Why has no one pointed out that this is the reaction of someone who has no faith of any kind? One of the primary benefits of religion, both to the believer and to society, is the belief that “vengeance is mine, says the Lord.” A person with faith is taught from birth that there is a higher power which will in the end provide justice, and that until then “all things work together for good for those who believe.” Which is the belief you need to help you pull through the disapointments and tragedies of life. This Faith is the crucial element which has always given our forbears the strength and courage to “suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.” Without it, despair and madness are always waiting for the opportunity to slip in and take over.

I have no doubt that those who are not believers will read this and scoff – but consider how Amy Bishop’s reaction flows quite naturally from a lack of belief in any power higher than herself: she obviously had convinced herself that the future course of her life depended on this tenure, and that this would be a setback from which she would never recover. Rather than arguing this point, assume it to be true, as she did. She sees herself as having suffered a grievous wound, and does not believe there will be any justice meted out to her tormentors beyond what she can mete out herself. She also has no conception of the idea that this could still work out for good in ways she cannot see – because she is depending only on her own power and on what *she* can foresee, and cannot concieve of the idea that a power greater than herself could change things in ways unimaginable to her.

So she seeks justice, and she seeks it in the most personal, direct way possible. With no belief in any higher power, the plight of man becomes the constant war of all against all, and she has just epitomized that. I would also add that the current societal practice of transferring all our hopes of justice away from God and onto government is the source of a large part of our current malaise, because government, being a human institution, will always fail to do that effectively. Would anyone here argue that of course government can get it right? And if you believe that you are being tormented *by* representatives of that government (ie, university system in this case) then you *know* you will never receive the justice you believe you deserve, and this kind of violent lashing out becomes very logical.

“If a squared away armed citizen had been there the body/casualty count would have been much lower. Maybe even just one: the perp.”

I gotta agree with James – this idea is nonsense. If you’re sitting at a table with someone you thought you trusted and all of sudden they pull a piece and go blammo, you don’t have time to do anything. Just ask Micheal Corleone – it’s unstoppable.

Say someone did try to pull – they just became the first target. Now in a situation where there’s multiple clips and reloads, then it gets different, but there’s no suggestion of a reload here. Inside the same room, the odds of someone trying to resist are just as good going hand to hand as with a weapon – not very good in either case. Maybe higher hand to hand because you don’t waste time fooling around with trying to get the safety off and chambering a round – since no one carries with a round chambered and the safety off, not unless they want to blow a hole in their own ass whenever they sit down.

In the late roman empire, the threat of assassination become so ever present that supplicants were all forced to approach the Emperor on their knees, with the threat of instant death if they rose to a standing position. I wonder how that same kind of fear will begin to affect our society – will faculty meetings now be done with every participant represented by a video monitor, with the actual person safely cocooned elsewhere? I wouldn’t be surprised.