February 11, 2009 5:01 PM

Shootings At Va. Tech Spark Gun Debate

By
Caitlin A. Johnson
(CBS)  The deadliest campus shooting in U.S. history has renewed the debate over gun control.

Advocates of wider gun control blame the recent string of deadly shootings, including the Amish school shooting in October in Pennsylvania, on the availability of guns in the U.S. They say there has been no new legislation on control of guns since the Columbine incident, which occurred eight years ago this week.

But those in the pro-gun camp say that if people are allowed to carry concealed weapons to protect themselves, they can prevent these kinds of tragedies from occurring.

Maggie Rodriguez, who is filling in for The Early Show co-anchor Hannah Storm, moderated a debate between Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and Suzanna Hupp, a former Texas state representative and concealed weapon advocate. Hupp saw her parents gunned down at Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, in 1991 when George Hennard killed 23 people and wounded 20 others before taking his own life.

"It's been eight years since Columbine," Helmke said via satellite from Washington, D.C. "We've done nothing as a country. It's been six months since the Amish school shootings. We've done nothing as a country. We need to be asking out elected officials what they can do to prevent people from getting these kinds of high-powered weapons."

Hupp said she also believes that this kind of horrific incident is preventable, but she and Helmke disagree about how to do it.

"It amazes me that our politicians don't get the fact that these mass shootings only occur in places where guns aren't allowed," said Hupp, who spoke via satellite from Austin, Texas. "They occur in gun-free zones. Think about it. Columbine, he mentioned — post offices, day care centers, other schools, universities. Why are we removing my teachers' right to protect themselves and the children that are in their care?"

If she had her gun the day her parents were killed, Hupp says she would have been able to make a difference and perhaps save some people.

"There's absolutely no doubt in my mind things would have been different that day," she said. "I believe in this particular scenario, when Virginia Tech apparently stood up in front of a hearing and said they didn't want people to be able to protect themselves on campus, at that point, they had the responsibility and the liability to protect those people and they didn't. You basically are creating a shopping list for a madman. Somebody who wants a high body-bag count goes to a gun-free zone."

Helmke said that Hupp raised legitimate points, but a deeper problem is that many politicians don't even want to open discussion about the problem of guns — whether it is solved by having more control or less.

"Most politicians just run away from this issue," he said. "We need to start asking them what their proposals are … Maybe if you have strict licensing, permitting and registration, maybe you would have more guns.

"Actually, these killings occur all sorts of places. Fairfax, Va., police station, just 11 months ago, had two police officers killed at the police station. We make it too easy to get these guns.

"Let's prevent these folks from getting these guns in the first place. Then we can argue about how best to react when they're coming to the shooting. If they can't get that gun with a high-powered clip that's shooting off that many rounds that quickly, then we're making our whole — our community safer."

But Hupp pointed out that the shooter at Virginia Tech did not have an automatic weapon but rather a semiautomatic, which meant he had to pull the trigger each time he fired. But even if the shooter had used revolvers, Hupp said that people need the ability to protect themselves.

"When you make gun laws like this, it only takes the guns out of the hands of the normal, sane people, if you will," she said. "It keeps them from protecting themselves. None of the mass shootings have occurred in places where guns were allowed. You don't see these things happening at NRA conventions or the dreaded gun show that you all talk about frequently."

But Helmke pointed out that guns, other than the ones being displayed, have been banned from entering gun shows. He said cities, states and countries that have more guns have more violence and that "we need to prevent these people from getting the guns in the first place."

Hupp interjected: "How do you do that?"

"Stop high-capacity clips," Helmke said. "A semiautomatic weapon, you can get off 25 rounds in under 15 seconds — generally if you know what you're doing. It's just a single finger twitch."

Those on his side of the issue have proposed things like assault weapons bans and background checks, mostly to no avail, Helmke said. In Virginia, he said, people don't even have to go through a background check if they are buying from a non-licensed dealer or non-licensed seller at the gun show.

"Do an assault weapons ban ... Ban these high velocity clips," Helmke said. "Stop multiple sales of handguns. Look at registration licensing. There's a lot of things. But nobody has done anything."

But Hupp said she doesn't think guns can effectively be kept out of the hands of people who want to do harm. That is why people should be allowed to protect themselves.

"You cannot name me one place where a mass shooting has occurred where it wasn't in a gun-free zone," Hupp said. "I want my children protected. I want my teachers to be able to protect themselves."

Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved.
Add a Comment See all 98 Comments
by rcweide April 19, 2007 4:04 PM EDT
There is so little common sense in the Gun Control Group. It always takes a finger on the trigger to fire a gun. For the information that John Edwards espoused, If more of the students and/or instructors had a weapon, they could have stopped this Cho in his tracks, saving lives. It appears that these academia are so wrapped up in themselves that they don't know what the world is about.
Reply to this comment
by jmagarotz April 19, 2007 3:21 PM EDT
Semi-automatics are meant to kill people. Why do you need this? For self-defence? Grow up and stop thinking that guns and violence make you any more masculine, and start trying to work for real peace.
Posted by ttinsly at 12:46 PM : Apr 18, 2007

You seem to think (?) that Semi autos are a recent invention. The design is over 100 years old. The old saw "made to kill people" could apply to baseball bats, and knives too. In my experience, your comments about "masculinity" show you are not quite sure of your own. It would be adviseable for you to argue on a subject where you have some knowlege as you're getting whupped on this one. My advice is grow up and realize you can't make a Utopia with laws. It's a real world out there and if you want to remain a sheep so be it. Me? I'll be a sheep dog.
Reply to this comment
by phoenix1218 April 18, 2007 7:10 PM EDT
mikealford3,
I actually agree with you that a person should be a citizen, not just hold a greencard, in order to be able to carry a weapon. And having my LTC myself I wouldn't think it would be a bad idea for people to be checked by a shrink before they are able to buy a weapon. I also agree that people should stop bringing up things that happened over 200 years ago.
Reply to this comment
by wiccantexan April 18, 2007 6:34 PM EDT
kindrox, well-spoken! Glad to have you here in Texas.
Reply to this comment
by kindrox April 18, 2007 5:22 PM EDT
Self defense is Wild West and Barbaric? Does the moral superiority of dying at the hands another, when you could have saved your own life, make you warm and happy inside?

I have a request for you: DON%u2019T COME. We don%u2019t need you, we are getting along just fine in the South, thank you very much. We don%u2019t need more useless boobs who cannot look after themselves, let alone be useful to anyone else.

The fact is I trust and have more faith in other people than you do. I trust criminals to act badly no matter what law we pass.

And I trust and have faith that the vast majority of people, if armed, will conduct themselves in good fashion. See there is the rub for you. I am just fine walking around on the streets of Texas knowing that passersby probably have guns. Their motives and what they might do if I accidentally step on the toe of another does not concern me at all.

I don%u2019t believe that I could make the upstanding citizens of Texas shoot me, short of my becoming a criminal.

Notice it is you that don%u2019t trust. You don%u2019t trust your fellow man. You must believe that most people, if they had a gun, would look for excuses to harm you. You should examine your own deep seated mistrust of other people.
Reply to this comment
by wiccantexan April 18, 2007 5:05 PM EDT
I feel VERY SAFE because there are essentially no guns here. Robbers use knives. I don't ever hear gunshots. I feel safer. I feel happier, and so I trust others around me more. Why is America so afraid? And why does she prefer guns over life?
Posted by ttinsly at 09:56 AM : Apr 18, 2007

So, people get murdered quieter where you are? We prefer guns to PRESERVE our life. Don't get the idea confused with some idealistic view.
Reply to this comment
by sandieangel April 18, 2007 3:34 PM EDT
FIRST OF ALL, MY THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS ARE WITH ALL OF THOSE AFFECTED BY THE HORRIBLE TRAGEDY AT VA TECH. DEFENDING OURSELVES FROM AN ATTACK THAT MOST LIKELY WILL NEVER HAPPEN IS A PRETTY WEAK ARGUMENT FOR CARRYING A DEADLY WEAPON. TRUTH IS, WE ALREADY HAVE A DEFENSE IN THESE SITUATIONS IF WE CAN TRAIN OURSELVES TO USE OUR NATURAL ADVANTAGE IN NUMBERS. WE NEED TO AGREE AS A SOCIETY THAT THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR IS UNACCEPTABLE. THIS IS AN ACTION, NOT A PHILOSOPHY. IF WE WORK TOGETHER WE CAN DIFFUSE A SHOOTING SITUATION QUICKLY, PRESERVING THE LIFE OF OTHERS AS WELL AS POSSIBLY THE SHOOTER WHO WOULD THEN HAVE TO LOOK IN THE EYES OF THOSE HE WANTED TO HARM. THIS IN ITSELF WOULD BE MORE OF A DETERRENT THAN BEING KILLED SINCE INVARIABLY THESE PEOPLE TAKE THEIR OWN LIVES BEFORE THEY CAN BE APPREHENDED. WHAT IF EVERYONE IN SIGHT OF THE SHOOTING RAN TOWARD THE KILLER INSTEAD OF AWAY. IT IS NATURAL INSTINCT TO RUN AWAY, BUT WHAT IF WE TRAINED OURSELVES AS A SOCIETY TO DO THE OPPOSITE? I AM NOT SAYING ANYTHING AGAINST THE COURAGEOUS STUDENTS AT VA TECH, THERE HAS BEEN SOME TREMENDOUS STORIES OF BRAVERY. WE DO NOT NEED MORE GUNS, WE NEED TO REALIZE THAT WHEN SOMEONE ELSE IS USING A GUN, THAT WE WOULD BE HARDER TARGETS RUNNING TOWARD THEM THAN UNSUCCEFULLY HIDING FROM THEM. WE ARE AMERICANS, WE ARE NOT VICTIMS. WE DO NOT GIVE IN TO TERROR. WE LEARN FROM OUR EXPERIENCE. THAT IS WHY WE ARE THE GREATEST COUNTRY ON EARTH.
Reply to this comment
by scsocal April 18, 2007 3:22 PM EDT
People kill people not guns! Criminals and others
bent on killing can always buy anything they want
on the blackmarket!! We should have laws so that
non-citizens can't buy or carry guns. Most people arrested in the U.S. are illegals who have guns and are commiting crimes. There will
always be disturbed individuals like this Korean
student among us. Maybe we shouldn't be so politicaly correct and be able to safely turn
in individuals to authorities without worrying
about being sued or centured. This individual
was disturbed and should have been monitured
more closely especially since they had been
having bomb threats for the past few weeks prior
to him killing these students!!
We don't need the gun control crowd preaching to
us and trying to pass gun control laws now in the
aftermath of this event!!
Reply to this comment
by kindrox April 18, 2007 2:19 PM EDT
ALL gun purchases from dealers require a background check. What point is a waiting period? What point is registration? Canada tried it and is getting rid of it because of the expense and uselessness of it. What point is regulation if criminals ignore laws?

As for bans on semiautomatics, ask the police to get rid of theirs too. How are you going to defend yourself with a bolt action pistol??????

Communities don%u2019t have rights, individuals do. Do you listen to yourself? -EVERYONE CAN HAVE A WILD-WEST SHOOT OUT AND PROTECT THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY-

The alternative is NO LAW ABIDING CITIZEN CAN DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST CRIMINALS THAT IGNORED THE LAW AND ARMED THEMSELVES.

Have you been to the US? Do you really think ordinary citizens are having shootouts over shoplifting, or what ever minor issues come and go every day? Did you see my post one page over where men and women used guns to defend their lives??????????

Come to my street, half the home owners have guns. Kids are safe to play on the streets without being watched, burglary is rare, the neighborhood is free of gangs and thugs. And I live in a big city, and no we don%u2019t have fancy gates or private gaurds.

Police force, who are you kidding anyway? This guy killed 32 people and then himself long before any cops came around to do anything. Do you know any cops? Ask them how many times they responded in time to save a life, versus how many times they come to clean up the crime scene.
Reply to this comment
by mikealford3 April 18, 2007 1:58 PM EDT
Phoenix, I understand and you are correct, forgive me. I just think a greencard is not enough to allow a person to buy a firearm. Citizenship is needed to gain access to all of the rights as an American.

As for other countries being more peaceful, I wonder if those peaceful countries have the racial and economic and cultural diversity that we have in America. As has been shown in the last few weeks the U.S. has so much hatred with regard to racial issues. Perhaps starting if the adults could learn how to live together in the present, rather than bring up things from 200 years ago, we could teach the next generation not to hate one another so much.
Reply to this comment
See all 98 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook