"There is such a high murder rate in the United States that even if you excluded the deaths caused there by the use of guns, their homicide rate would still be higher than ours. In other words, even if there were not a single gun in America, there would still be more murders and manslaughters than in Britain. Bringing gun control to America would not stop it being a country where a lot of people get killed."
—James Bartholomew, political commentator at the Daily Express in London
"The response of many who wish America ill will have been gratuitous schadenfreude. They see a people who live by the gun also dying by it, be they Marines in Anbar province or students in Virginia…. How can American soldiers disarm Iraqi families of their weapons in Baghdad yet claim the right to arm themselves to the teeth back home?"
—The Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins
"In a country where ‘the right to bear arms' is written into the Constitution and where there are an estimated 192 million firearms, the problem isn't simply one of a particular interest group. After the tragedy, voices rose up to deplore the fact that professors and students are not authorized to arm themselves, since one of them could have neutralized the killer. With that kind of reasoning, America is not close to overcoming its violence."
—Excerpts from an editorial headlined "Tragédie Américaine," in France's Le Monde newspaper
in fact i thought they were going to say something to the effect of "they can't even disarm a lone gunman in virginia, how could they possible disarm the militias in Iraq".
i heard a foreign news report the other day online- and they were reporting from VT's campus. the reporter started with "in the dangerous country of america..." that kind of struck a chord with me- it seems that is something we hear an american journalist say when they report from iraq or somewhere like that.
The parents, when they wanted help for their sun years ago...should have been able to get it...for free.period. And not one or two visits, as many as he needs...funding it would only help the greater population. As long as we leave the quality health care to only those that can afford it...we will have issues.
My wife, a doctor, works in a community hospital and says possible 1/2 of her patients half mental illnesses that they can do nearly nothing about...no rooms, no place for them...if they are not in critical health, give them an aspirin and send them back to the streets...in the same poor mental health...so constructive.
i believe they reported that the parents may not have been aware their son was involuntarily committed to a mental institution, as the university does not have the right to share that information with the parents unless the student approves them to do so.
The fact is though that he was attending a major university, and most (all?) major universities now not only require health insurance which covers a certain number of visits to a mental health professional, they usually have clinics on campus. I know that when I had a breakdown my thesis semester, I knew exactly where to go, I went there, was treated for free once a week for the rest of the semester, no questions asked about insurance or payment or anything. Fortunately for me the treatment resulted in a diagnosis of a 'depressive episode' brought on by a confluence of negative circumstances in my life, not of chronic depression, but the fact is that treatment is particularly available to college students now in a way that it is not for the general population. I am willing to bet that he had access to fine mental health services, but he didn't choose to use them.
At what point does someone else gain the right to make that choice for a person? He had not, as far as I know, tried to kill himself or to harm anyone else. It's easy to look back and say he had major problems, but who could have said at the time that his problems were so major as they proved to be?
Listen to the above link. He had issues long before...Psychiatric therapy is not cheap and is not available for many through insurance...and for those that do...they largely restrict how many visits,etc.
Fact, our country is pitiful at handling Mental Health.
one thing i have a hard time rationalizing is that we can capture and detain (and torture) indefinitely people from other countries- in their own country- because we "believe" they may be terrorists, connected to terrorism, or may be extremists of which we may or may not have proof of... yet in the case of a US university student we have no power?
It would have been nice if there was a way for his parents to have gotten him help long ago and that they could be confident that said help would last as long as it would be needed...not just 4 visits or until one becomes violent.
I feel very lucky to have had come from a family where I was able to get psychiatric help during my adolescence...it was extremely helpful.
In our country it is a stigma in many circles to even admit what I did above (that you have received mental help at any point in your life), this is silly - if not stupid.
The irrational tend not to make rational decisions. You cannot blame - if in fact he was - the criminally insane, for not recognizing that they are insane. Everyone, and I mean everyone dropped the proverbial ball in this case; from the parents, the university, law enforcement, the justice system, medical community, and the real loons that write our laws. All failed and all should be held accountable.
Gregory Eells of Cornell University's health center points out that "a lot of the things that have been said about this young man are applicable to hundreds of thousands of college students, in terms of dark writings or violent writings, and even problematic behavior, even sometimes stalking behavior. That's more common than you would like to believe."
"You can't do anything unless there's imminent risk that's somewhat foreseeable to take away someone's civil rights. I mean, you can have them hospitalized if you, as a mental health professional, feel that that risk is there," said Eells, associate director for counseling and psychological services at Cornell's Gannett Health Services
According to the American College Health Association, about 44 percent of students were so depressed that it was difficult for them to function at some point in the 2006 school year. It also found that nearly 10 percent reported seriously considering suicide at least once last year.
it would have been nice if the students fought "the killer" back while on his rampage.. if a mob of 10-15 students in the classroom charged at "the killer" with something in their hands...grab anything...a desk, laptop, any object that can be thrown, used as a shield...anything!...okay, so maybe 3-5 of those people get shot, wounded or killed...i think that's better than the final death toll...
This morning I unfolded the Orange County Register and there on the front page is Cho pointing a gun at my face. First I felt disgusted, that the media would print such a thing. Then I thought about it for a little while.
The gun pointed at me, at all of us, could be read that we are all somewhat at fault--that is his intent, right? I don't believe that for a second. Here's what I really think: the will to destory, and to self-destruct, is within us all. Some of us can't deal with it for whatever reason and we take it out on others, on ourselves. Most of us have enough love for ourselves and others that we couldn't possible be moved to do such a thing.
The gun pointed at me does not tell me that I am the problem. Cho is weak because he didn't take responsibility, he was a stranger to himself. What the pointed gun does remind me is that I too have the destructive impulse in me. I think we need to recognize that, and most importantly, take responsibility for it.
+i, I was thinking something like that myself. When they started talking about his disturbing plays and such, I wondered what would happen to Alan Ball if he had handed in 'American Beauty' for a class assignment. People would've thought he was pretty damned disturbed, but it's one of the best movies I've seen. So I figure a lot of people must write disturbing pieces, and you only know later whether they really meant anything about the person, or if they were just stretching their creativity a bit.
dammson, I thought the same thing, but you can't imagine what you would do if you were in a similar situation. The guy walked in, didn't speak, and shot their teacher in the face. With a semi-automatic weapon, that gives them about 1/2 a second to react before he started shooting at them too. He emptied a bunch of clips in a matter of minutes, and each clip had what, 33 bullets in it?
BTW, excellent commentary on this from Marketplace yesterday. Robert Reich teaches public policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He was labor secretary under President Clinton.
Here's the text of it...
ROBERT REICH:
In the United States, if you're seriously depressed, you can buy anti-depressive drugs — but only if you have a prescription from a doctor.
Anti-depressants are enormously beneficial to millions of people, but they're also potentially dangerous if used improperly. So, you have to see a doctor and get an assessment before you can go to a drug store and purchase one.
But in the United States, in places like Virginia, a seriously depressed or deranged person can walk into a store and buy a semi-automatic handgun and a box of ammunition.
All you need is two forms of identification. You don't need permission from a doctor or counselor or anyone in the business of screening people to make sure they're fit to have a gun.
We can debate the relative benefits and dangers of anti-depressants and semi-automatic handguns, but if 30,000 Americans were killed each year by anti-depressants — as they are by handguns — it seems likely that anti-depressants would be even more strictly regulated.
So why aren't handguns?
Well, the politics. Years ago, it was illegal to advertise prescription drugs. Now, due in part to Big Pharma's clout, our airwaves and magazines are filled with images of happy people — who weren't, until their physician prescribed a pill.
But Big Pharma still hasn't been able to cut out the physician altogether, because the process for screening people before they can buy an anti-depressant is just too important.
By contrast, the National Rifle Association, with more organization and money than even Big Pharma, has eliminated almost all screening measures for buying guns. In recent years, the NRA has even shielded gun dealers from liability. Not even Big Pharma and the powerful American Medical Association have managed to shield doctors from liability.
Look abroad and you have another useful point of contrast. In the United States, many people who are seriously depressed can't afford to see a doctor, let alone get a prescription. Unlike every other advanced nation, we do not provide universal health care, or ready access to mental health services.
But unlike every other advanced nation, we do allow just about anyone to buy a handgun.
That's right, jasoncross. Make sure you always sit facing the door, and that you've got your ammo loaded and the safety off in case some nutcase bursts into the classroom. Be ready to shoot first and ask questions later.
I agree that the parents should have done more. It seems to me that they didn't give two good goddamns about him. They should have intervened even if he was 23.
I'm 27 and if I started to act like a wack-job my parents would still come and whip me into shape. And if I needed medical attention and help in general, they would get it for me.
It seems like everyone was catching onto Cho except for the people who would have been the most effective at stopping him. Still, when I saw the video of him repeating that idiotic 3rd grade jargon, I just wanted to strangle him...
i agree, archmed- my parents would definitely get help for me as well- and i am older than 23, too.
unfortunately, it seems that we are the lucky ones who have family who cares.
I agree a good parent always wants to help their children regardless of their age. But when does someone stop being a child? 16,18,23,30 50? At some point we all have to grow up and stop relying on our parents to help us through difficult times.
Archmed and +i thats great that you have parents that would still be willing to get you help but this is part of the problem. PLEASE understand I am not attacking you or your family but am replying to comments made in general.
At 27 you know that you have a parental safety net and if you can't handle something the p's will step in to clean up the mess you've made. So how do you learn to stand on your own 2 feet when someone is always there to catch you?
my parents have let me live my life. they never paid for school. they dont help with student loans. they dont step in financially whatsoever.
should i ever try to commit suicide, develop strange behaviors, be committed to an instituition involuntarily- they would be there. is that a failure of them? i think not.
i think family is family. you see someone falling, and you help to catch them. you dont step back and watch them break their neck- especially not when they are a danger to themselves and others. "letting someone learn the hard way" is fine- at certain times. but if you had a family member suffering from psychotic episodes over a period of 5, 10, 15 years i would think you would feel some sort of responsibility to help them.
maybe that is the problem today. no one wants to help. everyone just wants to step aside and let someone else do it.
Don't get me wrong. I'm at the point in my life where all my decisions are made by me and I take responsibilities for my own actions. Therfore, I'm completely independent but that doesn't mean my parents simply stop caring or cast me asside. They are behind me every step of the way because in the future, they would wish that I do the same for my children.
Another important thing that a person needs is a strong network of good friends who are there for influence and guidance. Cho also lacked this crucial network but he made that decision to reject it in light of the fact that there were plenty of attempts for people to reach out to him and care for him. He rejected all of it. And perhaps that's because he thought that since even his birth parents disdained him, people not related to him such as potential friends would be his adversaries.
Parental influence is very underated. I mean I still get into arguments with my parents and many times we still don't see eye-to-eye on issues, but thats just a natural part of how that network opperates.
I agree that when you're contemplating suicide you've crossed over the line where you should be allowed to learn the hard way. You should be allowed to learn the hard way 99+% of the time, but there are certain situations where your family (or pseudo-family) being there for you is the difference between life and death.
I would've said the same thing about my family, but I guess they're just too far away now to recognize anything of the sort.
"The anxiety of our politicians that there may be an issue that goes unexploited was almost--almost--comic. They mean to seem sensitive, and yet wind up only stroking their supporters. I believe Rep. Jim Moran was first out of the gate with the charge that what Cho did was President Bush's fault. I believe Sen. Barack Obama was second, equating the literal killing of humans with verbal coarseness. Wednesday there was Sen. Barbara Boxer equating the violence of the shootings with the "global warming challenge" and "today's Supreme Court decision" upholding a ban on partial-birth abortion. One watches all of this and wonders: Where are the grown-ups?"
It's a pretty American-only (and therefore not necessarily objectively accurate or true) mindset that reasonable, sane parents should step out of a child's life at age eighteen, and that reasonable, sane adults ought to be fully independent from their families, immediate and extended. In many cultures (including the one in which my Mother was born) parents care for children all their lives as long as they are able, and children then care for their elderly parents in return. It's not - or at least traditionally wasn't - weird or unusual to accept help in any form, including financial and residential, from one's parents until very late in life. It may not have existed back then, but mental health & even institutionalization could fall under the category of "help" today. Families might all live together under one roof with grandparents. Sharing a roof with my immediate and extended family isn't something I'd personally choose to do. At the same time, I'm able to see that this American model of voracious "independence" is not the only way to live, nor the only correct and healthy way (if it is indeed healthy at all) to structure one's support system.
There is nothing shameful or immature about accepting help, even ongoing/consistent help, as an adult. In fact, part of being a mature adult is taking the responsibiltiy of knowing when to accept help, and being humble enough to accept it, in whatever form it is necessary. In a terribly extreme case, I'm sure that some families, or other potential support systems, get to the point where they feel that the person they're trying to help is irredeemable entirely, but that's a whole different issue. I just hate to see the implication in these discussions that reliance upon family and external support structures at any age somehow constitute weakness or immaturity, when on a deeper level it is quite the opposite.
Shooting + Murder at VIRGINIA TECH
"There is such a high murder rate in the United States that even if you excluded the deaths caused there by the use of guns, their homicide rate would still be higher than ours. In other words, even if there were not a single gun in America, there would still be more murders and manslaughters than in Britain. Bringing gun control to America would not stop it being a country where a lot of people get killed."
—James Bartholomew, political commentator at the Daily Express in London
"The response of many who wish America ill will have been gratuitous schadenfreude. They see a people who live by the gun also dying by it, be they Marines in Anbar province or students in Virginia…. How can American soldiers disarm Iraqi families of their weapons in Baghdad yet claim the right to arm themselves to the teeth back home?"
—The Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins
"In a country where ‘the right to bear arms' is written into the Constitution and where there are an estimated 192 million firearms, the problem isn't simply one of a particular interest group. After the tragedy, voices rose up to deplore the fact that professors and students are not authorized to arm themselves, since one of them could have neutralized the killer. With that kind of reasoning, America is not close to overcoming its violence."
—Excerpts from an editorial headlined "Tragédie Américaine," in France's Le Monde newspaper
It depends on the state i.
http://www.stategunlaws.org/viewstate.php?st=VA
Virginia seems to be one of the more lax states.
very powerful Starla- i agree...
in fact i thought they were going to say something to the effect of "they can't even disarm a lone gunman in virginia, how could they possible disarm the militias in Iraq".
i heard a foreign news report the other day online- and they were reporting from VT's campus. the reporter started with "in the dangerous country of america..." that kind of struck a chord with me- it seems that is something we hear an american journalist say when they report from iraq or somewhere like that.
i was born and raised in VA. i live in virginia now- 5 minutes from DC.
The parents, when they wanted help for their sun years ago...should have been able to get it...for free.period. And not one or two visits, as many as he needs...funding it would only help the greater population. As long as we leave the quality health care to only those that can afford it...we will have issues.
My wife, a doctor, works in a community hospital and says possible 1/2 of her patients half mental illnesses that they can do nearly nothing about...no rooms, no place for them...if they are not in critical health, give them an aspirin and send them back to the streets...in the same poor mental health...so constructive.
i believe they reported that the parents may not have been aware their son was involuntarily committed to a mental institution, as the university does not have the right to share that information with the parents unless the student approves them to do so.
I don't think I said you didn't live near Virginia. I was just stating that each state is different. I am sorry for providing that fact.
The mother specifically said the son needed help in an NPR story I heard. And that he had a past with mental health issues.
being that i have never applied to buy a gun- i appreciate that fact.
From what I heard they had issues with his mental health before he ever went to college.
NPR interviewed the mother?
oic
Nor have I. Glad you like it.
No, they reported on what the mother had reportedly said.
Great discussion on Talk of the Nation regarding the Mental Health issue
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9650301
The fact is though that he was attending a major university, and most (all?) major universities now not only require health insurance which covers a certain number of visits to a mental health professional, they usually have clinics on campus. I know that when I had a breakdown my thesis semester, I knew exactly where to go, I went there, was treated for free once a week for the rest of the semester, no questions asked about insurance or payment or anything. Fortunately for me the treatment resulted in a diagnosis of a 'depressive episode' brought on by a confluence of negative circumstances in my life, not of chronic depression, but the fact is that treatment is particularly available to college students now in a way that it is not for the general population. I am willing to bet that he had access to fine mental health services, but he didn't choose to use them.
At what point does someone else gain the right to make that choice for a person? He had not, as far as I know, tried to kill himself or to harm anyone else. It's easy to look back and say he had major problems, but who could have said at the time that his problems were so major as they proved to be?
Listen to the above link. He had issues long before...Psychiatric therapy is not cheap and is not available for many through insurance...and for those that do...they largely restrict how many visits,etc.
Fact, our country is pitiful at handling Mental Health.
one thing i have a hard time rationalizing is that we can capture and detain (and torture) indefinitely people from other countries- in their own country- because we "believe" they may be terrorists, connected to terrorism, or may be extremists of which we may or may not have proof of... yet in the case of a US university student we have no power?
It would have been nice if there was a way for his parents to have gotten him help long ago and that they could be confident that said help would last as long as it would be needed...not just 4 visits or until one becomes violent.
I feel very lucky to have had come from a family where I was able to get psychiatric help during my adolescence...it was extremely helpful.
In our country it is a stigma in many circles to even admit what I did above (that you have received mental help at any point in your life), this is silly - if not stupid.
very true, jasoncross
BREAKING NEWS or [this just in]
The irrational tend not to make rational decisions. You cannot blame - if in fact he was - the criminally insane, for not recognizing that they are insane. Everyone, and I mean everyone dropped the proverbial ball in this case; from the parents, the university, law enforcement, the justice system, medical community, and the real loons that write our laws. All failed and all should be held accountable.
[now back to All My Children]
SK- i was almost afraid to read your post ;)
Gregory Eells of Cornell University's health center points out that "a lot of the things that have been said about this young man are applicable to hundreds of thousands of college students, in terms of dark writings or violent writings, and even problematic behavior, even sometimes stalking behavior. That's more common than you would like to believe."
"You can't do anything unless there's imminent risk that's somewhat foreseeable to take away someone's civil rights. I mean, you can have them hospitalized if you, as a mental health professional, feel that that risk is there," said Eells, associate director for counseling and psychological services at Cornell's Gannett Health Services
According to the American College Health Association, about 44 percent of students were so depressed that it was difficult for them to function at some point in the 2006 school year. It also found that nearly 10 percent reported seriously considering suicide at least once last year.
it would have been nice if the students fought "the killer" back while on his rampage.. if a mob of 10-15 students in the classroom charged at "the killer" with something in their hands...grab anything...a desk, laptop, any object that can be thrown, used as a shield...anything!...okay, so maybe 3-5 of those people get shot, wounded or killed...i think that's better than the final death toll...
This morning I unfolded the Orange County Register and there on the front page is Cho pointing a gun at my face. First I felt disgusted, that the media would print such a thing. Then I thought about it for a little while.
The gun pointed at me, at all of us, could be read that we are all somewhat at fault--that is his intent, right? I don't believe that for a second. Here's what I really think: the will to destory, and to self-destruct, is within us all. Some of us can't deal with it for whatever reason and we take it out on others, on ourselves. Most of us have enough love for ourselves and others that we couldn't possible be moved to do such a thing.
The gun pointed at me does not tell me that I am the problem. Cho is weak because he didn't take responsibility, he was a stranger to himself. What the pointed gun does remind me is that I too have the destructive impulse in me. I think we need to recognize that, and most importantly, take responsibility for it.
+i, I was thinking something like that myself. When they started talking about his disturbing plays and such, I wondered what would happen to Alan Ball if he had handed in 'American Beauty' for a class assignment. People would've thought he was pretty damned disturbed, but it's one of the best movies I've seen. So I figure a lot of people must write disturbing pieces, and you only know later whether they really meant anything about the person, or if they were just stretching their creativity a bit.
dammson, I thought the same thing, but you can't imagine what you would do if you were in a similar situation. The guy walked in, didn't speak, and shot their teacher in the face. With a semi-automatic weapon, that gives them about 1/2 a second to react before he started shooting at them too. He emptied a bunch of clips in a matter of minutes, and each clip had what, 33 bullets in it?
BTW, excellent commentary on this from Marketplace yesterday. Robert Reich teaches public policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He was labor secretary under President Clinton.
Here's the text of it...
ROBERT REICH:
In the United States, if you're seriously depressed, you can buy anti-depressive drugs — but only if you have a prescription from a doctor.
Anti-depressants are enormously beneficial to millions of people, but they're also potentially dangerous if used improperly. So, you have to see a doctor and get an assessment before you can go to a drug store and purchase one.
But in the United States, in places like Virginia, a seriously depressed or deranged person can walk into a store and buy a semi-automatic handgun and a box of ammunition.
All you need is two forms of identification. You don't need permission from a doctor or counselor or anyone in the business of screening people to make sure they're fit to have a gun.
We can debate the relative benefits and dangers of anti-depressants and semi-automatic handguns, but if 30,000 Americans were killed each year by anti-depressants — as they are by handguns — it seems likely that anti-depressants would be even more strictly regulated.
So why aren't handguns?
Well, the politics. Years ago, it was illegal to advertise prescription drugs. Now, due in part to Big Pharma's clout, our airwaves and magazines are filled with images of happy people — who weren't, until their physician prescribed a pill.
But Big Pharma still hasn't been able to cut out the physician altogether, because the process for screening people before they can buy an anti-depressant is just too important.
By contrast, the National Rifle Association, with more organization and money than even Big Pharma, has eliminated almost all screening measures for buying guns. In recent years, the NRA has even shielded gun dealers from liability. Not even Big Pharma and the powerful American Medical Association have managed to shield doctors from liability.
Look abroad and you have another useful point of contrast. In the United States, many people who are seriously depressed can't afford to see a doctor, let alone get a prescription. Unlike every other advanced nation, we do not provide universal health care, or ready access to mental health services.
But unlike every other advanced nation, we do allow just about anyone to buy a handgun.
Good article. I wonder what it would take to have the NRA declared a terrorist organization and have their assets frozen.
Aside from a president with brass cajones, that is.
I, frankly, am amazed to hear that the NRA has more money and organization than Big Pharma. Because the Pharmaceutical lobby is gigantic.
copycat #1
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18203613/
even worse than a copy-cat, they seem to be trying to make is some sort of competition.
we currently have a campus wide warning at UNM to be vigilant and aware due to threats.
rationalist you're right- that's what is so creepy.
did anyone hear of the torturing of a columbia grad student last week?
this is just getting to be ridiculous
well at least in new mexico you can carry your gun around with you legally.
That's right, jasoncross. Make sure you always sit facing the door, and that you've got your ammo loaded and the safety off in case some nutcase bursts into the classroom. Be ready to shoot first and ask questions later.
I am headed to campus...I will be ninja swift on my cruiser...with my head filled with calculus.
ah, i remember calculus, such a long time ago...
so far i am looking like Nostradamus, but hey GWB said there was WMD so what do i know.
Tax Ammo
Those guys came to campus already at the convocation and we chased them off campus. Just ridiculous.
They were also around on 9-11.
I agree that the parents should have done more. It seems to me that they didn't give two good goddamns about him. They should have intervened even if he was 23.
I'm 27 and if I started to act like a wack-job my parents would still come and whip me into shape. And if I needed medical attention and help in general, they would get it for me.
It seems like everyone was catching onto Cho except for the people who would have been the most effective at stopping him. Still, when I saw the video of him repeating that idiotic 3rd grade jargon, I just wanted to strangle him...
i agree, archmed- my parents would definitely get help for me as well- and i am older than 23, too.
unfortunately, it seems that we are the lucky ones who have family who cares.
I agree a good parent always wants to help their children regardless of their age. But when does someone stop being a child? 16,18,23,30 50? At some point we all have to grow up and stop relying on our parents to help us through difficult times.
Archmed and +i thats great that you have parents that would still be willing to get you help but this is part of the problem. PLEASE understand I am not attacking you or your family but am replying to comments made in general.
At 27 you know that you have a parental safety net and if you can't handle something the p's will step in to clean up the mess you've made. So how do you learn to stand on your own 2 feet when someone is always there to catch you?
my parents have let me live my life. they never paid for school. they dont help with student loans. they dont step in financially whatsoever.
should i ever try to commit suicide, develop strange behaviors, be committed to an instituition involuntarily- they would be there. is that a failure of them? i think not.
i think family is family. you see someone falling, and you help to catch them. you dont step back and watch them break their neck- especially not when they are a danger to themselves and others. "letting someone learn the hard way" is fine- at certain times. but if you had a family member suffering from psychotic episodes over a period of 5, 10, 15 years i would think you would feel some sort of responsibility to help them.
maybe that is the problem today. no one wants to help. everyone just wants to step aside and let someone else do it.
Don't get me wrong. I'm at the point in my life where all my decisions are made by me and I take responsibilities for my own actions. Therfore, I'm completely independent but that doesn't mean my parents simply stop caring or cast me asside. They are behind me every step of the way because in the future, they would wish that I do the same for my children.
Another important thing that a person needs is a strong network of good friends who are there for influence and guidance. Cho also lacked this crucial network but he made that decision to reject it in light of the fact that there were plenty of attempts for people to reach out to him and care for him. He rejected all of it. And perhaps that's because he thought that since even his birth parents disdained him, people not related to him such as potential friends would be his adversaries.
Parental influence is very underated. I mean I still get into arguments with my parents and many times we still don't see eye-to-eye on issues, but thats just a natural part of how that network opperates.
I agree that when you're contemplating suicide you've crossed over the line where you should be allowed to learn the hard way. You should be allowed to learn the hard way 99+% of the time, but there are certain situations where your family (or pseudo-family) being there for you is the difference between life and death.
I would've said the same thing about my family, but I guess they're just too far away now to recognize anything of the sort.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/
she makes some good points
It's a pretty American-only (and therefore not necessarily objectively accurate or true) mindset that reasonable, sane parents should step out of a child's life at age eighteen, and that reasonable, sane adults ought to be fully independent from their families, immediate and extended. In many cultures (including the one in which my Mother was born) parents care for children all their lives as long as they are able, and children then care for their elderly parents in return. It's not - or at least traditionally wasn't - weird or unusual to accept help in any form, including financial and residential, from one's parents until very late in life. It may not have existed back then, but mental health & even institutionalization could fall under the category of "help" today. Families might all live together under one roof with grandparents. Sharing a roof with my immediate and extended family isn't something I'd personally choose to do. At the same time, I'm able to see that this American model of voracious "independence" is not the only way to live, nor the only correct and healthy way (if it is indeed healthy at all) to structure one's support system.
There is nothing shameful or immature about accepting help, even ongoing/consistent help, as an adult. In fact, part of being a mature adult is taking the responsibiltiy of knowing when to accept help, and being humble enough to accept it, in whatever form it is necessary. In a terribly extreme case, I'm sure that some families, or other potential support systems, get to the point where they feel that the person they're trying to help is irredeemable entirely, but that's a whole different issue. I just hate to see the implication in these discussions that reliance upon family and external support structures at any age somehow constitute weakness or immaturity, when on a deeper level it is quite the opposite.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.