Guns And The Virginia Tech Massacre
(AP Photo/Casey Templeton)
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 rejected an 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.
Someone with an asian name is automatic assumed as "Chinese" and from San Francisco or Shanghai. CBC is profiling asian man. What is this?
Please, please, please, out of respect for those Hokies that were lost and those of us in the Virginia Tech family who are grieving please, just this once, please get our name right.
No, it's not too early at all.
As a matter of fact, it's 31 victims too late.
The truth is, if just one law-abiding student or faculty member was allowed to carry a personal licensed firearm, this tragedy could have been far less costly in human lives.
But don't expect gun control advocates to admit a damning truth: gun control laws mean nothing to outlaws.
Could someone have been killed or maimed in the process? Sure. But the body count likely would have been far less, or even -0- zero, for if this man knew people carried guns on campus and were willing to use them, he may not have thought to carry out such a heinous act.
I also am in concert with the thought that criminals or persons intent on killing or maiming have little considerations for laws. So, the statutes aimed at gun control actually advocate for criminals and murderers, as they render law-abiding people defenseless.
I am a 58 year-old woman, and I just passed my hunter safety course, and intend to apply for a pistol permit.
Passing a law that would prevent people from having a gun on or near a college would not have stopped or even slowed this person. The only way to prevent something like this is to do one of two things:
1. Have metal detectors and searches at every entrance to every facility.
2. Allow anyone without a violent criminal background that wants to have concealed weapons.
What you have to begin to understand is that bad people will always do bad things. The only way to prevent these things is to create a police state or to allow average citizens defend themselves. As technology improves, having a police state becomes easier and easier. You must ask yourself if you want that given the nature of men and the verifiable abuses of power we%u2019ve seen with simple technology.
More gun control is not the answer. I could not agree more. Let us consider England at this day and time. There is total handgun control there but has the incident of fatalities by handgun dropped to zero, what a ridiculous concept. As has been quoted time and again, still true, %u201CWhen guns are outlawed, Outlaws will have all the guns!%u201D.
Just a thought to pass along.
Bridges and Gross approached Odighizuwa from different angles, with Bridges yelling at Odighizuwa to drop his gun. Odighizuwa then dropped his firearm and was subdued by a third student, Ted Besen, who was unarmed."
This accounting was not widely reported by the press because it demonstrated that firearms in the possession of law abiding citizens can curtail carnage in a college shooting (doesn't fit into the liberal thought process). More gun control only emboldens the criminal who will get a gun if he wants one (just as did the shooter in the VT massacre - he got an illegal gun illegally). Does the drug addict have problems getting the illegal substances he desires? No - so don't advocate the removal of guns - encourage the safe handling of guns by upstanding citizens.
Yet, with all of the evidence that gun-control causes increased violence people somehow think one more law would have stopped this. In a way they are right, but the law would be to let people arm themselves.
Thank you for correcting the name of my alma mater. Virginia Tech is very dear to me. I am watching your live coverage from Blacksburg, and you are giving the school the dignity it deserves during its time of sorrow.
Sincerely yours,
Mary Kay R, Youngdale
As it is obviously not possible to ensure (insure?) that people are prevented from taking weapons into educational facilities, we must strive to get as many weapons into the hands of the peaceable population as we can. This is the only practical way to prevent such tragedies with any degree of frequency.
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
So what would have happened if Cho Seung-Hui couldn't buy the guns that he used or obtain one, then what?
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.
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
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
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.
-
by towerclimber37
April 19, 2007 4:15 PM PDT
- Nice rules of engagement.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 26 CommentsI 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.