The Virginia Tech School Shootings

US university shooting kills 33

A US shooting rampage at the Virginia Tech university has left 33 people, including a suspected gunman, dead.

There were two incidents two hours apart, at a student dorm where two were killed and at an engineering building where 30 and the gunman died. Officers said they were working to link the attacks and had a preliminary ID of the gunman but would not release it. After the deadliest shooting rampage in US history, President George W Bush said the US was "shocked and saddened".

Of course, now we know that the identity of the killer is Cho Seung-Hui, an unstable South Korean student studying at the same university. This incident has managed to spark heated debate in many areas, including gun control and in general the tragic trend of school shootings.

Perhaps we should talk about the central figure in this drama: the perpetrator, Cho Seung-Hui. For ease of reading, we shall refer to him a "Cho" from this point on. Cho grew up in a dilapidated apartment in a low-income neighborhood in Korea. From young, he was always considered a bit strange, and his sister's accomplishments were always advertised over his.

Then, his family managed to emigrate to the US in search for better hopes there. In his videos, Cho rants and raves of people with the Mercedes cars, golden necklaces, trust funds, and vodkas and cognacs. Presumably, he must have met such a group of people when he emigrated. He claims that he will be as much of a martyr as Jesus Christ was.

Cho was twice accused of stalking women and in general never spoke to anyone. His current bizzare nature, coupled with this presumed torment, must have caused something to snap in his mind. Thus is the face of a mass murder. However, murder often requires three things: motive, means and opportunity. We have seen the motive, and he had plenty of opportunity.

Then how about the means? How could he so easily have shot and killed 32 other human beings? This is merely one piece of the paradoxical puzzle of gun rights in the United States of America. The Second Amendment clearly states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What does this mean? Anti-gun control advocates state this clearly means that people should have guns, to use whenever necessary. However, the context of this statement should also be made clear. This was written at a time when police forces where uncommon, when people were expected to defend their own country. This amendment was a child of the violent and bloody American Revolution.

Now that the United States is free, how much sense does this make? Does each person have a right to carry an object that can kill? Personally, I advocate further gun control. Means to make violence only ensures it. One simply cannot assume that all those who buy weapons know how to be responsible for it.

I conclude: there are unstable people in this world, and we should at least make the effort to prevent this group, if not others, from getting such weapons.

And we're back into business.

Iranians release British sailors'

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says 15 British naval personnel captured in the Gulf are free to leave.

He repeated Iran's view that the British sailors and marines "invaded" Iranian waters, but said they were being released as a "gift" to Britain. They are expected to be handed to the British embassy in Tehran on Thursday morning before flying home.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the news would come as "a profound relief" to the crew and their families. Iranian media said the British crew members "shouted for joy" on hearing the news.

Link goes here.

A month or so ago, 15 British sailors were on a patrol trip when they were picked up by the Iranian Navy and held captive. We may never know whether they ever entered Iranian waters, but we very well can see the aftereffects of these actions. This incident did not help talks with Iran over the legality of its nuclear programme.

By now, the entire incident is over, and the time for judgments is apparently due. Once again this blog has entered the dangerous area of nuclear weapons and their impact on many. Another key issue here is Iran and its sneering attitude upon the Western world, especially its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who continually pushes for a 'peaceful' nuclear programme.

I believe I have expressed my opinions of nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation before: while the power to destroy entire cities, perhaps countries is a bad idea to put in any one nations' hands, it is also a bad idea for those nations that already have this power to judge who should have nuclear weapons and who should not.

However, after some reflection, I have decided to add some other pointers to these beliefs. In the analysis above, I have conveniently forgotten international bodies regulating the proliferation of such destructive power, such as the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). These bodies, since they are run internationally, are less susceptible to the bias of individual nations' interests.

Nevertheless, such organisations are not perfect, and leaving authority in the hands of one organisation is still not the greatest of ideas. Once again, we must try to imagine other nations in the same uneasy position, and try to be objective in our judgment.

There is another key factor in this situation: Iran. From its independence in 1979, it has always held a confrontational foreign policy. Its relations with the United States have been strained since the Iran-Iraq war, where the US directly aided Iraqi invading forces. A pro-Israeli stand by the US government has also ensured continued hostility.

It is perhaps the fact that Iran despises the United States to such an extent so that it will vehemently do anything to irritate the US government. Perhaps that it why, even though faced with such massive pressure to shut down its nuclear programme, it does not yield. Its capture of these 15 British sailors serves to further up the ante, to heighten the tension between Iran and the Western powers.

Regardless of motivations, causes or actions, the crisis is now long over, but the status of Iran's nuclear programme will still be a continuing problem in the Middle East. It shall provide a barrier to peace for years to come, raising the nuclear tension in the region, and shall be a gun ever smoking.