Understanding Violence: The Virginia Tech University Shootings

Violence take multiple forms, many of which are covered in the nightly news. Murder, rape, familial abuse, bullying, workplace hostility, armed robbery—all of these are societal problems with far-reaching repercussions. There have long debates and discussions regarding whether nature or nurture influences individual violent behavior. People are concerned about what makes an individual to engage in violent behavior such murder or burglary among other types of crimes. They are also concerned about what makes people stop such behavior. However, there is no precise conception whether nature, nurture or both influence violence. Some people assume that, violent behavior results from individual’s life experiences or upbringing also known as nurture. Others feel that violent behavior is more complex and results from individual’s genetic character or nature. In other words, it is not clear whether violent behavior is inborn or occurs at some point in persons’ lives, but even it’s hard, emphasizing one and ignoring other influences is always an unwise way to go.

Next, On April 16, 2007, Cho Seung Hui, a student at Virginia Tech College, apparently had nowhere else to turn in his life other than to go on a massive killing spree. According to CNN News, a timeline of exactly what happened during the massacre was explained. It all began at 7:15am in the West Ambler Johnston Hall, which houses close to 900 students, a 911 call was made claiming that two students had been shot. Between the hours of 7:30am and 9am police and school board members discussed who on earth would possibly do something like this. Shortly after the school began to send students notices via email to notify them of the shootings. Around 9:45am another 911 call was made claiming that more shootings had taken place in the Norris Hall and this time 31 students were killed including Cho, who shot himself after going on the viscous rampage. Several messages were sent to the students of Virginia Tech notifying them of the second shootings via email. Shortly after noon the president of the college released information that classes

Mr. Cho Seung-Hui, a 23 year old South Korean student at Virginia tech shot 32 people and himself on April 16, 2007. This incidence of shooting has been claimed to be the deadliest shooting rampage in the history of America. During his childhood years, Cho began to show signs of mental health issues and had been identified of having "selective mutism." He had problem socializing with people and thus was known as a student who merely kept to himself. Ever since Middle School, Cho began to show violence in his writings and got the attention of the teachers. He was prescribed some medication and eventually symptoms of violent and aggressive behavior began to abate. Even though, teachers had reported Cho of having mental issues during his time at Virginia Tech; no such attention was paid to his odd behavior. Cho had quit taking his medicines that were prescribed earlier and thus he was not put through any medical intervention. In 2005, Cho had been identified as a dangerous person rendering him ineligible to purchase a gun under federal law. Despite all of that, he still managed to purchase two guns that were used in the Virginia shootings.

The incident occurred on Monday, April 16th 2007. Seung-Hui Cho was a 23 years old senior at Virginia Tech. He was born in South Korea and moved to America during his early childhood years. The shooting took in the form of two separate attacks on the campus. Cho was armed with a 9-millimeter handgun, a 22-caliber handgun and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. The first one took place at 7:15 in the morning, which he shot two people in a dorm. During the gap between the first attack and the second attack, Cho mailed a clip of video that contains rantings about wealthy “brat” and other topics and pictures of him wielding guns to NBC news. He then started his second attack. Cho chained and locked several main doors of an

Fast forward eight years to 2007. In April, 2007 on the Virginia Tech Campus in Virginia, Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed thirty-two men and women and injured another seventeen. He also ended his life after committing the murders. Cho was diagnosed with a severe anxiety disorder, and eventually declared mentally ill.

The Virginia Tech shooting was one of the biggest shooting. Seung-Hui Cho was the mass murderer of the Virginia Tech shooting. Cho killed 33 people and injured 18 more. I am going to explain a little of who Cho is and some information about the Virginia Tech shooting. I will also explain the motives behind the why he did the shooting and how officers responded to the crime. Finally, I will explain how Virginia Tech and campuses across the nations have changed there active shooter situations.

During what started like any other day in a small Colorado town on April 20th, 1999 ended in tragedy and death. Seniors Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris wrote about how they would execute the massacre. In the journal found in Harris’s bedroom was written almost every part of their plan. They wrote how they would like to “leave a lasting impression on the world with this kind of violence” as well as how they wanted to “kill mankind” and have no one to survive. Initially they wrote how they were planning for a long time to bomb the school in an attack similar to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombings, but its failure led to this event. The investigators also found videotapes in which some contained both seniors planning and practicing with their guns for the attack and others

Furthermore, the many causes of why something this mind blowing could actually happen in our country and feel so close to home. It is absolutely amazing how the viciousness of a single person could affect the lives of so many people. Several people had begun to wonder what might have been the cause of this massacre. One of the causes brought to attention was the fact that Virginia Tech College didn’t take proper responsibility when notified by faculty and students that Cho may be a dangerous individual. If fact, if the school would have looked further into the gunman’s history and the many complaints people were constantly filing against him then maybe this wouldn’t have happened. However, we must not go back in time and say “what if” because that will not change what has already happened. Another cause for this tragedy may be the violent movies, music, or television shows. Several of people are influenced by the things they see whether they want to admit it or not is a different story. It seems like the more graphic and gorier the movie the better; however, the people who write these movies don’t think of the impact the movie may have on an individual’s life. Last, this cause brings me to the wonderful thing called videogames. Videogames these days have come along way from what they used to be. Back in the day

This documentary specifies that there is no easy answer to what is going on inside the mind of killers, and we cannot simply place these individuals into “neat diagnostic boxes” that explain why their actions turned so violent. However, the investigators present research studying different avenues regarding ways to “predict” the likelihood that an individual will commit violent crime, will maintaining that no method is perfect. Throughout the presentation, viewers are offered mountains of research highlighting a mix of nature and nurture ranging from neurologists from Harvard studying brain patterns affected by genetics, to psychologists studying maternal care and attachment during infancy.

*There are many theories why crime dropped in the 1990s but one of the most interesting ideas is about the effects of exposure to lead on children and their behaviors.*

The principles of the biological theories allow us the understanding that all biological theories should evaluate common factors that relate to each other from one biological theory to the other (Schmalleger, 2012). The first parts of the biological theory assess the importance for the theories to make a connection between criminal behavior and the human brain and a person’s personality and the studies of neurology and neurochemistry. This meaning that a person’s ability to control antisocial behavior stems from their environment and the and family genes gives the person directly into right and wrong. There is also a standard that should evaluate the connection between different groups such a sex and racial makeup that that of criminal behavior as well as human instinctive behavior (Dretske, 2014). The link between the evolutionary development of a person criminal behavior or ability to

“Although the genes MAOA and CDH13 are not shown to be directly linked to crime, the prisoners who had a combination of MAOA and CDH13 were extremely more likely to be in a small group of super violent repeat offenders”(“A Gene For Violence”). With a risky grouping of certain gene combinations, the said person has a much higher chance of reacting violently to scenarios when it is a fight-or-flight situation. “Intoxication, they say, is a feature of most of the violent crimes in Finland. They propose that intoxicants interact with MAOA-L to affect brain neurotransmitters and produce impulsive aggression”(“Do the MAOA and CDH13”). Even though the way the genes MAOA, CDH13, and MAOA-l affect the brain’s ability to function correctly, it is not the only factor that goes into more violently natured people. Alcohol goes hand in hand with MAOA and people with MAOA become extremely more violent when intoxicated. MAOA, CDH13, and MAOA-l affect the way the brain functions by distorting the way the signals are received in the

Behavioral neuroscience or biological psychology employs the principles of brain pathology to the study of human behavior through genetic, physiological, and developmental operations, as well as, the brain’s capacity to change with experience. Since the second world war, crime was largely attributed to mostly economic, political, and social factors, along with what psychologists termed at the time, the “weak character” of mental disturbance, and brain biology was rarely considered. However, new advances in neuroscience and technology have allowed a number of studies that link brain development, impairment, and injury to criminal violence. This emerging field of psychology explores the brain at a microscopic level, focusing studies on the roles that the brain’s neurons, circuitry, neurotransmitters, and basic biological processes play in defining and molding all human behavior.

The nature versus nurture debate is an ongoing debate among social scientists relating to whether ones personality/personal characteristics are the result of his/her inherited genetic traits or the result of environmental factors such as upbringing, social status, financial stability, and more. One of the topics that are discussed among psychologists is the study of violent behavior among people as a whole, and in particular, individuals. Social scientists try to explain why people commit acts of violence through explanation of either side of the nature or nurture schools of thought. However, the overwhelming amount of research done into the relation of violent behavior and the nature versus nurture debate indicated that nurture is the primary explanation to explaining violent behavior because violent traits are learned from adults, someone’s social upbringing is a major factor to why some people are more violent than others, and finally influences from news media, movies, and video games enhance the chance for someone to exhibit violent behavior. In conclusion, violent behavior is a complex issue without a clear explanation that is overwhelmingly supported by the nurture side of the debate.

A range of studies assert that causes of violent behavior are complex at the level of environmental influence and compare other learning, modelling and disinhibiting factors. This is an area where opposition to the hypothesis is more common. Two longitudinal studies assessing levels of violence pre-and post the introduction of television found a positive correlation, however