Question of the week: Would more strict gun control laws have helped stop the tragedy at Virginia<br />Tech?

Home » Opinion » Commentary

Question of the week: Would more strict gun control laws have helped stop the tragedy at Virginia
Tech?

Sunday, April 22, 2007

Comment

Use this story to comment on our question of the week.

104 comment(s)

Napan wrote on Apr 19, 2007 1:18 AM:

" No. In fact, if some of the other students had been armed, someone could have taken him out before he was able to murder so many people. After all, what do murder victims all have in common? They were unarmed. People deserve the right to defend themselves. All that being said, I believe only U.S. citizens should be allowed to purchase guns. The shooter in this case was not a citizen. "

Jarvis wrote on Apr 19, 2007 5:26 AM:

" I believe that everyone should at least have the opportunity to have a gun on his or her person, within reason. This could have easily made the VTech killer's job a little more difficult, if not impossible. Imagine if he thought that someone was packing heat in Blacksburg. I have advocated for a NRA approved shooting range in the Napa Valley. This would have great educational and entertainment value. The more that cuts are made in the police force here in Napa, the more common folk are going to be forced into a position to look out for their own safety issues and protection. Self preservation is the number one rule of nature. Regarding firearms, I would rather have one and not need one, then to need one and not have one! Go COUNTER STRIKE! "

Shawna wrote on Apr 19, 2007 6:48 AM:

" If people want a gun they will get one. It was the school that should have kept those kids safe. Why did they continue to go to class. The first two kids should have been the only dead. Two hours is a long time. Someone had to have known about the first two murders in time to worn everyone else. This is a wake up call for all of us with kids in school. You have to teach your kids what to do in a crazy situation. Very sad. "

FreedomFirst wrote on Apr 19, 2007 8:16 AM:

" Absolutely not! Finding a way to hurt others isn't a difficult challenge for a sick person, with or without guns and ammunition. "

FORLAW wrote on Apr 19, 2007 8:29 AM:

" It's an outrage that such a person who needs to be helped so badly is ignored by an uncaring society. The cost was unbelievably high. All that talent gone forever. Really sad. "

Jen wrote on Apr 19, 2007 8:53 AM:

" Cho should have had better mental health care. He should have been ineligible for purchasing a gun legally. However, removing guns from law-abiding citizens results in more violent crime, not less. Had another student or the professor been carrying a gun, the death toll could have been far less. Perhaps Cho wouldn't have attempted to pull this atrocity off if he knew there was a possibility that one or more students were prepared to defend him- or herself. "

Kevin wrote on Apr 19, 2007 9:17 AM:

" One can't but help wonder how different things would have been if the teachers and staff had been allowed to carry. Some reports indicate that the campus police were not even allowed to carry. Also, since this cretin had been committed to a mental facility, why didn't that show up on his background check when he bought his gun? That is one aspect of gun control I would agree to... "

Sandra wrote on Apr 19, 2007 9:58 AM:

" Kevin, It is my understanding that it was recommended he be commited to a facility, but a judge only made him go to outpatient treatment. That is why nothing showed up in a background check. "

Gun Control wrote on Apr 19, 2007 10:47 AM:

" The gun is not doing the killing. Do u think that a gun can pull the trigger by itself? I agree with Freedomfirst, people will just find an alternative route to kill. "

up the age wrote on Apr 19, 2007 11:00 AM:

" I think the minimum age to buy a gun should be 21 instead of 18. The students at Columbine had their 18 year old friend buy the guns. Maybe even 25. And definately a better background check. "

XMAN wrote on Apr 19, 2007 11:32 AM:

" Guns have no conscience and need no control. The psycho killer is what needed control. All the signs were there. Liberal laws have made it very difficult to compel deranged individuals to not just get help but even to be evaluated. Such generous parameters allow potential miscreants to slip through the crack and at what price? Thirty-two of America's finest will be placed in holes and covered with dirt- forever. Nice picture huh? "

Spencer wrote on Apr 19, 2007 2:45 PM:

" The question asks whether stricter gun laws would have helped, and does not state that these stricter laws would be a ban---which seems to be what many people replying are fearful of. The question should be asked if Mr. Cho would have been able to kill as effectively with a pump shotgun vs. a pair of semi-automatic handguns (that were not legal due to stricter laws just a few short years ago)? Would he have been able to as easily make his way across campus to kill again if he was toting a rifle or the like as opposed to a couple of semi-automatics that can easily be tucked into a jacket? "

Harold wrote on Apr 19, 2007 3:57 PM:

" In countries where the government does not allow the general public access to guns, violence has actually increased. Look at England as an example. In Nazi Germany, after Hitler seized all of the weapons from the citizens to "protect" them better, he was able to persecute millions of Jews and Christian dissidents without much resistance. The right to bear arms is an unquestionable right that United States citizens should never relinquish. Our for-fathers warned against trusting any government, including the one they created. A criminal will think twice about a burglary or an attack if they are not certain if that person possesses a gun. This sick individual killed these people with guns that were legally purchased. If the guns weren’t legally available, we will never know if he would have purchased guns on the black market or chosen another way to do it, such as a bomb. Everything is speculation from here on out. Bottom line, the mental health system failed to help this individual, warnings from teachers about this individual’s mental state were not addressed, and now families that had great hope and joy for the future of their children, families of teachers killed, friends of all those killed, must now live with this horrific tragedy for the rest of their lives. "

well then wrote on Apr 19, 2007 4:56 PM:

" Perhaps if the student body was well armed the total casualty count would be lower. Simple is as simple does. "

Spencer wrote on Apr 19, 2007 5:18 PM:

" Yes, while it may be true that had someone had a gun and shot the student, less people could have died (provided the right people are in the right spots), but would the decrease in mass shootings be worth the increase in accidental shootings? A secret service agent was shot by a self-fired weapon two days ago. LAPD reports nearly 50% of police gun-shot injuries and deaths are either self-inflicted or due to other officers. And these people have extensive weapons training. You expect that saving about thirty multiple shooting rampage deaths a year is going to outweigh the number of additional deaths due to accidental shootings, errant heroics, etc.? "

5250 wrote on Apr 19, 2007 6:18 PM:

" I know the liberal media is dying to make this an issue about gun control, but the question should be "would more strict control of crazy people have helped stop the tragedy?" Why was this fruitcake still allowed to be in school? Were they afraid of being accused of racism if they threw him out? "

LeftyLimblog wrote on Apr 19, 2007 6:28 PM:

" Oh, come on, folks! The Virginia gun laws are so worthless that a NON-citizen could get a gun without problems. All you 'anti-immigration' folks and 'terrorist fighters' out there might just ask yourselves if you think gun laws should be so lax that NON-citizens can buy them without a problem? A balance could be struck here. One of the first things that happened in the 'Wild West' was the law came to town was getting guns off city streets. And, yes, I'd prefer it to be harder for nutcases to get a gun too. If this ridiculous posturing keeps up the next thing you know McCain will be appearing in a flack jacket to tell us how safe it is at Napa Valley College. Sheesh! --Lefty!!! "

Norm wrote on Apr 19, 2007 6:37 PM:

" There is a Gun Ban in existance on the Virginia Tech campus. Just like the one that exists in Japan. Both didn't prevent some terrible actions by a deranged person. the Mayor of Kobe, Japan was assassinated last week and now this terrible tragedy in Blacksburg, VA. When thiose planning hrrific events decide to carry the plan out how do you stop them? It certainly isn't with a wriiten law on the books. "

John wrote on Apr 19, 2007 8:26 PM:

" Guns kill. Fewer guns kill less. 'Nuff said. "

Alethea wrote on Apr 19, 2007 9:45 PM:

" Because of gun control 32 people died at the hands of a madman. ‘Nuff said. "

B. Watch wrote on Apr 20, 2007 1:45 AM:

" Unfortunately, firearms just don't disappear off the face of the planet once made illegal on paper somewhere. California's assault weapon ban didn't stop the guy who robbed the Albertson's on Trancas from carrying an AK-47; yet a legal collector with a clean record can't possess that same weapon. Instead, it's legally mandated that you and I must try not to get shot while waiting on our (reduced staff) police force to respond. The root causes of violence must be addressed - anything else is just a bandaid on an amputation, a jury-mast on a sinking ship. When the uneducated and poor citizens don't feel held down with nowhere to go but down, and the working and middle classes are allowed to grow their own culture rather than being force-fed by powerful and ultra-rich media conglomerates pushing (you guessed it) sex and violence - then you'll see a drastic reduction of crime of all kinds. In a happy, well-educated society every man woman and child could be given a handgun and a crowbar at birth, and I can guarantee that you'll have lower crime rates than ever before in history. Again: violence is just a symptom, firearms just a method. Treat the whole disease. "

DMW - Ohio wrote on Apr 20, 2007 3:38 AM:

" Cars kill twice as many people in Ohio then guns do. Should we ban cars? There are more then 75% more laws on the books regulating cars in ohio then guns? Do the automobile control laws help? Will the gun control laws really help? All gun control laws do is keep the honest/sane person honest. Criminals or murderers will still get them. They will just have to commit more crimes to get them. The liberals have made America weak. It is evident because we are being attacked more often now. To the person who said there would be to many accidental gun deaths. Weigh the accident stats against all violent crime stats, not just mass murders. If the majority of americans were carrying weapons maybe the towers would still be standing, fewer students would be dead, and less women would have be violated. Criminals are not stupid and they are playing the odds that the honest Joe or Jane citizen with the kids and minivan are not armed because it is illeagal and they do not want to risk getting caught. The honest unarmed citizen is like a sheep to a wolf. It is very basic in nature. Why doesn't a wolf attack a mountain lion instead of a sheep? "

ControlTheCrazy wrote on Apr 20, 2007 6:24 AM:

" The argument "If a student had been packing heat, then he would have stopped Cho before 30 peoplehad been killed" tells me that the person making the argument has never been to college. Would you seriously want some college student, hungover from last night's party and half asleep during his early morning German class carrying a firearm? The assumption that this "wonder student" would be a decent shot is also a pretty big leap. I'm supposed to believe that some 19 year-old with an iPod in one hand and a backwards baseball cap on his head is going to stop a premeditated, well-armed attack? Please. As we see more about Cho's past, we find that there are serious gaps in the gun laws. How did a person who was found by the courts to be a danger to himself and to others legally obtain a gun? I support responsible gun ownership, but allowing ANYONE to own a gun when a court of law has determined mental instability is asking for big trouble. And here's the bottom line; either the dyed-in-the-wool NRA people need to start working with the anti-gun lobby to craft reasonable, enforceable, pragmatic firearm legislation, or else they can kiss the second amendment goodbye. Media hype will turn the tide of public opinion against gun ownership after a few more instances like this. "

ff wrote on Apr 20, 2007 6:49 AM:

" John wrote on April 19, 2007 8:26 PM:"Guns kill. Fewer guns kill less. 'Nuff said." Slight modification needed here. Fewer guns kill more if they are all in the hands of criminals who don't abide by the law... As stated by someone else look at Japan as a shining example. "

Charlie wrote on Apr 20, 2007 8:06 AM:

" If this man wasn't allowed to buy his guns legally, he would have found another way. Knowing that he was walking into a gun free zone gave him the courage to do what he did. If he knew people would be there that had guns, he would not have had the courage to do this cowardice act. Guns save more lives than they take. Communist Russia, Communist China, Nazi Germany, and many other countries have put gun bans in place, for the good of the people, where, in many cases, millions of unarmed citizens were and are persecuted and killed by their own government deception. Did those lawful citizens understand what was going to happen to them when they gave up their weapons? There is a reason that the 2nd ammendment, the right to bear arms, is in our Bill of Rights. "

uggghhhh! wrote on Apr 20, 2007 8:32 AM:

" John, nail files can kill, less nail files can kill less. Nuff said. "

LeftyLimblog wrote on Apr 20, 2007 9:08 AM:

" Yes, "DMW-Ohio", sensible "automobile control laws" when enforced along with driver training, good highway and car design do indeed lower automobile deaths significantly. So do 'Driving Under the Influence' supression laws when enforced. I suspect that the exact same would be true with sensible 'danger-control laws' along with user training, good design and 'nutcase with guns' suppression laws would do the same in the case of responsible gun ownership. Many hunters and gun enthusiasts do not find allowing mental patients and NON-citizens to buy guns freely as a mainstream American value. --Lefty!!! "

Opiniagirl wrote on Apr 20, 2007 9:30 AM:

" Less Gun control and one of the many people in the building could have been armed and stopped this psycho before it became a bloodbath. When guns are outlawed - only outlaws have guns! "

DUH! wrote on Apr 20, 2007 11:23 AM:

" I'm sick of hearing this ...society didn't care... the system ignored the signs... come on. This guy was a big fat jerk throwing a big fat tantrum. His parents were responsible for "watching for signs" not society. Or maybe his green card grantor. Now 32 families have broken hearts. He should have just killed himself. At least he spared the taxpayers the hardship of a trial. Wake up parents - if your kid is psycho - get them fixed or institutionalize them long term and protect society. Quit covering up for your kids people and own the fact that you are responsible for creating RESPONSIBLE members of society! You brought them into the world; don't screw them up and fix em when they're broken! "

bugged wrote on Apr 20, 2007 12:23 PM:

" Some people are just plain evil and there is no fixing them. "

Jarvis wrote on Apr 20, 2007 4:11 PM:

" To CONTROL THE CRAZY: Funny that you mentioned it, but I did attend college, Weber State in Ogden Utah, and lived at Promontory Towers on campus. Due to it's overly LDS enrollment, there was not even carbonated beverage consumption, at least in my circles. All schools are not alike. As has been noted by eyewitness reports and publicized police evidence, Cho was apparently a good shot, and even the wounded victims were hit at least three times. I would like to know how extensive Cho's firearm training was. It has already been released that Cho was apparently very familiar with the great PC video game COUNTERSTRIKE. It may seem strange, but games like this are very realistic, and I routinely average several thousand hits and kills per gaming session, which does improve real time accuracy. I would also like to know why the initial police investigation bogged down when KARL DAVID THORNHILL was stopped on the Virginia freeway after the initial killings. If eyewitnesses had seen Cho, then how much like Cho did Thornhill look? "

JimClark wrote on Apr 20, 2007 5:26 PM:

" Clearly, the control freaks believe we are all guilty of misusing what we have the right to posess. The merely includes guns. They love to find ways to deny us so many other rights. Denying that right because of a few who seem protected by the controllers is not the answer we should be looking for. That man should have been hospitalized a long time ago. So much for Social Workers and the likes of "Dr." Phil. "

no guns in my home wrote on Apr 20, 2007 10:36 PM:

" This is no longer the wild west why do so many citizens insist on the right to bear arms? How many children a year are killed as a direct result of their parents having guns in their home? "

nolongeranapan wrote on Apr 21, 2007 5:02 AM:

" Someone who is hell bent on killing is only going to look for other means of carrying out their destruction. If the guns were not available to him, he probably would of gotten ahold of grenades or made a bomb which would of caused even more deaths. I'm not saying that gun laws shouldn't be more restrictive, but they are definately not going to stop a mad man who is willing to take not only others lives but his own as well. "

PHWYLIE wrote on Apr 21, 2007 5:11 AM:

" No guns in my home? Post your address and see what happens. "

to no guns wrote on Apr 21, 2007 7:47 AM:

" Again, we go back to being a responsible parent. I grew up with guns in my home and we were told never to touch them and that "every gun is a loaded gun." We knew that if we touched we would would suffer the consequences. I too have guns in my home, and my son has been told never to touch. He has been taught responsible gun ownership and that guns are not a toy. DUH was right...be a parent to you children. Don't expect the police and government to do it for you. I am a legal gun owner, as well as a person who is authorized to carry one at all times. I will defend myself if needed, however I will not take a life at will or in anger. Perhaps if the campus security would have been able to carry firearms, less lives would have been lost. I believe that no amount of gun control would have stopped Cho from his rampage. However, responsible parenting could have made a difference. PAY ATTENTION TO YOUR KIDS! "

Suze wrote on Apr 21, 2007 9:30 AM:

" The way Jarvis, Jen and their like minded posters see it then if some other student was 'packing heat' then 'the bad guy' could have been 'taken out.' It seems to me that such talk is only for those who think guns enlarge certain parts of their anatomy. Frankly, I think guns are cowardly. Even a four year old can kill with one and has. It is too late for gun control, we already have 'Dodge City.' This country is afloat in guns. The tote a gun on the hip advocates should go and live in Richmond, there are plenty of guns there, they would feel quite at home. Oh no, they say, "we are RESPONSIBLE gun owners" yes - until they lose control of their temper or sanity. Failing to take mental illness as seriously as cancer was the real problem with those who knew Cho Seung Hui. What would shooting him have truly accomplished? There are more Chos out there and LOTS of guns. "

Guns In My Home... wrote on Apr 21, 2007 11:40 AM:

" are all locked up in safes, unless we have them at the range, with the kids, for shooting and safety practice. Power to the People! "

Blame-a-lot wrote on Apr 21, 2007 12:02 PM:

" Hmmm...what/who can we blame for this one? I'd like to say it's as easy as gun control, but even a preponderance of research showing guns increase the lethality of a crime (as well as the likelihood of injury or death in the home)doesn't address the whole issue. Clearly, regulating gun use is complicated, but simple measures such as more effective and universal background checks, trigger lock requirements and ban on assault weapons could have a limiting effect in some cases. This person wasn't a hardened criminal; he was, however, angry, depressed, and mentally disordered. Certain factors are involved here which must also be addressed: limited funding for mental health services (including psych hospital beds) cause incomplete and inadequate follow-through; a culture of violence accepted by the mainstream (movies, TV, video games)sets a standard of retaliation for perceived wrongs; a culture of intolerance as illustrated by comments posted here and on "bum" article yesterday increases feelings of alienation and anger. For some reason, even with the comfortable lifstyle we have managed to obtain, and relative level of mental health (although I cringe to think many of the bloggers, with their wild-west thinking, are allowed to carry guns)we cannot tolerate the existence of those more vulnerable and less fortunate than we. Rather than take a realistic look at socio-emotional causes of their problems, we are likely to dismiss them w/"Miscreant nutcase! Go back to..." insults. Add to this the availability of guns, what have you got? Were really addressing the roots of the problem, huh? "

Becky wrote on Apr 21, 2007 1:47 PM:

" I am confused a little about this whole issue. I am not saying you don't have a right to bear fire arms but what harm would it be to have a waiting period of 6-12mo. to find out and to take the time to check background completely. I have to wait for a passport to go on vacation I have to wait to visit my childs school for a background check? WHY NOT A GUN!!! Isn't it worth a try and see if school shootings go down isn't 1 childs life worth a persons wait of 6-12mo. I would think so!!!!!!!!!! "

Jen wrote on Apr 21, 2007 2:38 PM:

" Suze, I'm sure you're a lovely person and all, but honestly, "What would shooting [Cho] have truly accomplished?" Allow me: up to 32 fewer funerals, that's what. "

Jarvis wrote on Apr 21, 2007 8:05 PM:

" Suze, maybe you would be comfortable in Clearlake, where a large part of the population is unable to hold arms because of their meth convictions. Then you can take a knife to a gun fight with a drug laden manic heck bent on taking what you've got. I cannot believe that you would put yourself in the position of not being able to defend your self and your loved ones(?). Self preservation is the number one rule of nature, and until technology comes up with a more efficient and handy method, then arms are our best bet. The situations that I have been in regarding gunplay would leave me pushing up daisies in the present day, because youthful enthusiasm and seeming invincibility dictated my reflexes and response. At fity two years old, obviously my hands and maybe my mind is not as quick,a nd I don't feel like wrestling around with some fool and getting my hands dirty. It's a jungle out there and with depleted police forces, we are increasingly going to be placed in the position of protecting ourselves. "

no but wrote on Apr 21, 2007 10:21 PM:

" more strict immigration laws would have. Becky--women have been killed knowing that a man they knew (like a former boyfriend) was about to kill them, and they go to the police who say we can't do anything to him unless he commits a crime, the woman goes to a gun shop and has a 24 hour wait, and the guy gets her before she can get a gun. That is why waiting times are bad. Why should a law abiding adult have to wait to buy a gun? "

Michele wrote on Apr 21, 2007 10:47 PM:

" Fight Crime, Shoot BACK! "

PHWYLIE wrote on Apr 22, 2007 4:36 AM:

" No guns? Do you think your intruder is going to wait for you to get to and open your safe? I'd wager the weapons in your safe are not even loaded. "

JimClark wrote on Apr 22, 2007 4:49 AM:

" OpinionGirl: Your point is well taken. One thought though... When guns are restricted, the outlaws still have access to them. They don't necessarily have to outlawed. The People have a right to protect themselves. "the people" as defined by marxists will eternal victims. "

Les wrote on Apr 22, 2007 7:49 AM:

" Gun control laws will not stop people from getting guns if they really want them. If you can't get a gun leagally, you'd get one through another source to carry out a plan. "

Cary wrote on Apr 22, 2007 8:30 AM:

" "Gun Town USA" Kennesaw, Georgia has a gun law, where every household has been required to possess a gun since 1982. Since the law was enacted, because of a high crime rate, the crime rate has been halved, and not a single death has been related to firearms since. Their population when this law was enacted was approximately 5000 people, where they now have a population of approximately 28,000. By comparison, the city of Morton Grove, Illinois, the first city in its state to adopt a gun ban policy for it's residents, the city's crime rate immediately increased by approximately 15 percent. Criminals, or even terrorists, become cowards when they don’t know if they might be fired back at. We can’t expect a police force to protect every one of us, it would take far too much money and man power. I’m not saying everyone should posses a gun, but a gun free zone is a criminal’s best friend. I do think that there should be better screening for those buying guns, but as I have learned in psychology classes, we all have mental problems of one kind or another, even our police officers, many people can hide their mental problems from screeners, so all you have to work with is a criminal record or lack of one. This seems like an obvious case of selling guns to a mentally disturbed person, but a Judge didn’t think he was insane enough, his family didn’t think he was insane enough, and teachers, while concerned, probably didn’t think he would storm a school, killing students and teachers with his guns. Would he have killed these people if he knew this wasn’t a gun free school, where there might be people firing back at him? We’ll never know. I think guns, whether you own one or not, act as the unseen deterrent of criminal activities in cities where they are legal. "

10,000+ gun control laws wrote on Apr 22, 2007 10:27 AM:

" The last time I checked there were more than 10,000 gun control laws on the books, and California's laws are more strict than almost any other state and include a 10-day "waiting period" for purchasing a firearm! I'm guessing that every single suggestion offered under these comments is already contained somewhere in those 10,000+ existing gun control laws. What is missing is ENFORCEMENT!!! Let's give that a try. "

it's our culture today wrote on Apr 22, 2007 11:11 AM:

" Our society has been hardened and desensitized by horror movies,extreme violence on the big screen, deadly games such as counterstrike (that people buy as christmas gifts for kids) and gangster rap which glorifies murder and prison as noble, What is wrong with this picture? No wonder so many people want weapons- we are creating monsters. "

No guns wrote on Apr 22, 2007 11:17 AM:

" PHWYLIE wrote on April 21, 2007 5:11 AM: "No guns in my home? Post your address and see what happens OK I'm game- let's both publish our address and see who's home is invaded in order to rip off weapons. "

An armed society is a polite society wrote on Apr 22, 2007 12:22 PM:

" Owning and possessing a gun does not increase your likelihood of being shot or injured. It decreases it. Many studies have shown that criminals avoid areas where there is known to be a trained, able and armed home owner. A gun in the right hand at Virginia Tech would have reduced the number of funerals. An armed society is a polite society "

Eric wrote on Apr 22, 2007 12:37 PM:

" A coment was made earlier, about a waiting period of 6-12 months... why? There is already a background check system in place, and with technology readily available it can be completed instantly. If all sources of relevant CRIMINAL information were connected and available for the time of purchase why wait 6 minutes, much less six MONTHS... I'm all for background checks, if they are instant. Other countries aside, we are the United States, and the waiting period to get a PASSPORT isn't in the constituion as a limited power of the government. The right to KEEP and bear arms is - and it stems from common law as the right of self defense, as well as defense to tyranny. Relinquishing a necessary right for temporary "perceived" safety is not the answer. The 5 states of 13 that specifically demanded amendments towards rights to keep and bear arms did so based on continuous historical events. And, as far as i know, how many school shootings were there in the 30's when you could purchase firearms from anywhere, like gas stations and general stores? "

Big Jake wrote on Apr 22, 2007 1:34 PM:

" To ControltheCrazy, your generalization about the 19 year old college student is just that...a generalization. I doubt that the type of person you describe would be willing to undergo the requirements necessary to legally obtain a concealed carry permit. At worst, your characterization is demeaning to those of us, students and others, who do carry a firearm legally. Your invalid characterization is tanatamount to profiling which is something you are, I'm sure. against. Clearly, you do not know amyone who has a valid carry permit. The loss of any life is tragic. Numerous bloggers have commented on the value of the lives lost in the tragedy and we can debate how many lives may have been saved if someone with a firearm had intervened. But none of the "more gun control crowd" has ever answered this question: what is the value of a life SAVED because some one was armed? Relying on the police for protection is foolhardy. The VTech spokeman admitted after the killings that the university could not post police at each lecture all to protect students yet by denying students/staff to legally carry their weapons on campus, they deny everyone the right to defend themselves. To paraphrase, "Expelled if you do, dead if you don't". "

LeftyLimblog wrote on Apr 22, 2007 2:31 PM:

" How quickly this conversation was diverted from the original question. So let's get specific here. How many people who have written so far actually wish that the NON-citizen and nutjob Virginia Tech shooter had a harder time buying guns? Not that citizens and mentally stable people had a hard time buying guns, but that NON-citizens and nutcases had a hard time buying guns. Honestly, the family of the shooter wrote of their devastation at finding out that THEIR son had done this crime, how many of the pro-gun crowd are pro-nuts-with-guns lunatics? Really!?! How about coming out from behind your pre-conditioning and and answer the question. Could laws suppressing the purchase of guns by NON-citizens and nutcases save some lives? All the 'support the troops' bravado in the world will not help prevent terrorist attacks if we allow NON-citizens to buy guns freely. The same is true of people KNOWN to be mentally ill. We might as well just pile guns and ammo in the halls of insane asylums to see what happens. I have owned guns and support the purchase and ownership of guns by mentally competent American. But anybody who is glad that the Virgina Tech Shooter got his guns and ammo so easily is sicker than he was. --Lefty!!! "

PHWYLIE wrote on Apr 22, 2007 2:47 PM:

" I'm not going give my address because I will most like dispatch the intruder. You, on the other hand will have to open your safe and load your weapon. During that time, you will most likely be dispatched by the intruder. "

Big Jake wrote on Apr 22, 2007 4:44 PM:

" Lefty Limblog is correct... we have strayed for the original question. So to be concise: no, stricter laws would not have prevented the killings. He jumped through the hoops and was cleared for purchas. The failure was with the systemnot with the laws. "

TomBeland wrote on Apr 22, 2007 9:23 PM:

" I wasn't shocked that this person was able to get his hands on a couple of guns. Not in the least. Because you can get a gun either legally or illegally in this country. I was more shocked and disgusted with the university's handling of this situation. As soon as the first shootings occured... and no suspect was in custody, the university classrooms should've been under immediate lockdown. Those classrooms were the most vulnerable areas with the largest populations on the campus. The lockdown would've prevented this madman from entering AND chaining the classroom doors shut. Even with his illegal firearms, this would've resulted in two deaths, instead of THIRTY-two. To see the President tell everyone he did his best was appalling. You had a insane man with two guns and a chain roaming the campus for TWO HOURS and all they did was send out an EMAIL?? Is this guy serious?? It was mishandled at every turn. The parents of the victims should be outraged that there was no lockdown while this man was on the loose. It will have to take huge lawsuits against Virginia Tech University, to institute emergency lockdown requirements during such a crisis. The focus on the blame in this tragedy should not be allowed be shifted from a lack of ability from a major university to handle such a scenario... to a lack of gun control in this country that will never change. The lockdown would've helped. And, for the record, I hate guns. I'd never own one in a million years. But if I have a niece attending college and there's a gunman on the loose, I'd rather hope for a better campus security is in place, than hope that every parent and teacher is packing a firearm. "

Rainman wrote on Apr 22, 2007 10:13 PM:

" Inadequate gun laws did not provide the fuel for Cho's mental meltdown. Recent articles report that he sold the following textbooks from his VT Contemporary Horror class: "Men, Women, and Chainsaws" by Carol J. Clover, a book that explores gender in the modern horror film; the publisher's note reads: "Do the pleasures of horror movies really begin and end in sadism?" "The Best of H.P. Lovecraft: Bloodcurdling Tales of Horror and the Macabre," by H.P. Lovecraft "The Female of the Species: Tales of Mystery and Suspense" by Joyce Carol Oates - a book in which the publisher writes: "In these and other gripping and disturbing tales, women are confronted by the evil around them and surprised by the evil they find within themselves." There needs to be better Book Control laws in America! Dangerous ideas need to be kept out of the minds of diagnosed autistics. "

Shawn Gregg wrote on Apr 23, 2007 5:00 AM:

" I like this web page because it's going to help me with my research paper that i'm doing in english class.I'm doing my research paper over gun violenceand gun control. "

EXNAPAN wrote on Apr 23, 2007 6:03 AM:

" There is over 22,000 local,state,and federal gun laws now.More laws will do nothing.We need more nut control.The perp had already been found to be mentally ill.He should have never been sold the gun.People that are stable and of age should be allowed to puchase firearms for protection.The police cannot protect you.What more proof do you need.Where were the police when I lost my left eye because of some punks having fun ? Where were the police when my daughter was almost raped in a roadside truck stop ? XXXXXX "

Responsibility wrote on Apr 23, 2007 10:16 AM:

" In a free country, the government can not regulate every activity of everyone's life--that is the opposite of freedom. Even if they required screening of everyone, and had a waiting period, they cannot guarantee who is and who is not going to kill someone. Should we do the same screening for anyone receiving a driver’s license, because anyone can get in a car and run someone over. How about people purchasing kitchen utensils? The disintegration of family and morale values, the foundation of our original American society, is responsible for many of our problems. Family leadership and upbringing roles have been gladly transferred from the parents to the daycare centers and the education system. One only has to look at the power irresponsible parents recently transferred to the education system to control the abortion rights of their children—what next. We can blame a gun law or a mental healthcare system all we want. It won’t get any better if we don’t straighten out the root of the problem. More government regulations are not the answer, only a convenient excuse to a much deeper problem. "

Jonnie wrote on Apr 23, 2007 10:55 AM:

" And I'll say it again.... Boy I sure miss the good ol' days. "

Crow wrote on Apr 23, 2007 11:50 AM:

" Let's not forget, the name of the school is Virginia Tech! I would be willing to bet that if one of those smart engineering students went nuts, he could fugue out how to kill a lot more than 32 students with out a single round of ammo! "

Suze wrote on Apr 23, 2007 12:07 PM:

" I've had my rant about guns, and a lot of good points have been made for both sides of the argument, but no one has related an incident where possession of a weapon actually protected them or a family member facing danger. I have a couple to share with you. A friend of mine returned home from her routine walk with her dog to be grabbed from behind in her living room by a man wearing a ski mask who had entered her home in her absence. He placed his hand over her nose and mouth and started to drag her up the hallway out of sight and sound of her neighbors. She fought desperately, kicking and breaking furniture and the man was getting very angry, severely tightening his grip on her face. She felt herself starting to suffocate and realized she was perhaps going to die, when her fat old 'wouldn't hurt a fly' female Labrador charged the man roaring like a lion. The dog saved her life, the man dropped her and fled. The P.D. arrived promptly and despite bloodhounds found no trace of him. He was in fact a serial rapist having raped seven women prior to this incident and did kill his next victim. The weapon in this case was her dog. Mace would have been good too if she had some in her pocket with her keys, that would have given him a nasty surprise. She did not, and still does not have a gun. It would not have helped her anyway, locked away or in her bedside drawer. The other incident was some years ago at my brother's flat in London where he woke to a sound in his living room. He tiptoed out to see a man dismantling his very expensive stereo. He tiptoed back to to get his 'weapons' a pair of very good imitation Colt 45's he had bought on a visit to the U.S. in the Centennial Year. They don't fire anything but he went back and kicked open the living room door and told the guy to get the ---- out of there! The man promptly left. We will never know if it was the Colts or the fact that my brother was also stark naked. (His family feel it was probably the latter.) More seriously, supposing they had been loaded, supposing my brother was a hothead or very scared. He could have killed the guy. If you say good, then why are we so outraged with the Middle East for lopping off heads and hands for similar crimes? My brother left the window open - idiot! My friend now has a very good alarm system and never leaves her house unlocked. Dogs are good protection if you can give them a life worth living, not left alone all the time or tied in the back yard. Mace is good too. There are alternatives to keeping loaded guns at hand in a home or on one's person. I think guns are fine as a hobby, at the range etc. But there are so many out there now that I don't know why America is so shocked and awed by incidents like Virginia Tech. Lax gun laws didn't cause this, but it seems pointless complaining about the consequences of a society with so many weapons so easily available. Add this to the media promotion and admiration of violence, (he REALLY wanted to be remembered with guns in that aggressive stance) and not enough focus on the cumulative effects of mental illness. As usual when you poke into these incidents, some people were simply not doing their jobs well enough. "

Brandon wrote on Apr 23, 2007 1:21 PM:

" I agree people should have the right to bear their handguns and long guns. People need the guns to protect their families and themselves , poor people need guns to sustain their families and hunt for deer so that person and the family can eat since they can,t get food through other sources like a supermarket. And also , people need guns for recreational activities . Its not the weapon that is the problem , it is the individual. You can say the same thing about a slingshot or a hunting knife. If citizens were stripped of their gun rights then criminals will find ways to get guns illegally and kill innocent people and that is something that should be considered. Plus , it is the second amendment of the charter that people can bear arms FOR THEIR SECURITY AND DEFENSE. "

JimClark wrote on Apr 23, 2007 1:56 PM:

" Reading all these entries? God!! I love this country. None of us will be taken out and shot for our opinions; although some will sublimate that through their rhetoric. However, beware of the ACLU, the press and political correctness. Through these entries, some of us need to learn from the liberal. Todays liberal has become the extreme sociocommunist. Our republican has declined into the old democrat. The conservative, by virtue of its definition, preserves, protects and attempts to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. As much as we may find joining with other truely great minds a mystery, the liberal knows how to network and promote their marxist indoctrination. That mentality did not exist when The Declaration of Independance was argued, debated and given us in 1776. By some miracle, Kharmic process, Yin/Yang, etc., the finest minds that gave us our United States of America came together in one place in one time. The culmination of their disagreeing without being disaggreable, became The Constitution of the United States of America. Instead of giving our sacred honor to protect and preserve that miracle, we allow it to be chipped, clipped, bombed and, legislated into just one more assault on our the next step in human evolution. Liberty. The Liberal Intellectual Establishment (LIE)is the enemy of our state. I was hoping there would be more for my children and theirs. "

Mark M wrote on Apr 23, 2007 2:11 PM:

" The American Rifleman, one of the publications of the National Rifle Assocation (of which I am an Endowment Member), has a section entitled "The Armed Citizen" which retells actual events from newspapers across out country where citizens who were armed with firearms were able to defend their lives and property. Put "NRA-ILA Armed Citizen: into your Google browser to bring up the web site. "

To Becky: wrote on Apr 23, 2007 3:06 PM:

" More children are killed by auto accidents and drownings every year then by firearms. So if we all cement in our pools and started riding bicycle we will all be safer? I will also say "NO" to more gun laws. We need to start enforcing the ones we have. If you are a law abiding U.S. citizen you should have the right to purchase a firearm. If you are buying a firearm for protection then get the training to use one. I also have a lic. to carry a firearm and I take the training to properly use it, so I can protect my family. something to remember. Anything in the hand is a tool. Anything in the brain is a weapon. Even a hammer can kill. "

David wrote on Apr 23, 2007 4:21 PM:

" Stricter gun control laws would not have helped prevent a criminally insane man do the deed, and anyone who believes otherwise is misguided regardless of how well-intended they may be. Marijuana, cocaine and heroin have been illegal for decades yet, for those who want these substances, they are easily available. What would have helped is if responsible citizens licensed to carry concealed weapons were allowed to bring their guns on the Virginia Tech. campus, but, since they couldn't, the poor victims of this tragedy were legally reduced to being nothing more than sitting ducks. How truly sad it all is. "

J wrote on Apr 23, 2007 4:52 PM:

" It's not guns that kill people, it's the insane moron pulling the trigger that kill people. Banning guns will only make these people find new and more creative ways of killing people. "

Rainman wrote on Apr 23, 2007 6:18 PM:

" JimClark, I agree completely with you on the American miracle! My antitode thought for the big LIE (Liberal Intellectual Establishment) whenever I hear their rhetoric is a quote from the movie "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen." The Baron said, "Gentlemen, your reality is based on lies and balderdash, and quite frankly I will have none of it." It's a very powerful, simple statement to counter any propaganda the LIE spews. "

Kimie B wrote on Apr 23, 2007 6:38 PM:

" Absolutly Not! That sicko whould have just found another means to carry out his plan. I know its cliche but when there's a will there is a way. "

LeftyLimblog wrote on Apr 24, 2007 5:19 AM:

" Once again, I ask the same question that I asked earlier. Who wants it to be easy for nutjobs and NON-citizens to get guns? 'Big Jake' replied with a cute bit of illogic, saying that the NON-citizen, known nutjob shooter "jumped through hoops and was cleared for purchase" and "the system failed, not the law". Well, "the system " that failed is created by Virginia's sadly weak gun laws. There were no hoops preventing NON-citizens and nuts from buying weapons. What is it about guns that folks like 'Big Jake' like for it to be easy for NON-citizens and nuts to buy guns? Also notice that none of the other self-styled pro-gun folks ever answer the question. They blather on about non-issues to most Americans like whether they can get guns, which by the claims of ownership they seem to have managed to buy. You would think that instead of all the predictable posturing, we would see these folks think making it easy for NON-citizens and nutcases to get guns is a good idea. To 'pro-gun' people, you are giving responsible gun ownership a bad name. Suppose that there were two or three other armed students or faculty on campus that day. There might have been fewer dead but there would still be some dead and wounded kids because it is too easy for NON-citizens and nutjobs to buy guns. It's hilarious that some of these people are perfectly ready to sacrifice constitutional rights in the so-called 'War on Terror' but want to make sure that NON-citizens and nutcases have easy access to guns. --Lefty!!! "

Aj wrote on Apr 24, 2007 7:49 AM:

" ok so ive read a whole lot of these and 1 that stuck out was "controlthecrazy" he asked if the hung over kid from the night before carrying the gun would have realy been any help, and you know what ur right but i do believe that the staff should be able to carry a firearm. This is becasuse they would be more rational than a student and well come on if a teacher was packing then alot more kids would have been saved. "

Tim wrote on Apr 24, 2007 8:13 AM:

" Not at all. Even had guns been banned prior to his rampage, he would have been able to buy them through illegal means. "

Nevermind wrote on Apr 24, 2007 10:31 AM:

" Yes of course, If Cho had been denied the purchase of the gun I am sure that he would have realized how insane he was and decided to forget about hill little planned killing spree. I am sure he would have sought out help for his self-diagnosed insanity and became the poster boy for self reformed psychopaths. His denial of a legally purchased weapon would have made him a new man! He would have forgotten about the fact that he had the intelligence to build an even larger killing device and that he could still purchase a gun illegally. He would also have forgotten about every other killing weapon available. He would have set aside his insanity and focused on the positive things in his life. The denial made him see the light! Maybe he would have even taken up knitting and volunteered to read books to little children in hospital beds! Guess we'll never know - darn ineffective gun control system of ours! "

guns save lives wrote on Apr 24, 2007 10:42 AM:

" Each and every student in every classroom should have been armed. It's as simple as that. How many deaths would there have been in that case? I agree with Napa Dude. We should all arm ourselves because we don't know what the bums have in their dirty pockets. "

guns for all wrote on Apr 24, 2007 10:50 AM:

" Isn't it obvious. Guns and more guns are the only solution? How else can we protect ourselves from crazies, both in and out of Napa. I'm going to take out anybody who looks suspicious to prevent another tragedy like VA, which can happen here any minute. The law is on my side. "

Rainman wrote on Apr 24, 2007 10:59 AM:

" Face it, laws controlling all inanimate objects are inherently feckless laws. Controlled, registered motor vehicles driven by licensed operators cause more deaths annually in America than firearms, legal or otherwise. If Cho had been a truck driver who accidentally crashed a fully loaded gasoline truck into a school bus full of 32 kids and incinerated them all, the story would have been out of the headlines in less than 24 hours. The fact that the inanimate object involved in the event was a gun has given this story a long duration because it fits someone's political/propaganda agenda. A totalitarian government can't herd people into prison camps by denying them motor vehicles. However, the job is much easier done if you deny them gun ownership but reserve it for yourself. Ted Kennedy's bodyguard packs an Uzi in the supposed gun free area of Washington, D.C. A fine example of hypocrisy, not leadership. He is entitled to protect his life with a fully automatic weapon while John Q. Public is defenseless against the thugs on the streets. HItler's Goebbels said that propaganda has to be reinforced with a sharp sword. Americans hold that free speech has to be reinforced with a loaded firearm. That's just the way it is. Get over it and get on with your life. Otherwise call for a complete ban on all motor vehicles while you rant against guns! "

Virginia Native wrote on Apr 24, 2007 12:18 PM:

" I am a native of Va. and wish whole heartedly that this had never taken place there or anywhere. The truth is that even with gun control laws as tight as they are in DC they have more murders than most states per year. The problem with gun laws is that they are enacted without being thought through. We do not want guns in the hands of disturbed people however we pass laws so that no one , even another Doctor can access weather you are mentally stable or not. Heaven forbid anyone lie on the form. Even one properly armed student could have cut the number of deaths that occurred. More armed campus police could have helped as well. Teaching our children the realities of life will certainly help. My son is only 8 yet he knows how to react in a shooting situation. We as parents must teach our children to deal with an ever changing world. "

ThomasJefferson wrote on Apr 24, 2007 1:40 PM:

" "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." Thomas Jefferson "

Andrew Ford wrote on Apr 24, 2007 1:43 PM:

" "25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 US murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?" -- Andrew Ford "

Langston wrote on Apr 24, 2007 1:44 PM:

" "Firearms have been around for over 400 years, yet it is only in the last 20 years that people have begun shouting "gun control". Why then, only recently, has this become such an issue? Moreover, why are there more mass-murderers than at any other time in our known history? It is not because weapons are more powerful -- 200-year-old muzzleloaders have a much greater force-per-round than today's "assault rifles". It is not because weapons are semi- or fully-automatic -- rapid-fire weapons have been available for most of the last century. It is not due to a lack of laws -- we have more "gun control" laws than ever. It IS, however, because we have chosen to focus on "gun control" instead of crime control or "thug control." It IS because only recently has the public become complacent enough to accept, by inaction, the violence present in our society.' - Kevin Langston, Tuesday, 29 October, 1991 "

family man wrote on Apr 24, 2007 2:38 PM:

" I keep hearing people say “gun control” instead of birth control! Society is producing these psycho killers with no regard to another. I lived in Arizona for a short while. Everyone it seemed like had a pistol on their hip and there not shooting each other in record numbers! Instead people are respecting others a little more and know if you try to commit a crime or hurt someone there’s someone close by other than law enforcement that will help their fellow American. This is exactly why I am apart of the NRA and will be until I’m dead. We need people on our side to stand up to the “if we can get the guns life will be better” mentality. Americans armed have probably stopped more than one country for our government from doing something STUPID. We have amendments for a reason. People need to stick with that and keep our country strong instead of the psycho babble guns kill people line. I’ve taught my children since they could pick up a gun to respect them and know how they work and they can shoot with the best of them at 12,10, and 9. Most of all they are being taught through education how much fun it is to shoot or hunt. I urge people to keep fighting for their right to bare arms and the saying “guns don’t kill people “ “people kill people” is an ingenious thought and should be looked at more carefully instead of gun control. Birth control for stupid people that can’t raise their kids should be looked at too. Would save taxpayers a lot of money… Support your NRA before someone says remember that group the Nra that use to fight for our gun rights? Maybe I should of paid more attention? "

Simple Minded wrote on Apr 24, 2007 2:50 PM:

" I hope that all of you micro psychiatrists are as involved in saving this country as you are in having an opinion about a mad man that killed people using guns. When was the last time the Napa Valley Register tackled some real issues, like NAFTA and the way millions of our jobs are being dumped into third world countries, a subject that really does affect every one of us? What about those border agents that were railroaded into prison for doing their jobs? If AP doesn't tell them what to write, the Napa Valley Register reporters aren't capable of researching it. Keep up the good work Napa Valley Register. Keep our simple minded Napa folks preoccupied talking about guns, Nicole Simpson, and the dreaded global warming. "

LeftyLimblog wrote on Apr 25, 2007 6:06 AM:

" "Nevermind", you do indeed show signs that you don't use yours very much. If the Virginia Tech Shooter found it hard to buy his guns with disgusting ease and switched to the vast array of 'other killing weapons' out there, he would not be infamous today. Simple, really... let American citizens who have not been committed to mental wards have guns, let the NON-citizens and nut jobs look around for 'other killing weapons'. There is no way to prevent speeding, it is true, however at least the officer observing the speeder has a law to use to stop the speeding he observes. How many times do we have to listen to "We knew he was a problem. But he hadn't killed anybody yet so we couldn't do anything. I'll be the officers who had contact with him before the shooting wish they had been able to relieve a NON-citizen nutcase of his killing weapons. So again, why should it be easy for NON-citizens and nutjobs to get guns? I don't care if American citizens who have not been checked into a mental hospital have an arsenal to protect their home. Nor do I care that you have a concealed carry permit as long as you obtained it legally and a NON-citizen nutjob can not. --Lefty!!! "

warlock wrote on Apr 25, 2007 9:05 AM:

" throughout history leaders and governments have used disaster and tragedy to crush freedom and rights of honest citizens.this is always followed by despots and meglamaniacs usurping absolute power over the defensless populations.we all know what happens next.nero ceaser used the burning of rome to genecide christians.adolph hitler in 1933 introduced total gun control.first they came for the mentally-ill,the derangred,and the helpless.no one tried to stop them.then they came for the jews.no one cared.the rest is history,and almost the end of freedom as mankind had known it. "

Tom Beland wrote on Apr 25, 2007 9:20 AM:

" If marijuana were legalized, Cho would've been too busy playing XBox360 and would never have left his sofa. He'd also never be able to find his way across the quad area. "

guns prevent terrorism wrote on Apr 25, 2007 1:06 PM:

" If everybody on board of the 9-11 hijacked planes had guns, we could have save so many lives. I think that freedom needs to be extended further. That's what country is all about, and the government shouldn't tell us what we can and can't carry on planes. "

LeftyLimblog wrote on Apr 25, 2007 5:13 PM:

" Writer "guns prevent terrorism" needs to spend a bit more time studying general science. Ever heard of explosive decompression, "gpt"? That is the term for what would happen when a bullet blows out a window and the people get sucked out of the plane. Sky marshals are specially trained and there is low energy ammo for the purpose. The pilot compartment doors have been hardened and may pilots have been trained and have the capability to carry a weapon in the pilot cabin. Thanks, but I would not want somebody who is ignorant of the risks of gunfire on a plane to be carrying high-powered ammo on a plane I was going to fly on. Blowpipe darts would be better. --Lefty!!! "

Suze wrote on Apr 25, 2007 5:55 PM:

" O.K. y'all have yer guns, it does seems to be the majority opinion on this topic. It would be comforting to think that ALL gun owners are both sane, responsible and organized. However, the fact remains that the U.S. with the most guns per capita worldwide has the most homicides. So why all the fuss about little incidents like Virginia Tech? Oh well. "

my 2 cents wrote on Apr 25, 2007 6:56 PM:

" The right of good citizens to bear arms a great thing. Are you aware that the reason the Soviet Union never considered a full-scale invasion of the U.S. was because of the heavy resistance they expected from an armed populace. Over 2 million crimes per year in the U.S. are thwarted due to law-abiding citizens exercising their 2nd amendment rights. Simple fact: criminals are emboldened when they know they won't have to worry about getting shot by their intended victims. If Cho had believed that their was any chance of his victims actually being able to defend themselves, he would not have done what he did. "

WTF wrote on Apr 25, 2007 9:34 PM:

" My opinion is that if they ruled this kid as a danger to himself, they should have immediately revoked his right to own a firearm. Background checks should be required to own a firearm and safety training should also be a requirement. "

To Suze: wrote on Apr 25, 2007 10:58 PM:

" You are right about the U.S. has the hightest murder rate per capita. But you really need to get your facts together. Which states has those high counts. NY, Washington DC, Chicago to name a few. These states also have the strictest gun laws against normal citizens owning guns. States that allow open carry and conceal carry have the lowest murder rates. I'm not say everybody has to carry, but lets keep the bad guys guessing who is and who isn't. It's your choice if you want to be the victim or the protector of your family. "

David wrote on Apr 26, 2007 4:38 AM:

" Like it or not, there's millions upon millions of unregistered guns in America that can't be identified, and criminals aren't going to register their guns or comply with gun laws. These guns are here and aren't going any place, so the only intelligent question is do we allow decent, honest people the capacity to defend themselves or not? Laws don't make honest, responsible citizens out of criminals as witnessed by the fact that marijuana, cocaine and heroin have long been illegal, but, for those who desire these substances, these substances remain easily available. Anyone who believes that it would be any differed with restrictive gun ownership is simply wrong. "

Nevermind wrote on Apr 26, 2007 8:50 AM:

" Suze, you're right it would be comforting to know that ALL gun owners are sane. I agree. It would also be nice if only people with marihuana growing permits grew marijuana and only people with valid drivers licenses drive cars. No law passed will EVER tell us anything other than what we already know...which is people break the law! This guy was VERY INTELLIGENT. He could have simply concocted a bomb or other mass killing device. No law would have stopped him. No law can stop any criminal especially insane ones. Lefty, your anonymousness causes you to be rude and condescending. I feel sorry for you; I can’t imagine being so hostile all the time. "

VERONICA wrote on Apr 26, 2007 11:52 AM:

" "Bury my heart at wounded knee, Deep in the Earth, Cover me with pretty lies-bury my heart at Wounded Kne. Didn't we lear to crawl,and still our history gets written in liars scrawl.They tell 'ya "Honey, you can still be Indian d-d-down at the 'Y' on saturday nights" Lyrics by Buffy St. Marie The worst shooting rampage in America history! Massacre and mourning, 33 die in worst shooting in U.S. History! I am not trying to down play this because it is a terrible thing that happened that the media provided non-stop coverage of the tragic shooting. But what gets me is that this is a so called worst shooting in history. REALLY? It is certainly the worst shooting on a College Campus in modern U.S. History. But if you think of the worst shooting rampage in U.S. history than we are singularly uneducated nation! At WOUNDED KNEE CREEK in SOUTH DAKOTA, the 7th Cavalary attacked 350 UNARMED LAKOTA SIOUX on DECEMBER 29, 1890. While engaged in a Spiritual practice known as the "GHOST DANCE" approximately 90 warriors and 200 women and children were killed. Althought the attack was officially reported as an "Unjustifiable Massacre" by Commander General Nelson A. Miles, 23 soldiers were awarded the Medal of Honor for this Slaughter. Unarmed Lakota men fought back with bare hands. Well the elderly man and women stood and sang while falling under the hail of bullets. Soldiers stripped the bodies of the dead Lakota, keeping their Ceremonial Religious clothing as Souvenirs. To say Virginia shooting is the worst in all of U.S. History is to pour salt on old wounds-it means erasing and forgetting all our ancestors who were killed in the past. The lack of historical perspective seems all too ubiquitous in much of the current mainstream media. My intention is not to Downplay the horror that has happened in anyway. But we have 500-year HISTORY of MASS SHOOTING ON AMERICAN SOIL, PLEASE LET US NOT FORGET THAT!!!!!!!!!! "

LONGTIME NAPA RES. wrote on Apr 27, 2007 10:17 AM:

" I would just like to say that VERONICA really says it all. In how we as a NATION and as PEOPLE these things that VERONICA wrote are so very true so let us remember that what happen was a MODERN TIME SHOOTING in U.S. HISTORY. I only hope that VERONICA"S piece ends up being PUBLISHED FOR ALL TO READ! "

Liberty wrote on Apr 27, 2007 12:34 PM:

" One of the many hard facts that get overlooked by those impressed by visions and rhetoric is that mass shootings almost invariably occur in gun-free zones like schools, workplaces, or houses of worship. "

LeftyLimblog wrote on Apr 29, 2007 7:38 AM:

" The 'No-Think' brigade wants to stay all vague on this issue, with lots of pronouncements about gun-free zones, yadda-yadda-yadda. But the question still remains, what rights to NON-citizens and nuts have to buy guns? Many of the same hypocrites defending the rights of NON-citizens to exercise 2nd Amendment rights concerning firearms have few qualms about stripping civil rights from NON-citizens and even citizens to "protect them" from "bad guys with boxcutters". Hypocrites, cowards and a flat brainwave at the very same time! Let's help arm the terrorists with guns instead of making them use boxcutters, eh? I mean after all -- NON-citizens have rights too! --Lefty!!! "

Charlotte wrote on Apr 30, 2007 10:20 PM:

" Veronica is so right! The tragic event in Virgina could have been preventd has intellegent mental healt care be provided a sick man. I wonder how many more will die before mental health care gets fixed "

LeftyLimblog wrote on May 1, 2007 7:15 AM:

" How many folks here read about the recent muliple shooting deaths in, I believe, Nebraska? Hmmm, another nutjob killed himself and three others including a policeman. Soooo, arming and training a policeman still ended up with the policeman dead and the nutjob shooting himself. I guess that gives us a hint of what might happen to a bunch of armed, but untrained civilians who come up against a nutjob with a gun. I also note that the governor of Virginia added people involuntarily committed to mental health programs as people ineligible to buy guns in Virginia. See, nobody tried to take guns away from mentally-healthy law-abiding American citizens, they wanted to disarm nutjobs. What is so bad about that, folks? --Lefty!!! "

LIFE ONG NAPA RES. wrote on May 1, 2007 12:17 PM:

" LISTEN EVEYBODY VERONICA SADI IT WELL WE OUR A NATION FOUNDED ON GUNS AND BLOODSHED!!!! UNITL WE ACKNOWLEGDE THIS WE WILL HAVE A LACK OF GUN COMTROL. WE AS A NATION NEED TO ONLY LOOK AT OUR 500+ U.S.HISTORTY TO KNOW THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PRINT VERONICA"S PIECE IN THE NEWSPAPER SHE SAY WHAT SO MANY OF US NEED TO HERE AND LOOK AT THE TRUTH!!!! "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: