Too Soon For Blame And Debate?

By: Brian Montopoli
Topics: Media Issues

(CBS)

Almost as soon as the first CBSNews.com story went up about the Virginia Tech massacre, the comments section was filled with people angrily debating the merits – or lack thereof – of gun control. Some presidential candidates have already made statements about the issue, including John McCain, who "said the shooting rampage does not change his view that the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to carry a weapon." At the White House today, spokesperson Dana Perino declined to address reporters' questions about whether the incident would lead to a change in gun control policy, saying it was a day to "focus on the families, the school and the community."

On the "Evening News" last night, meanwhile, anchor Katie Couric raised questions about the university's handling of the incident. She was far from alone. As the AP noted, "tough questions swiftly surfaced as to how effectively Virginia Tech authorities responded to Monday's horrific massacre." The CBSNews.com story quotes a student saying "I think the university has blood on their hands because of their lack of action after the first incident."

Gun control and Virginia Tech's handling of the incident are certainly issues that need to be explored, but I have to wonder if they need to be explored so soon after the tragedy. We just learned the identity of the suspect, and investigators are still trying to piece together what happened; at this point, we do not even know the identities of all the victims. I understand reporters' desire to push forward the story, but we will have plenty of time in the future to debate gun control and assign blame. For today, at least, isn't it enough to focus on the horrible tragedy that just took place and not the recriminations and debate surrounding it?

Brian Montopoli
Brian Montopoli is the senior political reporter at CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

16 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 16 Comments


by coolhumdad April 19, 2007 4:38 AM EDT: My sister was on campus at the time of the 2nd shooting. She's not a student, she was headed for their vet hospital a few buildings down from Norris. To say she seems suddenly fragile is a gross understatement.

The shootings have _not_ stopped. They live on with those impacted directly and indirectly. To see so many attempts _everwhere_ at highjacking this to political rants is heartbreaking especially those so disconnected from reality as to be their own form of psychopathy.

So ... is it better to help someone one-on-one or by ranting? Which one involves another warm human being? Which one is a _saner_ choice?; Reply to this comment


by mattcat25 April 18, 2007 12:12 PM EDT: I must agree with most on this thread %u201Cthis is not a gun issue", I believe that this particular incident that occurred at VT has to do with mental health. I don%u2019t believe guns should be taken away just all the gun freaks.; Reply to this comment


by cgalitz April 18, 2007 11:06 AM EDT: As a 1992 graduate of Virginia Tech's Engineering Science and Mechanics program, I practically lived in Norris Hall my senior year. So for me, one of the Hokie Nation, this story is exceedingly personal. So, wanting to support Katie Couric, I tuned into her "special" at 10 last night to get a brief summary then an immediate debate on gun control. It turned my stomach in the first 10 seconds and I switched to the 24-hour news stations who were interviewing survivors, roommates, and expanding my understanding. To Katie, all the presidential candidates, and pundits around the world....this is not a story about guns. This is not a story about a University President or Campus Security. This is a story about a boy/man with mental defect who took over 30 lives and in so doing, tarnished the image of my campus forever in the hearts and minds of thousands of the Hokie Nation.; Reply to this comment


by ancientromer April 18, 2007 1:35 AM EDT: Kudos to Posted by jburdman7 at 06:29 PM : Apr 17, 2007:
The overwhelming majority of gun owners in this country are responsible, law abiding citizens. A relatively small number of individuals are responsible for crimes involving firearms, and most of these individuals are not first time offenders.

Monday's mass-murderer at Virginia Tech, Cho Seung-Hui, appears to have obtained his guns legally. Though the carnage he inflicted was horrific and massive, Seung-Hui's abuse of guns was a miniscule exception to the norm of legal gun ownership. There is no law on earth that will protect us from human time bombs like Cho Seung-Hui.

Crime decreases in states with concealed carry laws. Congress should confine its efforts to funding programs that improve the ability of state and local communities to enforce existing laws.; Reply to this comment


by ancientromer April 18, 2007 12:34 AM EDT: Bravissima to marie2233 for the 06:49 PM : Apr 17,posting. The overwhelming majority of gun owners in this country are responsible, law abiding citizens. A relatively small number of individuals are responsible for crimes involving firearms, and the great majority of these individuals are repeat offenders.

Violent crime decreases in states with concealed carry laws. Congress should confine its efforts to funding programs that improve the ability of state and local communities to enforce existing laws.; Reply to this comment


by marie2233 April 17, 2007 9:49 PM EDT: Gun Control???? I am 74 years old-when I went to school, guns were easily available. but no one bought them to school- Why? Maybe we were too concerned about where our next meal was coming from...; Reply to this comment


by jburdman7 April 17, 2007 9:29 PM EDT: 1) Gun Control - How many fewer students would have died if even 1 in 15 of the 60 victims had carried a handgun that day and knew how to use it? Gun control should never be about taking guns away from sane people for the purpose of defense. The number of lives saved from hand guns is far under measured and under reported because there are powers that wish to disarm us. Take the use of the term "Semi-automatic". Did you know the revolvers from the wild west are "Semi-automatic?" Ban Semi-automatic" guns and you are literally banning guns post 1860.

2) The university's handling of the incident - What was the University to do? Tell the students to stay in the dorms, where the first shootings took place? Critics act as if, if the students were not in class that they cease to exist as targets.

We have enough complaining about everything without proposing solutions in congress.; Reply to this comment


by jburdman7 April 17, 2007 9:28 PM EDT: 1) Gun Control - How many fewer students would have died if even 1 in 15 of the 60 victims had carried a handgun that day and knew how to use it? Gun control should never be about taking guns away from sane people for the purpose of defense. The number of lives saved from hand guns is far under measured and under reported because there are powers that wish to disarm us. Take the use of the term "Semi-automatic". Did you know the revolvers from the wild west are "Semi-automatic?" Ban Semi-automatic" guns and you are literally banning guns post 1860.

2) The university's handling of the incident - What was the University to do? Tell the students to stay in the dorms, where the first shootings took place? Critics act as if, if the students were not in class that they cease to exist as targets.

We have enough complaining about everything without proposing solutions in congress.; Reply to this comment


by peterbaldwin-2009 April 17, 2007 9:00 PM EDT: Notice how Brian pulls a Katy C. type gaffe by quoting Dana Perino's statement today but conveniently leaving out her spontaneous utterance made yesterday: "The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed."; Reply to this comment