Readers Forum: The Virginia Tech tragedy and the issue of gun control

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

In the wake of the tragedy at Virginia Tech, the Post-Gazette today published a column and an editorial on violence committed with guns.

Columnist Reg Henry wrote:

"... anti-gun forces need to stop giving the impression that they are there to take away everybody's guns -- they need to recognize the right. The gun absolutists need to put aside the dangerous fantasy that guns are the people's only protection against tyranny."

And a PG editorial asks:

"Americans and their leaders need to ask, What sort of people are we? Are we going to go on like this, mumbling stupidly that guns don't kill people, that people kill people -- when the nation's children are periodically sacrificed on the altar of gun worship?"

Reader comments

There are always going to be people with violent ideas in any society anywhere, no matter what. Antisocial personality disorder may be fully organic, we don't know, but if it is, it will most likely be universally prevalent. This may be unpreventable. What is preventable, though, is giving people with these ideas the tools to carry out tragedies like the one at VT. There is no reason whatsoever that any civilian need to carry an automatic or semi-automatic weapon. A small handgun for home protection is one thing, but we allow too many weapons to get into the wrong hands.

In addition, those who are blaming the mental health system need to realize that cases like this aren't all cut and dry. The law only allows for minimal intervention in vague situations like this (i.e., the kid never made any violent actions, so little could be done). This is a double-edged sword in that it protects us from being unduly locked up by corrupt forces, but cases like this may slip between the cracks. -- Rob, Philadelphia, PA

On the day the shooting took place at Virginia Tech, 51 people were killed in Iraq. Yesterday 198 killed in a marketplace where on Feb 3, 82 were killed. In the same Sadr City neighboorhood another 30 plus killed in a second marketplace. Both incidents yesterday merited only a few seconds of air time on the news. Why should the tragedy at Virginia Tech be more tragic than Baghdad?

A VaTech student said on Monday that campus looked like a war zone. The sad reality is that for many people in the world a war zone is normal existence. As an American on the outside looking in, I am amazed at the almost childlike attitude of my fellow countrymen that they have a right to a safe and security all the time and everywhere. When one gets out in the world one sees that security and safety is illusionary.

The reality of the world is that life is delicate and in peril 24 hours a day. There is no really safe and secure place. It would be nice is there was, but there is not. If the people of the United States and Virginia Tech are shocked and traumatized imagine the people of Iraq in the fifth year of a bloody war where there is no saftey or security and might not even be the semblance of it for decades to come.

As far as guns go ... if a student or teacher at Norris Hall had been armed, the shooter would have been dropped and lives saved. I am sure that the last thing Mr. Cho would have ever expected was to meet armed resistence from someone he intended to victimize and terrorize. Those of us who live where I do know that the self-defense of one's life is dependant upon one's self. -- Robert Price, Santa Cruz, Bolivia (formerly from the Mon Valley)

Many who have responded on this page have talked about logic and the insensitive timing of the debate over gun control in the aftermath of the tragedy at Virginia Tech; I see none of the former and only self-serving platitudes coming from the latter.

Logic does not, as has been amply pointed out, blame a gun for the deaths of innocents. This deduction takes no keen mental insight or reasoning. It is simply a knee-jerk response to the issue. Obviously, shooters kill people. Mr. Cho killed 32 and himself. The guns were simply his instrument of choice. Logic does, however, question the ease in which he and common street criminals obtain guns. Legally or illegally, it doesn't matter. There are simply too many guns out there. And it is far too easy for a person with ill intent to get their hands on one.

Logic also states that if Mr. Cho couldn't have used handguns in his attack that the number of victims would have been significantly reduced. That fact alone cries for more restrictions on handgun ownership.

Consider these facts published by the Open Society Institute:

In Texas and five other states, there is no minimum legal age requirement for gun possession.

In 48 states citizens can legally buy an assault weapon. In 43 states the purchase requires no license or registration.

In 46 states there is no limit on the number of guns a person can buy at any one time.

Only four states impose a limit of one handgun per month as a precaution against illegal gun trafficking.

Despite all of the regulations and restrictions that others have written about, these laws do little to protect us in events like this or the thousands of individual gun homicides that take place every year in this country. They just do not work well enough to be relied upon as the safety blanket that the gun lobby wishes them to be.

Logic suggests that, yes, we do need to do more to 1) restrict access to gun ownership, particulary handguns and automatic weapons and 2) reduce the total amount of guns that are out there. The United States has the largest citizen-owned armory in the world, somewhere around 235 million guns. We also have the highest amounts of gun-related deaths of any developed nation. The correlation between those facts is not coincidental.

And as for showing sensitivity to the victims and their families by tabling the gun control debate until some predetermined period of grief is over, that sentiment is both disingenuous and absurd. What greater sensitivity can we show toward these victims than addressing one of the primary causes for their losses in the first place? That and addressing issues of mental health and our culture's dangerous obsession with celebrity and violence show more compassion and sensitivity than a million candlelight vigils or crimson and orange ribbons.

Saying that we should talk about these issues later is nothing more than a way to stifle the debate. Yes, we are all grief-stricken over this horrendous act of violence. But what are we going to do about it? Will we sit in stunned silence with our heads bowed, only to raise them and hope that our shared grief will be a shield against the next attack? Or will we have the strength for discussions and debates that go beyond partisan soundbites and address the underlying issues?

Logic and sensitivity suggest that we act. -- Teddy Carroll

Ban guns? Then maybe we should ban video cameras as well. Who knows, if Cho didn't have access to a video camera, he wouldn't have been able to film his moronic tirade and subsequently fulfill his desire for fame. Maybe the grieving Va. Tech students could have gathered in mourning together instead of being hounded for network interviews by the classless media horde now encamped in Blacksburg. Finally, we should ask ourselves whether these images of Cho will spawn the next mass killing by an impressionable copycat with access to a gun and (gasp!) a camera. I have more fear of the media and the Internet at this point than I do of legally purchased handguns. -- Dave White

Virginia's gun laws may be more lenient than other states, however, the failure of the mental health system to adequately follow through in monitoring this individual should share some of the blame for what happened.

Despite warnings from professors and students, Cho was released from an inpatient facility with no evidence that anyone took the initiative to follow up to see if he went to outpatient therapy or took his medication. The university also should shoulder some of the blame for this tragedy by failing to lock down the campus immediately upon learning of the first shooting.

Finally, the students who taunted and teased Cho should share some of the blame for his anger at society. Too often bullies are allowed to get away with insults that amount to ethnic intimidation. These children learn these behaviors from parents who have no respect for others of different races, ethnic backgrounds, religious beliefs, disabilities, etc. -- Steve, Edgewood

I believe in the 2nd Amendment and the right for private citizens to defend themselves. The guns were not responsible, only Mr. Cho was, however, the guns did provide him with the technology to efficiently and brutally kill or injure almost 50 people. Most of them with multiple shots. Once you count all the shots that didn't hit a person, he probably shot off more than 200 rounds. You don't need that much firepower to defend yourself or your property. To use another person's analogy of a drunken driver killing someone and we don't blame the car, I'm sure we would if that car weighed two tons, was capable of going 200 mph, and the drunk killed 33 people using it. That's why we have limits on the technology that can be used on the road.

Can we not then redesign the technology used in guns to at least limit the damage that a deranged person can afflict? For example, the number of rounds/magazine, the speed at which a clip is ejected and can be replaced, a trigger lock once the barrel reaches a certain temperature -- these are measures which could be implemented to reduce excessive firepower, while still providing law-abiding citizens reasonable protections. I find it difficult to imagine a situation where one would need more than 10-20 rounds for defense. And yes, a maniac could load himself up with 10 guns. The point is that we can limit damage while protecting our constitutionally protected rights. -- Marv, Pittsburgh

IS NBC FOR REAL?

Last week, NBC needed Reverend Al and his band of upset advertisers to be their moral compass when dealing with what really only amounted to a name-calling incident involving Don Imus. (Let's be realistic: the only way that an angry old man like Imus should be able to offend anyone is if they allow him to, but that's another issue entirely.)

This week, the always ethically upstanding NBC found itself in possession of a key piece of federal evidence linked to the worst campus shooting rampage in U.S. history. After taking a few hours to properly copy everything in the package and slap their giant peacock logo on it, they finally decided to alert law enforcement to what they had received in the mail. Does anyone else find this to be as morally repulsive as I do? It's clear that they are much more interested in having their name attached to all things "Cho", as opposed to how offensive each of his "action" photos or his whiny incoherent rants are to most people, let alone anyone who might be directly impacted by this tragedy. They are even releasing more video contents from the package in pieces to use as teasers on their various news programs to further insure their ratings bonanza. On today's front page of every newspaper in America (PG included), you will very likely see images that many of the victims were forced to endure while their lives were being savagely snuffed out last Monday morning. How sick is that?

Now it's important to keep in mind that most TV networks who carry professional and college sporting events refuse to televise the images of drunken fans running out onto the playing field for fear of encouraging "copycat" attempts of this same activity by other drunken fans at other sporting events all over the country. Last night though, we were all treated to a barrage of images on the evening news that truly had no business being on national TV. To give that delusional, cowardly piece of garbage even one extra second of air time is a travesty. NBC basically broadcast for an entire nation of confused and highly impressionable youth -- many of whom may also be currently looking for an excuse to do something "big" to get some more attention -- a "how-to" manual for aspiring psychopaths. This doesn't even take into account the damage that their decision to broadcast will probably inflict upon the families involved, and an entire college campus and community still reeling from what has happened. Where was NBC's, moral compass this week? There is no clearcut racial angle against African Americans, so I doubt you will see or hear from Reverend Al or Jesse this week. Where are those advertisers who were so offended by what Imus said now? (I wonder if NBC charged them a little extra for their ad time last night based on their probable Nielsen windfall.) I heard someone briefly try to explain the network's decision-making process to air the material last night by saying that it will help the nation's grieving process. Are you kidding me? It's all about money and ratings, nothing more. I guess that the network and its advertisers ultimately decided that the shooter's crazed "multimedia manifesto" just wasn't politically incorrect enough to keep it from airing.

Nice job NBC. -- Jim, South Hills

By publishing the disturbing photos and video of this demented killer, NBC and all news outlets currently showing the material, including the PG, are in fact giving this man the worldwide attention he killed to get. By continuing to show these images, the news channels are propagating the terror that he wanted. Shame on the media for spreading terrorism! -- Genevieve, Pittsburgh

There is a hypocrisy among the anti-gun groups in this country. I hear people stating that there are very few people that actually use their handguns for self defense and they believe that it makes a good argument for disallowing the ownership of handguns.

The truth is that most people, thank goodness, are never confronted with the rapist, the intruder, the mugger, or the murderer. With that in mind, ask the victims of these crimes if they would have felt better if they had been carrying a handgun for protection. It is easy for people who have never been the victim of a violent crime to sit back and talk about gun control.

Ask the parents and relatives of the victims of Monday's shootings if they wish one of the professors or other students had been armed and willing. I know it is redundant but the real truth is that people kill other people, not guns. Guns are machines that need to be operated. History does not lie about this. As hard as it may be to believe for some, before the invention of guns, people still killed other people. Taking away guns will create more victims. -- Don Santoriello

We need to step back and not attempt to turn this tragedy into a political agenda. Having said that, I have never understood the American addiction to guns and the thrill we get from killing.

I don't deny someone the right to own guns (though the constitution that they so often refer talks about a well-armed militia to keep the government in check). I do however question what makes someone desire to own multiple weapons. Is it more thrilling to kill various living things with multiple weapons? Hunters speak with pride of the animals they slaughter without any hint of compassion for the fallen animal. I think the bigger question is what is it inside someone's soul that allows them to derive joy and pleasure from killing with no sense of remorse. Only in America. -- Shawn, Monroeville

It's simple, our forefathers gave us the right to bear arms and that's it, plain and simple! -- Jim Walter

God Bless the lives that were lost and wounded and pray for healing. I personally do not own any firearms, but if there would have been some people at the campus that were armed -- other than the shooter -- far fewer lives would have been lost on that day. I don't think this incident serves as evidence of the need for stricter guns laws. I think it shows that "Gun Free Zones" like the Va Tech campus are easy targets.

If a few more people there had concealed firearms, someone would have been able to end the tragedy sooner. It obviously would have still happened, but it would not have been as large of an incident as it was. A person that wants to use a gun for crime will always be able to access, steal or purchase a gun. Illicit drugs are illegal, but people still get them.

Stricter guns laws like the "Gun Free Zone" at VT only perpetuated the problem by not allowing the innocent to protect themselves against an enemy with a powerful weapon. Can we please focus on the lives now, and let the politics rest for another day? God Bless, -- Bryan M. Diehl

More gun controls, fewer controls, background checks, 30-day waiting periods, safety courses, etc., etc., etc.

None of it really matters in most cases where guns are used to commit crimes. Mentally unstable people and criminals who commit crimes with a gun will do so regardless of any or all of the protective measures you can dream of. Keep dreaming. Let's waste more time and energy on more ways to control guns which will have virtually no effect on the abusers of them. The law-abiding citizen will be negatively affected by more bureaucracy, while the abuser may likely be positively affected because the law-abiding citizen is busy wading through the bureaucracy whilst being shot by the criminal.

Maybe sad, but true -- the reality is that guns are rampant and readily available, legally or illegally, in our country. The reality is also that if sane, law-abiding citizens, capable with a firearm are present WITH their firearm during the criminal rampages, that is their best hope. -- Jeff C.

So sad, it is easy to blame the parents, home life, bullies, the rich, etc.... but some people just want violence, no matter what society does..... I teach grade 4 in NC and have had students at ages 9 and 10 express an interest in killing either family members or someone else.... many don't learn this from parents.... all we have to do is watch the shows on tv and go to the movies..... Violence and murder everywhere..... until we do something about this, the violence will never stop. -- Ken Bauer, Hickory, NC

Why is gun control even an issue here after it has been released that he bought these guns legally? This should not even be a question or mentioned with this tragedy. What happened was an ill young man chooses to take the lives of fellow classmates in a tragic way. He choose -- not the people around him, not the guns, not anything or anyone else but him. What has happened will never be forgotten by those that were there or by those that are affected by it, but it should not, in any way, be used by gun activists to change gun laws. This is neither the time nor the place for that debate to be taken up, this is the time and place for America to pull together and Pray for every one of the victims and there families. -- Steve Downs, Virginia Beach, VA

My son, who is 18 years old, attends a Pittsburgh public high school. Although the numbers of students are not near as many as at Virginia Tech students, I think the fact that they go through a metal detector in the main entrance does curb individuals that want to bring a gun to school. Also, they do not use bookbags or they use the bookbags that the schools sells for $5, which are black mesh and see-through. They have drug-sniffing dogs on occasion and lockers are locked during part of the day. Is there a way that Virginia Tech can have metal detectors? Even though it slows the process of getting into the school by going through the main lobby of a particular building, wouldn't it be worth it? Just like at the airports -- you have to get there 2 hours early and they can search you and search your bags and you cannot even bring a lot of your personal items in your carry on luggage.

ANYTHING IS WORTH THE SAFETY OF OUR CHILDREN.

I am all for GUN CONTROL. Lately, how many people are actually using guns to protect themselves? How many people that have been victims of home invasions have a loaded gun under their pillow where they are willing and ready (and know how to properly use a gun) actually defend themselves and shoot an intruder? None that I hear of in Pittsburgh anyway. How many guns are used to kill other people every day -- I cannot even keep count -- the number is too high.

At least in Pennsylvania, I am not sure of the exact law, but I think there is 3 days from the day you request the gun permit to the time you are issued a gun, so that you may think about the reason you are purchasing a gun and if the gun was requested in anger, maybe, just maybe the person will have cooled down by then and maybe not even come back for the gun.

NO MORE GUNS! This is not the wild, wild West where you did need a gun to protect yourselves at all times. What are we talking about here, anyway? Let all of the college students walk around with guns and have them loaded and the safeties off so that they will be ready to kill a gunman that decides that he wants to kill everyone he sees? Wouldn't it be a little easier and SAFER to not have ANY student have a gun -- period -- end of quote.

Why do we need guns? To hunt for food? Not likely. To be ready to shoot when a gunman is wildly shooting at everything that moves and does not move? Not likely. How about when someone breaks into your home, if you are there -- do you have time and the calmness to get your gun, load the gun and then go looking for the intruder? Not likely. If any of these things happen, I don't hear about them.

The hunting part -- for most people, it's just for sport. I think there are more hunting accidents killing other hunters or innocent people than deer are killed? I know that is not true, but is killing a deer more important than true hunting safety? How does one hunter shoot another? Just because they moved? Wow, we need to be more careful with our guns. Then again, if we did not have guns (except for the police) then maybe this world would be a better, safer place to live in.

Thanks for listening. -- Frances Wentz-Unites, Pittsburgh

One of your readers hit the nail on the head. We've been turning a blind eye to the problem of mental health for decades. It's past time for us to bite that bullet and recognize that mentally ill people can't just 'get over it' anymore than someone with a broken back can get up and walk because of happy thoughts or willpower.

Mass murder by mentally ill people is not new, but each time it happens, it seems to surprise us. The first major recorded event was a 1949 rampage by World War II vet Howard Unruh in Camden, New Jersey, who killed 13 people in 13 minutes with a German Luger. He believed people were talking behind his back, had a list of targets and methodically planned revenge. He was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic.

Charles Whitman climbed a 27-foot clock tower at the University of Texas in 1966, killed 15 people and wounded 31, and was shot dead by police. An autopsy found a brain tumor pressing against his frontal lobes. Does that explain his actions? We don't know, but he had a life full of red flags. As a Marine, he was court-martialed because of unauthorized possession of weapons, and he threatened a fellow soldier. He gambled, ran up debts to dangerous characters and refused to pay them. Not exactly insane behavior, but questionable nonetheless.

Shortly after I joined the staff of the City of Fort Lauderdale in 1990, a former employee laid off because he refused counseling for increasingly erratic and threatening acts toward the public returned, and killed a crew of fellow beach workers.

Mental illness is real, but we mostly see it in the form of people who sleep on the streets and scare us when they beg (sometimes angrily) for change or food. Or we read tiny news stories of folks who jump from overpasses or fall asleep on train tracks. Mostly, the mentally ill endanger themselves. But some of them endanger their loved ones and strangers.

Years ago, there were shameful asylums where the mentally ill were shackled to beds, had electrodes clamped to their heads or had portions of their frontal lobes destroyed. They were alternately hidden away or punished for illness as if it alone were a crime, and finally the asylums were closed -- but nothing worthwhile has emerged to replace them. Misguided 'rights advocates' bray that the mentally ill should be allowed to wander at will -- as if someone with a malformed brain or unbalanced brain chemistry is choosing to hear voices and live in filth in an abandoned shed.

It's time to realize that mental illness is real; the brain is a part of the body, and when it malfunctions, it needs care. We need mental hospitals that provide care, not torture, and probably for life for those for whom no real corrective measures can be found. For those who argue that this is not humane -- what is humane about allowing someone to suffer mental anguish? And besides, when we have people with highly contagious TB who refuse to take medication, we quarantine them so they are not a danger to the rest of us. We have a responsibility to do the same with violently mentally ill people. -- Sheryl Stolzenberg, Lake Mary, Fla. (born and raised in Pittsburgh)

My name is Jeff Neely, I'm a junior at Virginia Tech. I appreciate all of the support that everyone is giving us as a community, as it is a tough time for all of us as Hokies, as well as around the country. I have seen the devastation this has caused firsthand, and I think it is ridiculous that any of you are discussing gun control on this board instead of the victims and families that have suffered through this. Virginia Tech is a very tight-knit school and I wouldn't want to be anywhere else in the world because everyone is being so supportive and the school administrators are taking every measure possible to meet every student's need in this time of sorrow.

The fact of this matter is that a lot of great people lost their lives or lost someoone that was very close to them. There is plenty of time to discuss gun control and point the finger of blame, but for now I think that everyone as well as the media need to concentrate on remembering the lives of the amazing people who are no longer with us, and stop giving this murderer so much attention because the ones that truly mattered in this situation are those other 32 people. Everyone please say a prayer, and thank you for all of your support. -- Jeff Neely, junior, Virginia Tech

There needs to be a national database for anyone involved with any type of mental illness.

This would be required input by all private as well public mental facilities as well as general medical hospitals and clinics that treat persons with mental health issues. This database would be checked by anyone selling weapons and hopefully prevent persons such as this from purchasing a weapon. There will never be a foolproof system to keep weapons out of the hands of those that want to use them to commit acts of violence but with a little common sense and some tougher penalties on those who sell them indiscriminately we may have a safer environment. -- Warren Stilwell, Burlington N.C.

How simple life must be for some, that when tragedy strikes they so easily can place the blame on a weapon and not the individual.

Everyone is too busy being politically correct and no one will just say it -- Cho Seung-Hui was insane and killed 32 people at Virginia Tech, that is much too simple.

The massacre that occurred at Virginia Tech is unimaginable to most of us and there is a reason why. The reason is, we are sane individuals and literally are not able to comprehend how or why someone would do such a thing.

Some choose to search for answers and reasons that will never be there. A sane person cannot grasp what was going on in this young man's head when he walked into the classroom full of people and opened fire, and we do not want to know. Nothing anyone says or finds out will make this any less painful for everyone involved. No one is going to uncover information that will make us say it was OK and that we understand why it happened. We won't, if we do understand we are just as crazy as he was -- this will never be understood or accepted.

The fact that he did this with a gun does not place the gun at fault or the manufacturer or the laws governing the purchase of the gun, the sole person liable is Cho Seung-Hui. To say that by eliminating guns or making it harder to purchase one will stop things like this from happening is an oversimplification of the issue, the issue was never the gun. The gun has become the scapegoat. Cho Seung-Hui began preparation for this massacre at least a month in advance (according to what has been reported) when he legally purchased the gun. If there was no gun, it would have been something else; he obviously wanted to do this. He may have instead fashioned a bomb from fertilizer -- would we then be talking about banning and profiling Home Depot fertilizer purchases? Shall we go back and blame those involved in the Columbine shooting for not having a solution in place so that this type of violence never happened again? No, we would not do that, it is absurd, so why is blaming the weapons and not the person who committed the crime OK?

We all know drunk drivers kill many innocent people every year, yet we do not blame General Motors or Anheuser-Busch in those instances - we blame the driver who got behind the wheel after drinking. Would we ask government to remove all cars from the road to prevent more fatalities? No, we make the punishments for drunk driving harsher to try and prevent drunk driving. Why is this type of situation different? No one could have predicted this would happen, and no one will ever know what drove this young man to commit such an atrocity.

Maybe I am being too logical. I believe the horrific scenes we have all viewed, of these students at Virginia Tech, is beyond comprehension for those who were not there, and my heart goes out to those who were there. I hope that they can find comfort from their families, friends and community, something Cho Seung-Hui apparently would not allow himself to have.

There is no answer for what happened, only questions. Please spend you energy, time or money helping Virginia Tech and those directly affected by the tragedy, not by using this as a platform to get your name in the papers --- and "you" know who you are.

It was not the weapon's fault this happened; it was Cho Seung-Hui. It could have been any weapon. Let's not have disturbing debates on guns and security while some of our so-called leaders mindlessly try to keep their faces in the news by bringing it up at every opportunity.

Let's put the blame where it should be, on the shoulders of Cho Seung-Hui, and help those at Virginia Tech find some peace and move on after such a heinous attack. -- Wendy Gabauer, Gastonville, PA

Legal ownership and availability of any type of firearm is not an issue for debate at this time. Period. -- James D. Young, Augusta, GA (former Pittsburgher)

There are hundreds of gun laws on the books right now! Guns are the most regulated items in the U.S. All these gun laws and regulations haven't stopped any of these nuts. Had one student, or instructor been armed, this monster might have been stopped before so many were killed. -- Al DelSole, Oceanside, Ca.

President Bush said that this was a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. What a gross over-simplification. I would argue that it is the price that we pay for living in a society that idolizes the "right" to heavily arm ourselves -- even the mentally deranged.

What does anyone need with the weapons that Mr. Cho purchased? Was it worth the $500 sale? What a way to preserve our right to bear arms. What a loss to our society. Why are we the only ones who routinely suffer from these types of attacks? When will we ever learn??

It disgusts me to think that these types of killings will continue. -- Joel Randal, McKees Rocks

I don't bellieve that the 2nd Amendment gives the right for everyone to carry a weapon for self-defense (a right you too easily grant); it deals with the maintenance of a well-regulated militia by the states. I don't want to live in Dodge City. If the paranoid NRA were consistent, it would fight for the right of citizens to carry fully automatic machine guns, bazookas, or shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft weapons, or nuclear weapons; after all, these are arms. Why are politicians so afraid of the pro-gun lobby? -- Ralph Verno, West Chester, PA

I am an alum of VT ('05), and the Engineering Science and Mechanics department (ESM). ESM is headquartered in Norris Hall, and I spent the better part of 3 years in that building (1st year engineering students do not declare a specific major). I know every brick and inch, have been in every room, and can picture the second floor hallway where the massacre occurred, only now I picture it, with bloody walls and dead bodies. While my interaction with Dr. Granata and Dr. Librescru (two of the victims) was limited, we are a small tight-knit dept. and I did know them. This tragedy has been very real to me.

Which is why I am writing in response to your paper's editorial. These Hokies are real, there lives are real, and while it is inevitable, at least for now, I feel as a true community we owe it to ourselves to remember them, memorialize them grieve our loss. Not use their memory as a pawn in a political game. As such, I must admit I did not read the editorial in depth. But the concept that so many in the news media and politicians are calling for stricter gun control laws is so appalling to me, now is a time for healing, for prayer, and reflection. Not posturing.

WE ARE VIRGINIA TECH! -- Noah Papas, Graduate Student Researcher, University of Pittsburgh

Isn't it ironic that many of the people who consider themselves "Conservatives" are extremely liberal about the right to own a gun?

Not that I want to disarm the American population; I support our Second Amendment rights. If a person wants to own a gun for protection, or enjoys hunting game or target shooting or is a collector, that's OK by me.

Still, it seems that buying a firearm legally ought to involve more screening of the applicant. Maybe mandatory pre-sale gun safety courses should be implemented. You want a gun? Fine, but you're going to have to pass a class first. We don't approve drivers licenses without the candidate passing a test. Why are we so cavalier about guns?

Mandatory gun safety training makes sense. Law-abiding gun owners have nothing to fear from such a plan. The commitment of time required might deter someone who wants a gun simply to commit a crime or an insane act as we saw at Virginia Tech. Gun-related accidents might well decrease, too.

Even one life saved is worth it. That life could be yours. -- Dan Skantar, Oakdale

On Monday, after hearing the horrible news from Blacksburg, I tuned into NPR and heard President Bush commenting on the tragedy. Bush's words were something to the effect of: "...he had the right to own a gun, but what he did with it was a terrible act." The exact quote wouldn't be hard to find. This was the first comment I heard from Bush on this event. I could hardly believe my ears that the President would use this tragedy as an occasion to talk about his own position on gun control.

It struck me as extremely insensitive to the Americans who felt emotionally devastated by this event. Wouldn't the right thing for a leader to do be to focus on comforting and empathizing with the shocked public? Why did the right to bear arms have to be shoved into what should have been a supportive statement from the President? In addition to the actual killings at Virginia Tech, the fact that Bush's statement turned out the way it did shows how powerful the gun lobby is in this country, and what its effects are on our nation's well-being. -- Rob Hosken, Pittsburgh

First, and most importantly, I would like to offer my condolences to the families of the innocent victims at Virginia Tech. My opinions in this case may not be popular, but here are some thoughts I had as I pondered what happened earlier this week.

People will always be able to get guns regardless of regulations and laws put in place to protect law abiding citizens because not all guns are sold at gun shops which can be regulated (to a certain extent).

If it had not been guns used in the Virginia Tech massacre it would have been knives, swords, blow darts, arrows, explosives, maces, etc. that would have been used instead.

Guns are not the problem, but they were an enabler in this case. Would there be a public outcry for mace control had a mace been used?

Even if we were somehow able to eliminate all guns on Earth, senseless acts of violence would still occur.

I do not think that guns are the root of this evil. Rather, I think that the root of this evil was a mentally troubled individual who used guns to express his depression and disgust.

However, I must concede that I am neither a psychiatrist nor a gun owner, so cannot claim to have expert knowledge in either respect. -- Bob G, Gibsonia, PA

Here we go again....

I do agree that regulations should be put into place regarding gun ownership, and there are many regulations already in place. I do agree that the purchase of firearms at "gun shows" should be more strictly regulated. Even with the strictest regulations, guns can always fall into the wrong hands. I firmly agree with our right as a citizen to own firearms however "effective" regulations should be in place. When the constitution was written the guns at that time were "muzzle loaders" that fired one shot at a time. Now we have automatic and semi automatic weapons that can discharge many rounds in seconds or even fractions of a second.

I'm from the generation that when you had a dispute with someone, you settled it with a wrestling match on the playground after school, no guns, no knives. Both parties got it out of their system, and more times than not they were best of friends a few days afterward. Now you have kids shooting each other. There are problems in today's world that are causing these types of tragic events, I wish I knew what could be done.

When you have a "crazy" individual the likes of what happened at Viginia Tech, someone who was determined to destroy lives. If he wouldn't have had guns, he would most likely have used something else that could have caused even greater distruction and loss of life. The gun is just the "tool" he chose to use.

I know for a fact that you can walk into any home improvement or hardware store, and purchase all the materials necessary to cause a great deal of damage for less than 50 bucks. Then what are you going to do, put regulations on hardware stores?

Anyway, those are my thoughts...thanks for listening. -- Jeffrey Strum

Reader comments

I am all for the right to bear arms. But in a typcial scenario, is it so crucial that a gun purchase be immediate? How much of an infringement on your rights would it be to have to wait 30 days to gain access to a firearm, while a thorough background check is completed? Should this check not include the applicant's medical/pshycological history? (Ys this is protected, but can't you see that every rule can and should have exceptions?)

Every policy can have built-n waivers, if a person had a true need to gain a firearm immediately, could he not pay extra to speed up the process? Yes the applicant has a right to bear arms;however do I not also have a right to not be shot to death? Each side needs to quit looking at this issue in their own vacuum.

I personally know several people that should never, ever own a weapon, yet they have one, or could easily obtain one. Yes, people kill people, but I'd rather have a nut chasing me with a knife than blowing me away from 50 feet with a Glock, at least then I have a fighting chance. -- James E. Christy, Slidell, LA (formerly, Aliquippa)

Good grief. If guns were not available to this killer, he would have accomplished his mission with another method -- perhaps by plowing his speeding car into the side of a school bus or the college cafeteria window. Would all the liberals then be asking for car control? --

Lisaann Mascellino

The shooter at VT was a legal resident with no criminal record or other condition that prevented him from obtaining any kind of firearm. Gun control isn't the answer here. Maybe the problem at VT, or Nickel Mines, or wherever the next mass killing will occur in six months or so, goes deeper than the question of guns or no guns. Might it have more to do with the decay of societal values as the media, TV, Hollywood, the internet porn peddlers, and all the other usual suspects continues to ridicule those who promote the sanctity of life and the dignity of men and women? The mass media needs to stop glorifying decadence, violence, and the 'culture of death' as it has been called. Just don't count on it...there's too much money to be made. -- Bob Fick, Winchester, VA

Go ahead, take everyone's gun and only the criminals will have them, plus the law enforcement and government entities.

Remember prohibition, outlawed booze didn't stop the drinking. Outlawed guns won't stop the killing. Those who really shouldn't have them will still get them and everybody else can be punished for the few that took that privilege away.

Speaking of privileges, how many people are killed by automobiles? Perhaps we should outlaw them too and everybody walk.

In everything, the many are punished for the mistakes of the few!

Let's stop just having children and start rearing them again instead of spoiling them and making excuses for things that clearly are beyond "things that kids do."-- Carol Scanlon

Not only do we need to change the gun laws in this country. We need to take a serious look at the Mental Health issue. I DON'T want to hear that someone's hands were tied and could not do anything to help this person. A person with a serious mental health issue, which he obviously had, is not going to be able to help himself, so the laws NEED TO CHANGE. We need to be able to force help on someone that can't see that they need help themselves. Wake Up America. Why does it always take a tragedy before someone looks at the real problem? -- Pat Luterman

First published on April 18, 2007 at 11:08 am

Subscribe and save

Report news to the PG

Get Email headlines

Place a Classified Ad