Thoughts about Virginia Tech.

Virginia Tech student Cho Seung-Hui went on a rampage, killing two individuals in a dormitory before casually walking to another campus building and killing 30 more, then himself. His murderous act ranks as the worst shooting spree in our country in modern times. The burning question on many minds is simple: could this tragedy have been prevented--or at least minimized? And the answer is that attempts were made to deal with this obviously unbalanced individual, but reasonable warnings were ignored, and some who knew him were not surprised when his identity as the killer was discovered.

Nearly every day, we are given grim details about more suicide bombers in Iraq. What these reports tell us is that there are people who are willing to die in order to kill others. In Iraq, they do so for a different reason than did Cho Seung-Hui. But that there are such people can hardly be denied. Charles Whitman killed people indiscriminately at the University of Texas in 1966. James Huberty did likewise in 1984 at a fast-food restaurant in San Ysidro, California. George Hennard went on his killing spree in Killeen, Texas, in 1991. And who can forget the 13 dead and 24 wounded who were victims of teenagers Klebold and Harris at Columbine High School in 1999?

How does one protect oneself from someone whose goal is to take the lives of others even at the cost of his own? Sadly, the answer is that it is virtually impossible to stop such a person. Identifying and treating those who will kill for whatever reason is difficult in the extreme. What can be hoped is that some action--taken boldly and competently after a rampage has begun--will lessen the toll of dead and wounded.

The university has been badgered for not alerting the 25,000 students and their faculty that a killer was on the loose. Everyone needs to get off the university's back. After Cho had murdered two, schools officials immediately sought the wrong suspect. They had every reason to believe that, as bad as two deaths were, there would be no more. That they were wrong is obvious. When the killing resumed on the other side of the campus two hours later, an alert was sent to the student body. It was too late.

Cho was known to some as a seriously unstable individual. The head of the English Department knew of his fascination with evil and went to school authorities asking for help, even to the campus police. In late 2005, Lucinda Roy, that department head, actually removed him from class and taught him one-on-one for a time, to no avail. At her request, the request of two coeds who were unnerved by the eventual killer, and the plea of a second instructor who refused to allow the man to be in class because of his bizarre behavior, Cho was referred to a mental health agency off campus. He was determined to be mentally ill by a doctor, but he was further diagnosed as not an imminent danger to others. A judge refused to commit him because no threat to others had been demonstrated to his satisfaction.

So, there was indication that Cho was disturbed. But the laws leave no recourse until some criminal act is committed. Maggie Olona is the national president of the Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors and the head of student counseling at Texas A&M University. Her attitude regarding Cho should be considered by all who are looking to fix blame. She stated: "They said there were signs. There can be signs but it's not a crime to be odd. There is nothing we can do if someone doesn't give us evidence to act." In simple terms, nothing can be done until an "odd" person commits a crime. That he was odd was dramatically confirmed by the video that arrived at NBC television after his killing spree.

As is always the case, the anti-gun enthusiasts aimed the blame at guns for the tragedy. Their very tired argument puts the onus on the guns possessed by Cho, not on the man himself. But what if some of the victims, either students or teachers, had had a gun when Cho confronted them? Might there be fewer victims? Virginia Tech outlaws guns on campus. Cho was surely aware that he would face no armed opposition as he vented his extremely distorted attitude on 32 others. The ban against bringing guns on campus didn't stop him. Nor is it likely to stop any other deranged or criminal mind. Cho also likely knew that a measure that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died during the 2006 Virginia General Assembly.

If there's a lesson to be learned from this tragedy, and from similar tragedies, it is that no noncriminal should ever be denied the right to defend himself. The situation that developed at Virginia Tech could have been minimized by someone taking action against Cho. Of course, no one should be forced to carry a gun. But no one should be barred from having one either.