Should The Virginia Tech Tragedy Be Sparking The Gun Control Debate?

By: Brian Montopoli
Topics: 4th Estate Debate

(AP)

In the New Yorker this week, Adam Gopnik wrote this: "The cell phones in the pockets of the dead students were still ringing when we were told that it was wrong to ask why."

The why, Gopnik suggests, is our gun control laws, which are less strict than those in countries like Britain, where gun laws were tightened after a gunman killed 17 people, most of them children, in a school in Dunblane, Scotland.

The debate over media coverage of the tragedy has focused largely on whether or not the Cho manifesto should have been shown. There has been far less discussion about whether the press corps should be taking up the gun control debate.

To some extent, that decision isn't up to the press corps. Journalists report the news, after all, and the news has largely been the tragedy and its victims, not the policy debate.

There's a reason for that: politicians who would prefer tighter laws, usually those on the left, don't want to talk about the issue -- it's considered a losing one for Democrats. Politicians on the other side, meanwhile, don't want to stir a debate that has largely fallen off the national radar, particularly so soon after a gun-related tragedy.

There has been some discussion about closing the loophole in the law that allowed someone like Cho Sueng-Hui to get guns -- a discussion the "Evening News" covered last night -- but little wider debate about to what degree America regulates its firearms.

As this latest tragedy once again illustrates, however, the availability of guns is a major issue in this country. The press corps doesn't need a debate in the halls of Congress to recognize that. Certainly, the international press corps has focused on the issue in the wake of the shootings; the British-based Economist, for example, put an American flag in the shape of a gun on its cover and proclaimed that the country's "politicians are still running away from a debate about guns."

In America, meanwhile, many media outlets have been either ignoring the gun control issue or urging citizens to "[l]eave the debate for another day."

But what day would that be? In order to delve into a big issue, the media usually needs what's known as a "hook" – a news event that focuses people's attention on larger questions. The tragedy at Virginia Tech is such an event.

There were reasons not to take up larger issues and assign blame in the immediate wake of the shootings – those first few days needed to be about how people were dealing with the horror of what had taken place. But some time has now passed, and I'm hard pressed to think of a better time for the media to focus on a huge issue that isn't going away anytime soon.

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

12 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 12 Comments


by skylinefire April 28, 2007 2:08 AM EDT: It is certainly entertaining to read some of the anti-gun comments. If you don't want to own a gun that's up to you but you have no business telling me that I shouldn't have one for the protection of myself and my family. I'm personally not scared of firearms because I realize they are simply a tool and are used many, many times more for preventing crime than for committing them. For information read "The Seven Myths of Gun Control" or "Straight Shooting". Now if you just absolutely must have the government to look after you consider this...the police have NO obligation to protect you. Don't believe me? Do the research! ALmost all of the street cops that I work with are gun owners and believe in private ownership. ALL OF THE MASS SHOOTINGS in the U.S. have been in "gun free zones" and the tragedy at VT could have been stopped by a civilian with a firearm. Not all students are kids...some are active or retired military, law enforcement, firemen, etc. I fall into the latter category and I always carry...I'm too old to run or fight!; Reply to this comment


by mattcat25 April 27, 2007 2:15 PM EDT: "If Cho had raced through the Virginia Tech campus in an automobile killing 30 people, would we be calling for more laws restricting car ownership?"

Car ownership and operations are monitored by both State Departments of Motor Vehicles, and Private Insurance Companies. If someone can't follow the rules of the road properly, or have displayed unsafe driving habits before Law Enforcent they could be assessed points on their driving record which translate to higher insurance costs, or even court ordered suspension of the privilege to drive.

This is a good example of controlled public streets and highways. If this type of data base could be used to call attention to an individual that must have arms far beyond the rational necessity of personal protection, this may save a few lives just like the control of unsafe drivers.; Reply to this comment


by jimhla April 27, 2007 6:18 AM EDT: What am I missing here? What does one man going crazy and killing people have to do with gun control (or the lack if it)?

If Cho had raced through the Virginia Tech campus in an automobile killing 30 people, would we be calling for more laws restricting car ownership?

Cho would have killed people one way or another, guns or no guns.; Reply to this comment


by mattcat25 April 26, 2007 12:36 PM EDT: The guns (one Glock 9 millimeter, and one semi-automatic 22 caliber pistol) were purchased and registered legally by Cho the VT shooter. What I don%u2019t understand is Cho elected to file off the serial numbers on his own legal weapons before committed this atrocity.

My point is%u2026it wasn%u2019t the purchase of the two personal protection type firearms that we should focus on but the purchase of the many clips of ammunition that was subsequently acquired leading up to the plan of Cho to misuse of his weapons.

What I would like to see is some sort of control of legal weapon registry that would track what type of firearms, ammunition, and equipment a registered owner purchases. This could be kind of like what the credit card companies use to examine possible invalid purchases.

One household doesn%u2019t need an arsenal of weaponry, because the NRA (National Republican Agency) boasts this as a political statement that firearm ownership is a right of passage, maybe we should re-evaluate gun control as to legal gun ownership and intention (mental stability) of having personal protection without allowing the unrestricted commerce of heavy armaments.; Reply to this comment


by ocshooters April 26, 2007 11:08 AM EDT: Re: sanfelz's post: "Maybe it is all coincidence but maybe it is NRAcist and NRAnti-semitic."
I hate to tell you but the NRA has Jews and Blacks on their Board of Directors. I am a life NRA member and my wife is Jewish and I know several member of our synagogue, (Temple Beth-El, Monroe, NY,) who are members of the NRA.
The statement makes no more sense than me saying that anyone who wants gun control wants to disarm blacks and Jews so that they can be ... (fill in the blank.)
I am from NY and I know that gun control disarms everyone, including blacks, jews, *** and every other group you want to name and allowes them to be attacked by the people who hate them.
The NY Times editorial from 1905 said that NY needed gun control because of "immigrants and evil communications, floating from the shores of Italy and Austria-Hungary." "http://www.ocshooters.com/Gen/news-articles.htm#1905
So lets recap, The school failed to protect the students, the police could not arrive on time, the courts failed, the mental health system failed and the federal law failed because have the record that would have barred the person from buying a gun legally. (It would have not have prevbented him from buying a gun illegally.) So we need more gun control.; Reply to this comment


by jburdman7 April 25, 2007 11:07 PM EDT: The NRA is FOR "gun control". The NRA is FOR passing legislation that will keep guns out of unstable hands, and in the hands of people using it as a tool for protection.

"Gun control", in its popular usage, is newspeak for banning private ownership of guns. Like they did in DC, which has the highest homicide by gun rate in the country. So you can see how well that worked for them.

Shootings are invariably done with Semi-automatic guns. So when they are mentioned, Semi autos take on an air of evil. Are Semi-autos horrible weapons? No. Did you know the revolvers from the wild west are "Semi-automatic?" Ban "Semi-automatic" guns and you are literally banning guns post 1860. People asking for bans on Semis dont know anything about guns. Would you like to defend yourself with a single shot musket? The powers that be have no interest in correcting this misunderstanding because this error will help our rulers ban Semi autos in the future.

Homicides will decrease upon the banning of guns at the same rate broken windshields will decrease upon the banning of hammers. Which is to say, not at all.

Think of gun control by taking the argument to the other extreme. Would violent crime increase or decrease if every stable, sane person was trained in gun usage and required to carry a gun everywhere? Decrease, right?

You just answered the question. Gun control should never be about taking guns away from sane people for the purpose of defense. Period.; Reply to this comment


by kennjen April 25, 2007 7:48 PM EDT: Maybe I missed something. Did the shooter in the VT tradgedy have non-registered weapons? If he had been taken into custody you could have added those charges to the 32 counts of murder. The very thought of that happening might have made him change his mind. I am sure it is a deterrent to others. What with the law against murder being virtually un-inforceable, exactly what kind of gun control would have prevented it? If I had surrendered my legally held gun that I am licensed to carry and have voluntarily registered along with having my fingerptints on file as the owner of that gun; would that have in any way prevented the tradgedy? Then I am sorry that I had not done so. But the fact is that no type of gun control will stop an unstable person from comitting the worst actions against his fellow man. As much as no one wants to hear it, the only way this thing could have been prevented would have been if an armed person, police, military or, yes, a licensed civilian, had been in place to see the man start to shoot at his first victim, and have taken him down before he could begin his rampage. Of course, whoever might have done something like that would immediately be a murderer in your eyes, because how could he have been sure the man was actually going to shoot, and so you would yell for more gun control, because that is the only thing you are interested in. You know it won't stop any shootings, it is just what you want.; Reply to this comment


by sanfelz April 25, 2007 6:59 PM EDT: I think the actions of the Secret Service, the TSA and American troops in Iraq regarding firearms is a good argument for gun control.
The latest NRA magazine has Mayor Bloomberg of NYC on the cover as the head of an octopus whose tentacles take guns away from NRA members. Hitler used the same imagery of an octopus to portray Jews as the power behind all the evil institutions. Despite the NRA's sophistication in other matters, they deny any intentional connection.
The NRA has long been an advocate of state's rights. Since Nixon and the Southern Strategy "state's rights" has been a code for denying full Constitutional rights and privileges to minorities.
Maybe it is all coincidence but maybe it is NRAcist and NRAnti-semitic.; Reply to this comment


by averjane April 25, 2007 6:55 PM EDT: We should never give up our Right to Bear Arms just because evil possesses a person to abuse others with a gun. What should have been done does not involve penalizing the rest of the country of a right as an American but stricter enforcements concerning people Cho who was allowed to slip through the cracks of the system. After all the red flags that went up about him, why were they ignored especially after it got to the point of having him stay in a hospital for evaulation. I believe people are so afraid of labeling a minority in America of being up to something because it might be considered profiling. Hey if it sounds like a duck and it looks like a duck, then it's a duck. The same can be easily said of people. They had all the proof they needed to prevent this from happening. It's just another way of anti-gun activists to use a tragedy to help their own agenda. They should not have let the students go on to class knowing people had already been shot either. Therein lies the problem. Not your freedom to bear arms.; Reply to this comment


by peterbaldwin-2009 April 25, 2007 6:00 PM EDT: The 1996 school shooting in Dunblane, Scotland was followed in a matter of weeks by the Port Arthur massacre in Austrailia, and in both instances restictive laws were enacted to reduce access to guns. Gun-related deaths in Austrailia decreased 47% in the decade between 1991 and 2001, and Great Britain has not had a repeat shooting spree since 1996.

Will Virginia Tech spawn new legislation to reduce the 16,000 per annum gun deaths in America not counting 14,000 suicides? No. The Republican Party is beholden to the NRA and gun lobby and will not hear of it. The Democratic Party has drunk the cool aid too, rationalizing that opposing free access to guns will cost them dearly in the 2008 elections, as it supposedly did when Al gore proposed gun restrictions (Rove still has a good deal of thought control over the Dems though they are doing better). Americans increasingly want the carnage to stop, but the political courage to press the case and win converts is absent.

Perhaps when we have a Democrat in the White House and more Democratic seats in the House and Senate, the politicos will suddenly find the will to take up the challenge. Until then, expect nothing but silence.; Reply to this comment