Jarvis wrote on April 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."
Jen wrote on April 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."
Becky wrote on April 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!!!!!!!!!!"
Blame-a-lot wrote on April 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? "
Guns In My Home... wrote on April 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!"
Suze wrote on April 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. "
to no guns wrote on April 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!"
nolongeranapan wrote on April 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."
no guns in my home wrote on April 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?"
JimClark wrote on April 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."
Jarvis wrote on April 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?"
DUH! wrote on April 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!"
Opiniagirl wrote on April 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!"
LeftyLimblog wrote on April 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!!! "
Charlie wrote on April 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."
ff wrote on April 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."
ControlTheCrazy wrote on April 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."
DMW - Ohio wrote on April 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?"
B. Watch wrote on April 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. "
Norm wrote on April 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."
LeftyLimblog wrote on April 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!!! "
5250 wrote on April 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? "
Spencer wrote on April 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.?"
well then wrote on April 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. "
Harold wrote on April 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."
Spencer wrote on April 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?"
XMAN wrote on April 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?"
up the age wrote on April 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."
Gun Control wrote on April 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."
Sandra wrote on April 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."
Kevin wrote on April 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..."
Jen wrote on April 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. "
FORLAW wrote on April 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 wasunbelievably high. All that talent gone forever. Really sad."
FreedomFirst wrote on April 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. "
Shawna wrote on April 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. "
Jarvis wrote on April 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!"
Napan wrote on April 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. "
All comments will be screened and may take several hours to be posted. • Comments that are off topic or include inappropriate content (offensive language, libelous statements, personal attacks) will not be approved.
• Please do not include contact information or last names, as we cannot verify your identity and some writers may seek to misrepresent their identities using this forum.
• We will rarely edit or alter your comments. They will either be approved or declined, so please double-check your submissions to make sure they meet our guidelines.
This is cache, read story here