Hallelujah Blesses the Virginia Tech Tragedy

[Neophyte]

Tonight as MSNBC ended their program with sad images from the tragedy on the Virginia Tech campus, they played Hallelujah, a cold and broken Hallelujah. It could not have been more beautiful and touching. (Being a neophyte, I'm not sure who the singer was but am trying to trace him down.)

[lizzytysh]

Leonard's song is perfectly fitting to this tragedy. Thank you for relaying this, Neophyte.


Love,
Elizabeth

[lizzytysh]

It took me awhile, but I finally found the video you told about, Neophyte. As near as I can tell, it's the four Norwegians who are singing Hallelujah... it's one of the most poignant renderings I've heard and, in that, the best for this.


~ Lizzy

[Tchocolatl]

Sad news indeed.

As I still have this (horrified) fascination for serial killers and mass murderers (because I wonder "why?"). It appears that those mass murderers do think that they punish the corrupted humanity doing this (who the hell do they think they are, I wonder). Certainly, corrupted people exist in this world, but it seems that their (innocent) victims of the fate are always great people with potential. Just too sad and bad. What a blind "justice" they are doing.

In the melting pot that U.S.A. are, there is a French teacher from Montréal being one of the 32 victims and also a Romanian-Israelian teacher of 75 who I consider a hero, because he blocked the door to the killer to protect his students.

No other song could have been more appropriate.

[Birdonawire]

A tragedy beyond comprehension.

I personally find it difficult to believe, or more to the point, understand (not that I claim to know much on the subject of mental health in any case) how this person really saw those he killed as the 'corrupted' ones. Could it be that he acted moreso out of feelings of jealously and isolation, rather than any sick form of misguided retribution?

The U.S. gun laws must be changed. I understand well the argument from the advocates of the 'Freedom to bear arms' clause in the American Constitution, and that it is 'not the gun that kills, but the person holding it.' But times have changed. There is no longer a reasonable need for everyone to have a personal firearm. I agree that the responsibility lies with the holder of the gun and (obviously) not the weapon itself, but one must admit, ease of access to firearms is a, if not THE main contributing factor behind the SCALE of disasters such as this. It may seem obvious but if he did not have such easy access to firearms not nearly as many people's lives would be destroyed.

I wonder how Leonard would respond, knowing his song was used in this way? I imagine he would feel it was very appropriate, as i'm sure most here do.

Eric.

[lizzytysh]

But times have changed. There is no longer a reasonable need for everyone to have a personal firearm.

I agree. To make it worse, in Florida now, if you feel threatened, you have the right to fire.

Hunting guns are one thing. Personal firearms are another. He had a glock or two. Or a glock and something else.


~ Lizzy

[Birdonawire]

That's incredible. How do you adequately define 'feeling threatened' in a way that can justify shooting someone? It can be such a loose and subjective term. The law seems to be moving in reverse!

I think one of the guns he had was a semi-automatic handgun. Being from Ireland I find it difficult to understand how easy it can be to get guns in the States. It's next to impossible to legally aquire firearms here. Don't get me wrong, I'm no prude when it comes to guns. I've always had a fascination with firearms because they can be such beautifully crafted pieces, and I'm considering joining my local clay pigeon shooting club. But if I ever decided to get a gun of my own, it will remain securely locked-up in the gun club. There is no need for guns in the home, and I certainly would never have one in mine.

Eric.

[lizzytysh]

Hi Eric ~

Yes, it really is incredible. It was a law only fairly recently passed... and the subjectivity issue is what was so alarming, with many expecting everything to descend to the vigilante level. Somehow, that hasn't seemed to happen. Yet.

I need to get rid of a box of bullets I have in my bedroom. If my house were to catch fire, my bedroom might explode. When I felt personally threatened about five years ago, police/sheriff's office urged me to take a gun course and buy a gun... "Everyone should have one... "

I did and completed the course; very well, in fact... however, I could never bring myself to buy a gun. The law of attraction and all that... the negative energy of the gun attracting the negative energy of people... trouble that might never otherwise have come into my life. It's how I've always felt... though those same officers assured me that I would rue the day I decided against buying one, if I were ever subjected to an intruder. Tough decisions... but you gotta do what you feel most comfortable with, right? I don't feel comfortable with a gun... and now that I've remembered that those bullets are still there, I'll be removing them once and for all, too. Not feeling comfortable with a gun can make you dangerous to yourself, anyway. It's a dreadful topic, really. Think I'll stop here.


~ Lizzy

[Neophyte]

It took me awhile, but I finally found the video you told about, Neophyte. As near as I can tell, it's the four Norwegians who are singing Hallelujah... it's one of the most poignant renderings I've heard and, in that, the best for this.


~ Lizzy

Thank you so much for your response, Lizzy! I do believe you're right. I never thought of them last night when I was searching and was so disappointed when I couldn't find a match. You're a great researcher---found the video on the MSNBC site? I agree with everyone that this song was most perfect for this sorrowful occasion. Thank you , Leonard.

[lizzytysh]

Hi Neophyte ~

You're a great researcher---found the video on the MSNBC site?

Yes, I did find it on the MSNBC site... however, an hour and eight minutes of looking makes me a rather lacklustre researcher, though clearly a determined one. There were a lot of possibilities and I met with many dead ends; yet, like YouTube, they seemed to produce other possibilities. I finally got there, though. I did some reading of various things, as I went, but it was mostly searching and watching.

One of the many things that can be said about Leonard's songs is that he incorporates both the light and the dark. I have a feeling that as horrifying as these events were, he's still grateful to have written something that they were able to able to put to such noble use in honouring these fallen people.

The two, short plays and now the mail package of writings, photos, and footage that the gunman sent to NBC is chilling beyond belief. It's all very twisted.


~ Lizzy

[lizzytysh]

Hi Eric ~

I went and got some concrete information for you, via a couple articles:

Fla. Gun Law to Expand Leeway for Self-Defense
NRA to Promote Idea in Other States

By Manuel Roig-Franzia
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 26, 2005; Page A01

MIAMI -- It is either a Wild West revival, a return to the days of "shoot first and ask questions later," or a triumph for the "Castle Doctrine" -- the notion that enemies invade personal space at their peril.

Such dueling rhetoric marked the debate over a measure that Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) could sign as early as Tuesday. The legislation passed so emphatically that National Rifle Association backers plan to take it to statehouses across the nation, including Virginia's, over the next year. The law will let Floridians "meet force with force," erasing the "duty to retreat" when they fear for their lives outside of their homes, in their cars or businesses, or on the street.

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said in an interview that the Florida measure is the "first step of a multi-state strategy" that he hopes can capitalize on a political climate dominated by conservative opponents of gun control at the state and national levels.

"There's a big tailwind we have, moving from state legislature to state legislature," LaPierre said. "The South, the Midwest, everything they call 'flyover land' -- if John Kerry held a shotgun in that state, we can pass this law in that state."

The Florida measure says any person "has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm."

Florida law already lets residents defend themselves against attackers if they can prove they could not have escaped. The new law would allow them to use deadly force even if they could have fled and says that prosecutors must automatically presume that would-be victims feared for their lives if attacked.

The overwhelming vote margins and bipartisan support for the Florida gun bill -- it passed unanimously in the state Senate and was approved 94 to 20 in the state House, with nearly a dozen Democratic co-sponsors -- have alarmed some national gun-control advocates, who say a measure that made headlines in Florida slipped beneath their radar.

"I am in absolute shock," Sarah Brady, chair of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said in an interview. "If I had known about it, I would have been down there."

The lessons of history do not bode well for gun-control groups and their leaders, such as Brady, who became a crusader after President Ronald Reagan and her husband, then-White House press secretary James S. Brady, were seriously wounded in a 1981 assassination attempt.

Florida has a track record as a gun-law trendsetter. In the mid-1980s, the NRA chose Florida to launch a push for "conceal carry" or "right-to-carry" laws, which allow states to issue permits for residents to carry firearms. Democrat Bob Graham, who was then governor, vetoed the measure, but it was resurrected after he left office and was signed in 1987 by Gov. Bob Martinez, a Republican.

Is self-defense law vigilante justice?
Some say proposed laws can help deter gun violence. Others worry about deadly confrontations.

By Patrik Jonsson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

ATLANTA – Instead of embracing a citizen's "duty to retreat" in the face of a physical attack, states may be taking cues from the days of lawless frontier towns, where non-deputized Americans were within their rights to hold the bad guys at bay with the threat of deadly force.
First enacted in Florida last year, "Stand Your Ground" bills are now being considered in 21 states including Georgia, according to the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The South Dakota senate approved one just last week.


These new measures would push the boundaries beyond the self-defense measures already on the books. Twelve states already allow citizens to shoot intruders in their homes, and 38 states permit concealed weapons in public places. The "Stand Your Ground" laws would allow people to defend themselves with deadly force even in public places when they perceive a life-threatening situation for themselves or others, and they would not be held accountable in criminal or civil court even if bystanders are injured.

Laws putting more judgment in an individual's hands stem from people's increased concern about crime in their communities. Proponents say it helps shift the debate from gun control to crime control,

"These laws send a more general message to society that public spaces belong to the public - and the public will protect [public places] rather than trying to run into the bathroom of the nearest Starbucks and hope the police show up," says David Kopel, director of the Independence Institute in Golden, Colo.

Some critics say such "Wild West" laws are vigilante justice, and commonplace confrontations and more likely turn to violence.

"You don't just broadly paint a new statewide law saying, if you're in doubt, go ahead and shoot and kill the other person," says Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington. "It's anathema to peace and calm in our communities."

Currently, Florida's new law is being tested for the first time. In Tampa, a tow- truck operator who shot and killed a man he said was trying to run him over used the "Stand Your Ground" law as a defense. The district attorney is evaluating other forensic evidence and eyewitness testimony that the shots came from behind, and therefore were not in self-defense.

To be sure, the laws challenge the notion of "duty to retreat" from attack upheld by many state supreme courts. Yet the US Supreme Court came down against the "duty to retreat" in a 1921 ruling.

In 2004, a National Academies of Science study was unable to draw any conclusions about whether owing a gun makes citizens safer.

About 35 percent of American homes contain some kind of firearm, according to Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins University. Their research also shows that while there are 1.3 million gun-related crimes committed in the US each year, guns are used for self-defense 108,000 times in the same period.

Indeed, those lobbying for the "Stand Your Ground" legislation say the proposed laws are more symbolic, sending a powerful message to would-be criminals. These laws "make it very clear that the good guy has the advantage, not the bad guy," says Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Association in Fairfax, Va.

However, many observers say the laws may promote gun violence as urban gangs could claim self-protection in the aftermath of shootouts. In Michigan this week, people protested a proposed "Stand Your Ground" law by wearing orange "innocent bystander" T-shirts. It came only a few days after an 8-year-old boy was killed in Detroit by a stray bullet from a gun fight.

"Stand Your Ground" laws could also change the way Americans deal with each other, some experts say.

"If you're in a state that's passed one of these laws, any time you're in a potential confrontation you'll have to think about the fact that, 'Will the fellow on the other side misunderstand my anger and pull out a gun?' " says Robert Batey, a law professor at Stetson University in St. Petersburg, Fla.


SOURCES: NATIONAL RIflE ASSOCIATION AND THE BRADY CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE; SCOTT WALLACE - STAFF

. . . and that these laws are part of the rugged individualism of Americans.

~ Lizzy

[lightning]

There were more people killed in Iraq today by George Bush than were killed on the Virginia campus. While two wrongs don't make a right, is it not hypocritical of him to condemn the violence while he himself is a greater perpetrator?

[lizzytysh]

Yes, it is hypocritical, Lightning. I agree. I read that 4 bombs in Iraq killed 148 people today. When will it end and where?


~ Lizzy

[Birdonawire]

Thanks for the extra info Lizzy. Neophyte was right, you are a great researcher! It stuns me to see that 38 states allow people to carry concealed weapons, and people are not considered responsible if bystanders get caught in the cross-fire. It brings to mind the term 'just because you can, doesn't mean you should.' The lines between criminal and victim seem to have really become blurred.

The thought of this really annoys me so i'll take your line Lizzy and stop here. I'm sure we'll all hear more of this in the news in the not too distant future.

Eric.

[Tchocolatl]

I personally find it difficult to believe (...)how this person really saw those he killed as the 'corrupted' ones. Could it be that he acted moreso out of feelings of jealously and isolation, rather than any sick form of misguided retribution?

There is something called "emotional intelligence" and/or "emotional maturity" which is not given to people equally in this world.

(Also, emotional mature habilities could be learned like anything else, let say, martial arts, but they are not priorities - of course people could stop thinking that what they have is what they are and that their value is equal to their bank account - but ey!)

Immature people who suffer always find scapegoats to sacrifice to some cruel kind of little god they are worshipping in their feable mind, thinking they will recover the power they are (really) entitled to. Mistake. But ey, again. Human. (So some people, they say, that if human would disapear from the surface of the Earth, it would be like a release for the Universe - pessimistic view shared only by mass murderers et al., if you ask me, I mean, to punish for not being perfect instead of finding solutions to problems).

Let it say plainly : we, at some times, all suffer in this world : according to buddhists (and I agree with them) there is only 3 sufferings that we can not escape : the sufferings linked with death, sickness and to love without being loved in return. Which leads to sadness which leads to find solutions to problem (not violence, I mean real solutions, not violence which is worst remedy than the problem is).

All the rest in term of suffering is all man made material.

Very sad indeed.

That such creative creatures create in that way while they could create real solutions to real problems. And God knows that there is real problems to solve right now. (for example our way of living requires 5 earths right now - there is an emergency and people are clinging to have "healthy economy" instead... not emotional intelligence if you ask me)

Well. It is human.

Now. That we have finish with roses, the guns.

The U.S. gun laws must be changed. I understand well the argument from the advocates of the 'Freedom to bear arms' clause in the American Constitution, and that it is 'not the gun that kills, but the person holding it.' But times have changed. There is no longer a reasonable need for everyone to have a personal firearm. I agree that the responsibility lies with the holder of the gun and (obviously) not the weapon itself, but one must admit, ease of access to firearms is a, if not THE main contributing factor behind the SCALE of disasters such as this. It may seem obvious but if he did not have such easy access to firearms not nearly as many people's lives would be destroyed. (...)

"It is not the gun that kills but the person holding it" What a demagogic statement!

Let say the truth : it would be very difficult for a killer to kill with roses. While it is too easy to anybody, even for children, to kill with a gun.

Why such a thing? (Do we really have to ask?) Because the gun is a tool to provide death.

People can use any means to harm other people if they have this intention in mind. We sure know this. We are not naive. One can use a pen to blind another person by physical violence. One can use a computer to harm others by psychological violence.

But the pen and the computer are not designed for this. They are not meant to harm people.

The guns are.

Big difference.

I agree that they should not be sold like pencils and computers. And roses.

They are designed for violence, they transport violence. They are the message : use me and be violent. Like the other one once said : The medium is the message.

And violence is not a way to solve problems.

There is always some other ways to solve problems than to use physical or psychological violence. Violence is the lazy and easy way (One has a head ache? What a pain in the... please shoot this person in the head, it will solve the problem quickly and for ever). Maybe an aspirine or two? And a little compassion.

So this is it, the question is simple (the solutions are not, I agree) : do we want to be human first or consommers first?

I do not mean not to be agressive, not to be strong, not to be able to stop agressions if under attack.

I just mean : don't use violence to solve problems. Find real solutions.

We are sick of our culture and I guess there is something better to do than to be violent about that.