentrate on bullying and other indignities real and imagined we miss the point. Klebold, Harris, and Cho killed and committed suicide to bring attention to themselves. Oswald killed to do the same. Bundy's motivations were different and he tried to avoid detection, but that doesn't make him less of a narcissist. He actually said that he was surprised his victims were missed since there are so many people in the country. The really mattered to him. The one consistent characteristic in all of these is narcissism and it is, for the most part being ignored. Instead we hear how tough they had it, and why we should feel compassion for them - precisely what the killers wanted. Why define the killers on their own terms? Why not define tem for what they are - monsters.

He was not a career criminal.

Noody said he was. I'll explain it more fully. People can have gobs of self esteem and not be good people, e.g. career criminals. People can have lower self esteem and do quite well. e.g Korean school children at math. Self esteem or lack of it explains very little by itself, and when self esteem is built on sand, it ultimately crumbles. The emphasis on self esteem without legitimate accomplishment is at best frivolous, at worst dangerous. Therefore in and of itself, "self-esteem" is wildly overrated.

And fear also causes self absorption And fear also causes self absorption - in his case to an extreme where he completely turned, which is already something previously mentioned, ie. extreme paranoia & blaming his perceived aggressors.

His fears are his responsibility. And his responsibility is noticeably lacking in most discussions. Like all crazed killers, media outlets and others looking for reasons are really looking to blame somebody else. Oh they give lip service to personal repsonsibility, but little else. The idea that Cho's problems would not have manifested if everyone else did more for him is spurious. And that is what all of this adds up to. He did it. He's responsible - no one else, and he was completely self absorbed and his video made that irrefutable.

I've already shared some of my thoughts on the astrology of the event, the one point in particular that stands out to me being the Jupiter rx contra-parallel (opposition) to Venus. You?

Had some all ready to go, but this and my friend Kirk intervened. And I'm through. You may have the last word.

Tom

A few posts back we were invited to ?do some astrology with this? and later instructed to ?go back to astrology?, so here is my eager contribution.

LaBalance wrote:

On Star IQ it was stated that that can be an indicator of an intense sexual drive.

That could be, or perhaps an intense power drive (Could be the same thing?). Mars at home in Scorpio tightly conjunct Pluto, both tightly sextile Mercury in Capricorn (exaltation of Mars) ?that looks like a potentially ruthless configuration. Well-constructed secretive plans of action. The business world would probably have been a better arena for implementation.

It?s frustrating not having the time of birth, but solar charts are a lot of fun to play with and wonder about. First is the energy charge of a Cardinal Sun-Moon opposition. That sets a punchy tone. In his Solar Sign chart Mercury is in the highly personal 1st house with the Sun, and the sextiled Mars and Pluto are in the 11th house of things hoped for. The Sun in such a chart looks toward planets in the 11th, 10th, and 9th solar houses, so the Mars-Pluto conjunction is probably going to inspire the Sun and be of use to it. The Sun is out-of-sign but applying square to them, so the solar interest is activated.

If we draw up a Sun-on-1st chart, Mercury is now in the 12th house and more unconscious, hidden and somehow alienated. Mars and Pluto have moved into the 10th house and now can produce some angular action for the Sun. I almost never look at or use semi-squares, etc., but the very close Sun-Uranus semi-square puts Uranus on the midpoint between the Sun-on-1st chart?s ASC and MC. When it comes to the Sun doing what it wants in the world there?s going to be a Uranian touch.