Guns And The Virginia Tech Massacre

By: Andrew Cohen
Topics: Field Notes

(AP Photo/Casey Templeton)

Lawyer Andrew Cohen analyzes legal affairs for CBS News and CBSNews.com.

Before the sun even set Monday on Virginia Tech's devastated campus, the eternally discordant voices in the debate over gun control already were sounding across the country.

Gun control advocates told us yesterday afternoon that they are not necessarily shocked that gun violence would rock another one of our centers of learning with such chilling brutality. They say that gun control on our nation's campuses didn't even get measurably better after the Columbine High School massacre in Colorado, which occurred nearly eight years ago to the day. In fact, they added, gun control across the country has become more lax thanks to a "lack of leadership" on the part of the White House.

Gun rights advocates, meanwhile, were quick to remind us, as CBS News' Armen Keteyian reported, that Virginia Tech officials had implemented reasonable gun safety measures on campus—guns were prohibited in dormitories and in classrooms-- and still were unable to protect the students and faculty. No doubt in the coming days these opponents of gun control will say to anyone who will listen that the massacre at Virginia Tech falls solely upon the shoulders of the killer, Cho Seung-Hui, and not upon the Commonwealth of Virginia's long-held policy of recognizing broad gun rights for individuals.

It seems too early to engage in earnest in this worthwhile debate. The bodies of the victims have not even all been identified yet let alone buried and this week at least we should focus upon them, and their friends and family, and upon ensuring that the survivors of the attack are cared for and nurtured back to health. The mourning has begun, so far mostly in private, and we ought to allow the all-too-familiar public ceremonies of grief to unfold in the coming days before we roll up our sleeves and try yet again after a catastrophe to tackle the issue of guns in America.

If nothing else, let us hope that the tragedy at Virginia Tech at least fosters a new national conversation about guns on campus. That conversation ought to begin not in Virginia but in Utah, where last fall the Supreme Court of Utah rejectedan attempt by administrators at the University of Utah to ban guns on its campus. The rationale behind that ruling and the potential scope of it are worth reviewing now, if not by Congress than by state legislators around the country. Perhaps there is no formula of laws and morality that can prevent these sorts of crimes from recurring with painful familiarity. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop looking for one.

26 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 26 Comments


by towerclimber37 April 19, 2007 7:15 PM EDT: Nice rules of engagement.
I agree with the no name calling and being civil..thats so nice but the rest of it is, in my opinion, a typical liberal viewpoint.you can put your ideas up on our webpage as long as they agree with OUR viewpoint.welcome to the liberal interpretation of the 1st amendment...from a syndicated news agency.
Laura89.
I don't believe that over a long term, more violence will occur. there are no accurate statics that I'm aware of that support that statement. I'd be interested in them if you have them on hand.
Eric.
that is your view, you're welcome to it..
you're also welcome to allow your significant other to do like the Illinois State police advocates when confronted with a rapist.
"attack them with a rat tailed comb...or throw up on themselves to make them a less attractive target." I myself will arm my wife with the KNOWLEDGE that she is not defenseless and the knowledge and skills as well as the tools to not only stop the attack but to remove said attacker from the gene pool.; Reply to this comment


by newbe33 April 19, 2007 1:16 PM EDT: On the Today show this morning. A woman being interviewed gave an answer I have been waiting to hear. The problem is not gun laws. The problem is mental health laws. If a person has mental problems, there should be a way to indicate on a background check that this person should not be allowed to purchase a firearm. If there where somehow a way to interconnect records, this could be a step in the right direction. I believe a doctor should have the right to access a data base and indicate that a person should seek treatment and be reviewed before being allowed to purchase a firearm. If a person in question refuses to get help. That person would give up the right to be able to buy a gun. Look, if you are pulled over by a police officer on suspicion of drunk driving. You have the right to refuse a breathaliser test. The state has the right to suspent your license for one year. Why not give doctors and judges the right to put a person on a data base that would exclude them from buying a gun. Make a law that would make it mandatory for a person that is put on that list to have to be treated and be approved by a doctor that he or she is now mentally sound before being allowed to purchase a firearm.
I hold no blame to the people that sold guns to Cho. They ran a background check following the law. If mental health problems would have been added to the background check, they would not have sold to him. Fix the mental health laws.; Reply to this comment


by car1diem April 19, 2007 12:11 AM EDT: No, I dont think the answer is to arm people to defend themselves in these instances. More than one time we have seen that this is a dnagerous plan. And it will ultimately lead to chaos. The answer lies in foolproof checkpoints along the way, that would ensure the safety of our children.

And while we ponder on this terrible ordeal, we pray and hope that the families affected by this tragedy, find hope and consolation in God and the rest of the family. We pray God comfort and help them through this heart wrenching tragedy; Reply to this comment


by car1diem April 19, 2007 12:07 AM EDT: Like everyone by now, I have watched the taped ramblings left by Cho. Clearly these are the ramblings of a demented, paranoid individual. And as we all know, hind site is 20/20. The system failed at many levels, and we are left with mourning these senseless deaths:

1. School teachers had approached school administrattion about this man, yet nothing was done. So at this level, the school admn failed its students and faculty

2. One of the students he was stalking, filed a restraining order with was not followed thru. The system failed VT students and faculty

3. Finally, when checked into a mental institution and deemed a threat to himself and potentially others, a psychiatrist cleared him indicating he was of sound judgement. Again the system failed; Reply to this comment


by laura89-2009 April 18, 2007 9:42 PM EDT: The argument that if the other students had been allowed to carry firearms not so many people would have died is a strong one. When the murderer started shooting someone would have been able to react and defend themselves and those around them, leading to less fatalities.
But what has been ignored is that although in this terrible shooting lives would have been saved, it would just mean that more troubled students would find it easier to commit murder on campus with a greater number of incidents over time. So in fact you would not be decreasing the number of fatalities overall. People need to not just think of this incident, however emotive it is, but also think of the effects of allowing guns in the classroom over time.; Reply to this comment


by corpknot April 18, 2007 8:15 PM EDT: EricMichael1,
So what would have happened if Cho Seung-Hui couldn't buy the guns that he used or obtain one, then what?; Reply to this comment


by okmd58 April 18, 2007 6:53 PM EDT: Using the same logic that the gun is the problem, how about we look at immigration! He was a legal immigrant to this country, correct? The gun was purchased legally, correct? Then lets stop all legal & illegal immigration to our country. If he had not been allowed in this country, the crime would not have happened, correct? Just using the same logic as the anti gun crowd.; Reply to this comment


by ericmichael1 April 18, 2007 1:37 PM EDT: Katie & Co.,

People like Cho are the killers. They deserve the blame for their own actions.

That said, the 9mm Glock 19 with hollow-point ammunition is a weapon to respect. It is a weapon of war. There are 33 dead to prove it.

It is time to get rid of the weapons of war in this country. Only the military and law enforcement should have them. But it will take a war to do it. The genie is out of the bottle. They are everywhere.

If a person wants to carry a weapon of war, they should either join the military or become a trained active or reserve peace officer. Be a public servant.

As for the person who claims that it only takes a concealed carry law to drop crimes, the present statistics just do not support that claim. Violent crime is on the rise nationwide.

By the way: I am NOT a democrat!

Have a great day!

Eric; Reply to this comment


by surfnmike1 April 18, 2007 3:40 AM EDT: Gun laws ONLY are respected and effect law abiding citezens. I find it kind of alarming when we put so much stock in law enforcement and government officials to protect us. At the end of the day, when involved in a violent crime, the only people there are you and the person that is trying to kill you. I would hope, as a law abiding citezen, I would be allowed to carry tools that would enable me to defend myself, my family, or anyone that is in danger.; Reply to this comment


by mpetrilak April 18, 2007 1:55 AM EDT: When I went to high school (and it wasn't THAT long ago), students who were hunters were able to carry their guns in their cars or trucks if they were going hunting after school. More than likely, they didn't even lock their cars in the school parking lot. Most people didn't give the presence of the guns a second thought or a first thought of using one. By golly, not one person was murdered by one of those guns.; Reply to this comment