Acts of bravery amid the horror
Letters
<b>Wednesday April 18, 2007</b>
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/">The Guardian</a>
We have heard the arguments for years regarding the modern-day relevance or not of the second amendment, which engrains the right to bears arms into the American constitution and psyche, and they need not be rehashed now. I am sure all readers are intelligent and well-informed enough to realise and accept that although they may have strong views on the rights of people to own guns, many others do not share that view.
But this argument should not be the focus of today's editorials, columns and letters. Nathaniel Hawthorne said that "A hero cannot be a hero unless in a heroic world", so let us today for once become a world that celebrates heroism rather than focusing on the acts of the wicked few. The bravery of students to carry their friends, their classmates and people they didn't even know to safety and help while under fire shows the acts of heroism that are still required in our world. Today it is them and their fallen colleagues that we should be focusing on, not the evil act of one person. We will focus on how to turn heroic acts into unnecessary acts tomorrow, but for today let's celebrate the lives of those who have once again been taken by the winds of fate and those who were willing to risk their lives simply because it was the right thing to do.
Let us tomorrow reignite the debate over gun ownership, and this time have a full and frank debate rather than the shouting match that has developed in past decades and led to a stalemate which only allows further acts of terror to plague our society, but just for one day we can put our differences aside and immortalise the all too soon forgotten heroes of our world.
<b>Michael Hunter</b>
Glasgow
It's really very simple. If you permit people to buy firearms they will buy firearms. If a person owns any kind of tool they are likely to use that tool for the purpose intended. Firearms have only one use: they are designed to shoot and to kill.
Don't quote in defence "the constitutional right to bear arms"; the constitution was written centuries ago, in a different world with different values. What about the constitutional right not to be murdered?
If an individual has a breakdown in response to the pressures they find themselves under, they could kill themselves. Give that person a gun and time after time we see a trail of corpses - Dunblane, Columbine, Hungerford, Pennsylvania, etc, and now Virginia Tech.
Personal ownership of lethal weapons has no place in a civilised society.
<b>Andrew Harris</b>
Hitchin, Hertfordshire
The second amendment reads: "Congress must not deny the states a militia. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The context was the "critical period" when the states were concerned over the possible tyranny of the federal government.
<b>Eric Liggett</b>
Carnforth, Lancashire
Neither the president of Virginia Tech nor President Bush even mentioned unrestricted gun ownership as a factor in this carnage in their public statements. The latter suggested prayer as a remedy instead. Maybe there is no connection between the availability and the use of weapons in Virginia.
<b>Laurence Mann</b>
London
Jackie Ashley would not have wanted her thesis on the media numbing-down of the daily carnage in Iraq (What matters is the blood in the sand, not Des Browne, April 16) to have been instantly proved in such a stark fashion. But the blanket media coverage of the killing of 32 students on a Virginia university campus does, by contrast, demonstrate perfectly her cry of pain for Iraq, where the daily death toll surpasses that of the American tragedy. What is, in the 21st century, the insane pioneer attitude to carrying and using guns - to protect yourself in a wild, unknown world - has also been translated to Iraq, where young, frightened American soldiers have been, on average, responsible for up to a third of Iraqi civilian deaths daily, according to Iraq's ministry of health.
<b>Dr David Lowry</b>
Stoneleigh, Surrey
<b>Special report</b>
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/0,,759893,00.html">United States</a>
<b>Related articles</b>
25.10.2002: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,819054,00.html">Captured in their sniper's nest</a>
25.10.2002: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,818956,00.html">Dropped clues that led police to sniper</a>
25.10.2002: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,819087,00.html">Rifle costs just $800</a>
<b>Useful links</b>
<a href="http://www.nra.org/">National Rifle Association</a>
<a href="http://www.vpc.org/">Violence Policy Centre</a>
<a href="http://www.handguncontrol.org/">Brady Campaign</a>
<a href="http://www.atf.treas.gov/">Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms</a>
Copyright Guardian News & Media Ltd 2007.
--
Original Source: Guardian Unlimited
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/usguns/Story/0,,2059479,00.html">http://www.guardian.co.uk/usguns/Story/0,,2059479,00.html</a>
Guardian News & Media Limited
2007-08-09
Adriana Seagle
Eve Thompson-Acting Permissions Executive Syndication;permissions.syndication@guardian.co.uk
eng
Americans have a right to feel safe from gun violence everywhere
By: Letter to the editor |
Issue date: 4/26/07 Section: Commentary
In response to Elon Glucklich's article ("Controlling the threat," ODE, Apr. 23, 2007), I am also outraged by the increase in gun violence in America, especially the recent shooting at Virginia Tech. Unfortunately, incidents like this happen all too often in all parts of this nation.
All Americans have the right to be safe from gun violence in their homes, neighborhoods, schools, and places of work. And all children have the right to grow up in environments free from the threat of gun violence.
It is too easy for anyone - children, teens, and troubled adults - to access firearms in this country and the lethality of guns make death or severe injury more likely. This must stop!
Curtis Taylor
Eugene
--
Original Source: Daily Emerald
<a href="http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2007/04/26/Commentary/Americans.Have.A.Right.To.Feel.Safe.From.Gun.Violence.Everywhere-2882636.shtml">http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2007/04/26/Commentary/Americans.Have.A.Right.To.Feel.Safe.From.Gun.Violence.Everywhere-2882636.shtml</a>
Curtis Taylor
2008-02-19
Kacey Beddoes
Judy Riedl <jriedl@uoregon.edu>
eng
Blacksburg, violence, and America
Published by <a href="http://davesmidlife.com/author/admin/">Dave </a> April 25th, 2007
I have been on the sidelines of quite a number of handgun deaths in my life. Thank God, I haven't really been in the crossfire, nor has any member of my family. But gun violence has come close enough to me to be very unsettling.
In the late 1980s, when I was a graduate student in German at Vanderbilt, a German exchange student, <a href="http://www.vanderbilt.edu/isss/weser_award.html">Thomas Weser</a>, was gunned down in a parking lot on campus in the very early morning hours. The murder seemed to be a robbery gone wrong. It became a murder because the mugger had a handgun.
On Christmas Eve 1991, I was living in the Belmont Heights section of Nashville, a cozy suburban neighborhood near several university campuses. My kids were very young. We got along well with our neighbors. There were families all around us.
Diagonally across the street from us lived two brothers. They got into an argument in the middle of the night after much alcohol had been drunk. One brother fetched a loaded handgun and killed the other. Without the loaded handgun in the house, this argument would probably have remained a drunken fistfight, maybe a stabbing.
In February of 1997, our family accompanied my wife on a weekend trip to New York City. My wife had to attend an arts conference, and I was left to explore the city with the kids. On Sunday afternoon we wanted to go to the observation deck of the Empire State Building, but we weren't sure whether we should wait until Mom got finished with her afternoon meeting. We decided that I would go ahead and take the kids up to the top while Barbara was in her session.
After we returned home to Northern Virginia, we learned that <a href="http://www.cnn.com/US/9702/24/empire.shooting/index.html">a man had opened fire</a> with a handgun on the Empire State Building's observation deck later that afternoon. Seven people were shot; one was killed, in addition to the gunman, who committed suicide. If we had waited for Barbara, we might well have been there to experience the shooting firsthand. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/US/9702/24/empire.shoot/">Republican Mayor Rudolph Giuliani blamed weak gun laws</a> for the rampage.
America's latest adventure in easily available firearms is, of course, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre">massacre at Virginia Tech</a>. As I have <a href="http://davesmidlife.com/2007/04/18/blacksburg/">mentioned</a>, my wife and daughter, who had visited Blacksburg the day before, missed this one by about 18 hours.
The world press paid close attention to this shooting for a long time. It was front-page news in just about all the newspapers of the world for four or five days. As I write this, nine days after the attack, major papers in <a href="http://www.sueddeutsche.de">Germany</a>, <a href="http://derstandard.at/?id=2854321">Austria</a>, <a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/web/recherche_breve/1,13-0,37-986031,0.html">France</a>, and other countries are still reporting the aftermath.
The one thing the world press has emphasized, without exception, is their absolute bafflement at the U.S. gun laws-or lack thereof. We are the laughingstock of the world in this department. People from civilized countries around the world look at the apparent American fascination with guns and cluck in disapproving astonishment. The unifying theme is something like this: how can a great country such as the U.S., the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, continue to allow this to happen?
After all these years and decades, I cannot come up with an answer. The National Rifle Association seems to have our congressional legislators in a deathgrip. One mass murder happens after another, all carried out with handguns or assault rifles, and yet nothing changes.
The morning after the Virginia Tech shootings, I heard Washington Post sports reporter <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Feinstein">John Feinstein</a> on <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/wtwpradio/index.html">WTWP</a>. I wish I could find a transcript of his remarks. Essentially what he said was this: when gun owners and gun fans complain about the inconvenience or unfairness of having to register these deadly weapons, he is sick of hearing about it. Since 9/11 we have been subject to a series of ever more humiliating and inconvenient searches of our persons and property at airports. Nobody really complains, because that's just the way the world is.
Well, the world is also selling deadly handguns on the Internet to psychotic young men, who then commit mass murder. Couldn't we endure just a little inconvenience to combat such madness?
I am very angry now at our American stupidity. I am angry at the weak will of the majority of Americans who want stronger gun controls, yet who will not raise hell with their congressmen or senators about it. I am embarrassed to have to try to explain to my European friends and colleagues why Americans are still allowed to buy and carry handguns.
The <a href="http://www.gocomics.com/patoliphant/2007/04/19/">cartoonist Pat Oliphant</a> has captured my sense of befuddlement and rage.
--
Original Source: <a href="http://davesmidlife.com/2007/04/25/blacksburg-violence-and-america/">http://davesmidlife.com/2007/04/25/blacksburg-violence-and-america/</a>
This work is licensed under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License</a>.
Dave Shepherd
2007-06-08
Brent Jesiek
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5
eng
Controlling the threat
In my opinion
By: Elon Glucklich | Opinion Editor
Issue date: 4/23/07 Section: Commentary
The list of communities stricken by gun violence rings out like a grim roll call - it's best left out of mind, if possible. But now there is no such luxury; we find it back in the spotlight, following last week's tragic shooting on the Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, Virginia.
People raised around here know this all too well. In 1998 Kip Kinkel, then 15, walked into the Thurston High School cafeteria in Springfield with a semiautomatic rifle. By the time he was apprehended, he had killed two students and left 25 wounded.
In Blacksburg, VA, 33 people are dead, and an entire community finds itself grappling with feelings of grief and shock. And I sit here, 3,000 miles away, trying to sort through it all for some meaning. I could recount the tragedy, minute by minute. I could try to psychoanalyze the shooter - look into his past and try to figure out what drove him to such a depraved act. But what good would that do? All that there is to say has already been said. Besides, none of it really matters. He and 32 of his classmates are dead because of his actions. Nothing is going to change that.
But have times changed? Look at the past ten years: Springfield, Columbine, Colo., Red Lake, Minn., Lancaster, Calif. and a slew of others are still fresh in the nation's mind. Now, as members of the Virginia Tech community try to sort through their anger and pain, the rest of the country begins to ask questions. Are there too many guns on the street? Are we in the midst of an irreversible moral decline? Should we prepare for more incidents like this? Certainly it will happen again. When, where and to what capacity is anyone's guess, but it will happen again.
In the meantime, we must not be afraid to ask these difficult questions - questions that cut through the unbridled emotions of the present in hopes of finding some reason, some underlying cause as to why this happened, and how such an event can be prevented in the future. Every incident of this kind has two main components: The unstable individual and the weapon. Determining who has the capacity to take lives is nearly impossible. Furthermore, when a potential shooter decides they no longer have the will to live, there's really no stopping them. I mean, how do you deter someone who, like Seung-Hui Cho, has already embraced death?
The answer: You take away their guns. Of course, that answer raises a whole new set of questions. In the wake of this tragedy, some advocates have renewed their efforts to bring the gun control issue back into the spotlight. But gun rights advocates, led by the National Rifle Association and backed by the Second Amendment, have been quick to counter. Their argument is that gun control legislation will leave our criminals as the only ones with weapons.
But when you examine Cho's mental history (he was deemed "an imminent danger" to himself and others as recently as 2005), and the ease with which he came to legally obtain a 9 mm Glock and a .22-caliber pistol, it becomes clear that more stringent gun control is needed. Besides, what exactly defines a criminal? Cho wasn't a criminal when he walked to the pawnshop across the street from the Virginia Tech campus and purchased that .22. What we need are more thorough background checks to ensure that criminals are not the only people exempt from buying weapons; people with the capacity to resort to criminal acts must be exempt, too. And yet, as the Second Amendment and its unwavering supporters make abundantly clear, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment used to make a lot of sense. When I say "used to" I mean about 200 years ago. The United States of America was a lot different back then. Its inhabitants lived under the constant threat of conquest: England and France occupied land to the north, the Spanish lay in the south, and all around were Native Americans; it's easy to see why an early American's life was steeped in fear.
I guess, in a lot of ways, we're just like those early Americans. We're all just as scared. But while our early ancestors lived in fear of outsiders, we fear each other. This is a different America we're living in. We don't like to admit it, but the rugged individualism that defined our frontier forefathers is largely a thing of the past. Still, many choose to cling to this old mentality - a mentality so interwoven with gun obsession that the two are practically indistinguishable.
In the meantime, the guns are still here. And the violence is still here. Complaining about them isn't going to make either go away - especially when a lot of people believe the answer to stopping gun violence is to give people more guns. Maybe we as a society are just desensitized to guns. Maybe we need to re-sensitize ourselves.
eglucklich@dailyemerald.com
--
Original Source: Daily Emerald
<a href="http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2007/04/23/Commentary/Controlling.The.Threat-2874215.shtml">http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2007/04/23/Commentary/Controlling.The.Threat-2874215.shtml</a>
<a href="http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2007/04/23/Commentary/Controlling.The.Threat-2874215-page2.shtml">http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2007/04/23/Commentary/Controlling.The.Threat-2874215-page2.shtml</a>
Elon Glucklich
2008-02-19
Kacey Beddoes
Judy Riedl <jriedl@uoregon.edu>
eng
Defenseless Victim Zones
Harold X. O'Boyle / <a href="http://www.the-extremist.com/">The Extremist</a> (Blog)
May 03, 2007
Mass murder invariably gets the Victim Disarmament Lobby into a lather promoting safety through helplessness. The Virginia Tech shooting is no exception. A brief but honest look at how the world works, however, should convince any but the most craven cowards that there is not much safety in being as helpless as a newborn. Acts of senseless violence will never be stopped by simply declaring them illegal.
It is ironic to me that many of the same people who so adamantly oppose self-defense in the face of violence are the same who claim that boosting "self-esteem" is the highest goal of education. Once we've created people enthralled with their own individuality and inestimable worth how can it be that the lives of those people are not worth defending?
Education authorities create "defenseless victim zones" where if confronted by violence students are expected to stand and deliver, whether the delivery involves their property or their dignity. The theory is based on the idea that life is immeasurably precious, to be preserved at any price and that a sane criminal, like a thief or a rapist, will let you live if you just lie nice and still. But what if he isn't a nice sane criminal? What if he just wants to kill you?
There was a time, long before years of government schooling and media propaganda had removed the spine from so many Americans, when the failure to defend yourself was considered the equivalent of suicide. That theory was based on the idea that life was a gift from the Almighty, not to be taken lightly or abused. Educational discussion in those days more often centered on "self-respect" and "courage" than "self-esteem."
In keeping with the modern preference for self-esteem over self-respect Virginia Tech is a "gun free school zone." That means only law enforcement personnel and psychopathic killers can have weapons on campus. On the day of the recent shooting not a law enforcement officer could be found until after the psychopath had already shot more than 50 people and himself.
The cops that did show up, and the SWAT teams, hid behind their cars until the shooting stopped. Then they rushed inside the building and threatened all the survivors with sudden death till everyone was properly prone.
Despite the death toll and the utter failure of the police to protect anyone, college officials are steadfast in their enthusiasm for maintaining the campus as a "Defenseless Victim Zone." According to a spokesman, the administration wants students to "feel safe" on campus. I have to agree that "feeling safe" is an important part of a good education. But just think of how a policy that actually provided some safety would make everyone feel.
There is no way to know whether the dead and wounded at Virginia Tech "felt safe" attending class in a gun free zone. I'm sure it finally dawned on them that no matter how they felt, they were in big trouble.
The shooter ignored laws against carrying a gun without a permit, bringing a gun on campus, assault and murder. The idea that another gun law or "gun free zone" or psych test would have prevented this tragedy is as about as credible as a Senator's promise.
In an astonishing turn of events Virginia higher education authorities already had experience with a campus shooting that should have made the solution to the safety problem clear.
Five years ago at a law school not far from VT 43-year-old exchange student Peter Odighizuwa shot two professors with a 38 caliber handgun. He also killed a student in the same building and wounded three others. But unlike today, Virginia colleges in those days were not a Helpless Victim Zones.
Two students, Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross, acting independently, ran to their cars to retrieve handguns when they heard the gunfire. Gross was an off-duty police officer in his home state of North Carolina. He got his 9mm pistol and body armor from the car. Bridges returned with his .357 Magnum.
They approached Odighizuwa from different sides and proved that guns are not just for killing. Bridges yelled for the shooter to drop his weapon. He dropped it and several unarmed students subdued him. Gross went back to his car for handcuffs to detain the shooter until police arrived.
Other school attacks have also been cut short by armed civilians. A vice principal who got a handgun from his car stopped a student shooter in Pearl, Mississippi and detained him until police arrived. A restaurant owner in Edinboro, Pennsylvania used a shotgun to convince a shooter at a school dance to surrender. He did it without firing a shot himself.
Israel had to deal with armed attacks on schools in the 1970s. These were attacks by terrorists, not students, and even then there were cries for disarmament instead of self-defense. Instead of disarmament, the Israelis decided to arm and train their teachers. Terrorists went looking for easier targets. The school attacks stopped.
The belief that guns cause murder is like believing that spoons cause obesity or that matches cause arson. The problems of school violence won't be solved by increasing the helplessness of potential victims. When confronted by bad guys with guns we always call good guys with guns. Good guys with guns are like taxi cabs and waiters, the more there are the less time you have to wait for one. Mr. Rogers doesn't become Mr. Hyde just because he has a pistol in his pocket.
Declaring insanity illegal won't eliminate insanity. We can only be prepared to minimize the damage that the worst among us can do. To do that we must abandon insane policies that make us "feel safe" while in fact increasing danger.
The only sane response to insane violence is to allow armed people to defend themselves and others. The tools and will to confront evil with self-respect, courage and dignity will improve self-esteem more than any number of useless gun laws designed to make us "feel safe."
--
Original Source: <a href="http://www.the-extremist.com/2007/05/defenseless_vic.html">http://www.the-extremist.com/2007/05/defenseless_vic.html</a>
Licensed under <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5</a>.
Harold X. O'Boyle
2007-05-27
Brent Jesiek
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5
eng
Editorial: The necessary right of self-defense
From the <a href="http://www.californiapatriot.org/magazine/issue/8/8">May 2007 Print Edition</a>
Respectfully observing tragedy is never easy. Tempering a respect for the deceased and their families with a desire to draw upon lessons from the tragedy to prevent future occurrences is touchy. Indeed, allegations have already been levied that some have exploited the Virginia Tech shootings for political gain. Within hours of the attack, gun-control advocates began a full-fledged campaign against gun-rights politicians, as many in the media were quick to call for increased regulation of guns, ostensibly to prevent future tragedies.
We at the <em>Patriot</em> give our condolences to the families of the deceased, and pray for a quick recovery of those affected by the attack. At the same time, we take a firm stand against gun-control advocates who attempt to offensively use the recent tragedy to silence other voices.
The aftermath of Columbine was no different. Second Amendment advocates were branded "insensitive" and politicians seized the opportunity to put gun-control measures on the table. However, Virginia Tech bears little resemblance to Columbine.
Though the first two student deaths in the dormitory were unexpected, the subsequent slayings in Norris Hall could have been prevented with adequate campus security and warnings. The issue at question should be the shoddy campus security and an administration's apparent complacency in the face of red flags; campus officials issued only an e-mail warning to students after the first two victims were found murdered.
Virginia Tech's administration is not unique.
UC Berkeley's own stance on security is laughable, in the face of a locus of crime around People's Park. Vagrancy exists as a catalyst for crime, yet is permitted to continue. Admittedly, muggings and university shootings are on separate planes, but the complacency about student safety is the same. Unfortunately, it takes a tragedy before bureaucratic and disconnected administrations get serious about student safety.
Despite the fact that the Virginia Tech administration could have done more to secure the campus, gun-control advocates nonetheless spuriously seized the opportunity to make the Second Amendment the primary culprit. However, existing gun-control laws outlawed the killer from having guns. Even <em>The New York Times</em> pointed out that existing laws "made the killer ineligible to purchase guns" since law "prohibits anyone who has been 'adjudicated as a mental defective ...' from buying a gun." The killer slipped through existing statues because enforcement of such laws is spotty. Local mental-health records are often not synchronized with national records, which let killer Seung-Hui Cho slip through.
Gun-control advocates shouldn't be championing more legislation, but instead should be focusing their efforts on enforcing existing laws. Even if one philosophically supports additional gun-control laws, they would only serve to stretch existing enforcement budgets thinner, and result in a net decrease in enforcement.
Yet reasons to oppose gun control aren't just pragmatic. Freedom is often confused as the philosophical justification for the Second Amendment. However, the philosophical base for the right to bear arms is much more profound. Such a right empowers individuals to defend themselves, so they don't have to leap out of windows when threatened by mentally defective maniacs. It gives individuals the ability to defend themselves when a government or administration does not take the adequate steps to protect them. During the rampage, students were at the mercy of the killer and the Virginia Tech administration. Were even one mentally stable student, instructor, or janitor armed, the outcome would have likely been much different.
Far from demonstrating a need for extensive gun control, the Virginia Tech tragedy demonstrated the dangers of relying heavily on a bureaucratic entity for protection. It's true that enforcement of existing laws could have helped prevent the tragedy, and a more vigilant administration could have prevented two deaths from turning into 32. The underlying lesson to take from the tragedy, however, is markedly different. At the end of the day, neither a university administration nor government can ever be trusted to safeguard an individual's safety, because such amorphous bodies lack the direct accountability to do so.
The university president and security force may lose their jobs over the tragedy, and that may compel future officers to be vigilant. Yet the students who barricaded themselves into classrooms won't forget that they owe their lives to their own abilities to save themselves, not to a university administration, police force, or government.
--
Original Source: California Patriot Online
<a href="http://californiapatriot.org/magazine/issue/8/8/editorial">http://californiapatriot.org/magazine/issue/8/8/editorial</a>
Licensed under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License</a>.
California Patriot
2007-08-05
Brent Jesiek
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License
eng
Government by martyrdom is not the way it should work
By: Guest Commentary |
Issue date: 5/1/07 Section: Commentary
We must not let those who abuse our rights forsake our national belief in freedom above all else. If we do, then the victims of these shooters, these evil young men who have turned classrooms into firing ranges, will not only be those innocents slain in Blacksburg, Va. and other places where massacres have happened, but all who believe in American self-determination.
An editorial in The New York Times concluded that, "What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage and such unbearable loss."
But blaming guns is too easy.
This shooting was an act of insanity and we must treat it as such. The shooter's actions should not be given the power and legitimacy to change our laws governing civil liberties. That is government by martyrdom.
My belief, that guns and violence enjoy a marriage of convenience, was reaffirmed by news that the mayor of Nagasaki, Japan had been assassinated this week by a man with a handgun. He was shot point-blank in the back because of an unresolved dispute with a gangster over damage done to the gangster's car. Japan is a country where handguns are outlawed.
"But," a child in Nagasaki might ask, "if handguns are forbidden, then how could my mayor be killed by one?" I would tell that child that it is impossible to ban handguns; that it is impossible to ban anything.
Japan also knows that people die by means other than guns.
Multiple leaders have been stabbed to death in Japan - one was even killed by a man with a samurai sword. Atomic bombs have killed thousands there, too.
Hopefully, the Japanese do not decide to increase the scope of their bans, just as we should be hopeful that the United States does not increase the scope of its gun bans.
Because if we were to enact stricter gun laws, it would be an admittance of our uneasiness with the freedom we have been given. And then, before we know it, we are a fearful and retreating democracy called to action by hateful men wielding 9mm and .22-caliber pistols on college campuses.
So then what do we do when we are shocked and hurt by events such as those that occurred at Virginia Tech?
Let's try collectively standing up to hate and violence with our countrymen, becoming a people holding one another so tightly and with such conviction that we are as impenetrable as a great seawall. Let's disarm hateful and violent people before they arm themselves, by recognizing and resolving their personal crises.
But that is difficult and abstract.
We have yet to mourn and come to terms with our grief.
Perhaps we should not rush to judgment until our tempers have cooled and loved ones have had the opportunity to tell us about the people who found themselves in the shooter's path in Blacksburg, but not in the path of most of our lives.
Perhaps we should try to remember them completely.
And then? What do we do with those memories?
We never forget, that's what.
And we look to the people who we share this free and open country with and decide whether we will be the ones who let the self-righteous and insane run things or if we will be the ones who are brave, once the pain has subsided, and become that impenetrable seawall so that we may protect our right to self-determination and tranquility wherever we are.
It is not the guns of the world that should worry us, it is the shooters.
Dan Anderson is a University graduate student
--
Original Source: Daily Emerald
<a href="http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2007/05/01/Commentary/Government.By.Martyrdom.Is.Not.The.Way.It.Should.Work-2889799.shtml">http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2007/05/01/Commentary/Government.By.Martyrdom.Is.Not.The.Way.It.Should.Work-2889799.shtml</a>
<a href="http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2007/05/01/Commentary/Government.By.Martyrdom.Is.Not.The.Way.It.Should.Work-2889799-page2.shtml">http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2007/05/01/Commentary/Government.By.Martyrdom.Is.Not.The.Way.It.Should.Work-2889799-page2.shtml</a>
Dan Anderson
2008-02-19
Kacey Beddoes
Judy Riedl <jriedl@uoregon.edu>
eng
Gun Control Back on the Agenda
By Guo Qiang (chinadaily.com.cn)
Updated: 2007-04-18 15:27
The world was shaken by the news that a 23-year-old South Korean killed 32 students at Virginia Tech in the deadliest shooting rampage in U.S. history.
The bloody massacre began at about 7:15 a.m. when two people were killed in a dormitory. Two hours later, the gunman reloaded his handgun, shooting another 30 dead.
American President George W. Bush said his nation is "shocked" and "saddened" and his administration "would do everything possible to assist with the investigation".
The shootings sent the whole nation into a panic, despite many reported incidents of shooting sprees on campuses in a country where owning guns is considered a right.
There was no confirmed motive for the shootings. People around the world should observe silence for the 32 innocent victims of the gunman who was purported to vent his pent-up anger because he suspected his girlfriend had a date with a student at the same school.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao expressed China's condemnation of the killings and sent condolences to the victims' families.
And what did gunman Cho Seung-Hui achieve in the end? Spurned love is not entitled to end 32 lives unexpectedly from the earth although romantic poets say 'Life is dear, love is dearer'.
Now it's time to focus on U.S. gun regulation. Cho is a South Korean immigrant who had lived in the U.S. since 1992 and had a green card, which makes it legal for him to obtain guns at a gun shop. Reports said Cho paid US$571 for his weapons and a box of ammunition.
Gun control should be on the agenda of the Bush administration. According to reports, America is one of the most heavily armed societies in the developed world, with 40% of households owning guns. U.S. homicide rates are two to 10 times higher than in other developed countries.
It was during the American War of Independence in the late 1700s that guns and firearms were necessities for the American people to fight for their independence against Britain.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", enabling its citizens to legitimately own firearms. As a legal permanent US resident, Cho had the same rights as any other American citizen to buy guns.
Currently, the Democrats support gun control while the Republicans do not. The differing attitudes make it difficult to come to a consensus on gun control. This issue will be a hot topic in next year's presidential elections.
Chinese online commentators quickly weighed in on the issue, with many blaming the school for lax safety regulations.
Students also complained the school did not react quickly enough to the deadly situation, saying they only received an e-mail from the university that urged them to be cautious about a shooting.
However, Virginia Tech President Charles Steger defended the college's response by saying, "We had no reason to suspect any other incident was going to occur."
In covering this horrific tragedy, it is necessary to question the media ethics of some news websites. Without confirmation from outside sources, some influential websites, like Sina.com.cn posted a story translated from the Chicago Sun-Times, saying the murderer was likely to be a Chinese immigrant from Shanghai.
Chinese media should confirm the facts before releasing stories, which is a basic standard for media outlets. Some websites are so concerned by the number of page hits that they forget their credibility is at stake.
Meanwhile, local media outlets should bear the responsiblity for hurting a guy who was wrongly accused as a suspect.
Wayne Chiang, 23, an Asian-American student at Virginia Tech University has become the subject of fevered speculation on the internet after the killings.
"I am not the shooter. Through this experience, I have received numerous death threats, slanderous accusations, and my phone is out of charge from the barrage of calls. Local police have been notified of the situation," Wayne wrote in his blog http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/the-internet-thinks-its-me/2007/04/17/1176696821109.html?s_cid=rss_age .
"It was five for five. I was Asian, I lived in (the dorm), I go to V Tech, I recently broke up with my girlfriend and I collect guns."
Let us get back to the point. It is a tragic story of 32 innocent lives killed by a young man. Just hold up candles for their souls.
--
Original Source:China Daily
<a href="http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-04/18/content_853638.htm">http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-04/18/content_853638.htm<a/>
Guo Qiang
2007-07-25
Na Mi
eng
Gun control won't work in U.S.
By: KONRAD KLINKNER
Columnist
Posted: 4/23/07
The intricacies of the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech are proving to be very enduring media fodder, with NBC lapping up Cho's media package and the investigations probing deeper and deeper into the background of the gunman, savoring every juicy drop of sordid drama. It's been so lasting because, as the act of an irrational psycho, it's riddled with questions that will never be answered - and that always keeps an audience.
Almost grudgingly, one of the few concrete issues that the tragedy has forced back into the national spotlight is one of America's least favorite debate topics: gun control. One might think that the massacre naturally lends itself easiest as an example of how guns are too easy to acquire here in the States. But, pro-gun rights advocates are already quick to turn it into a case for more self-defense.
Indeed, some gun-rights proponents are even suggesting that Virginia Tech's campus policy of prohibiting the possession of firearms on campus should be reviewed. A fair number of students are quoted as saying they wished somebody had a gun with them on that day. Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said, "All the school shootings that have ended abruptly in the last 10 years were stopped because a law-abiding citizen - a potential victim - had a gun. The latest school shooting at Virginia Tech demands an immediate end to the gun-free zone law which leaves the nation's schools at the mercy of madmen."
So Pratt is suggesting here that allowing guns on campuses would be a big step toward curbing shooting outbreaks. Really? Who thinks to bring a gun to class on a regular basis?
Beyond making a strong case for having more vigilant background checks, though, it's very unlikely that the Virginia Tech tragedy will spur any significant gun control initiative within the United States. It's not like any previous mass shooting has.
To many people elsewhere in the world, the recent tragedy is yet another bloody stain on America's generally ugly reputation. European critics, as to be expected, particularly express their never-ending bafflement that Americans never seem to do anything about their gun laws.
And well they may wonder. But as much as I don't care for guns and identify more with the ethos of gun-control advocates, I can't believe that gun control alone is going to fix things. Serious gun control legislation, like what Europe has, is doomed to fail in the United States as it is today, and that's because guns are just too embedded in American culture for laws alone to make lasting changes about it anytime soon.
History has shown us that prohibition laws are rarely ever effective when they run up against big cultural institutions. A real attempt to bring our gun control laws anywhere near the standards of Western Europe would be disastrous today. If someone ever miraculously pulls off an outright ban on general gun ownership in the United States, that person will probably get shot, and I'd fully expect ferocious, widespread defiance of the law across the entire nation. You'd have to pry those guns from America's cold, dead hands. Before law reform can be used effectively to curb guns, our gun culture must first undergo reform.
Gun ownership is often trumped up in the United States as a testimony to the hallowed virtues of individualism and self-sufficiency. The civilian's gun embodies vigilante security and is about as literal as "power to the people" gets - this harkens all the way back to the Revolutionary days when militias actually mattered, which is indeed where we got this Second Amendment from in the first place. It was an assurance to those suspicious of the new federal government that they'd always have their guns to protect them should the feds ever get too tyrannical. Even today some pro-gun rights people will talk about a civilian's firearms as the last line of defense against governmental tyranny, which really can't be anything more than just a psychological comfort, since I can't imagine today's citizenry armed with handguns and hunting rifles having any chance against our government's tanks and bomber planes.
But of course it's naive to say that gun enthusiasm in America mainly comes from a militant devotion to liberty. On a more simple level, people just like shooting things, and having guns makes you dangerous and therefore potentially cool.
I get somewhat torn when it comes to this, because on one hand, I'm not a fan of real guns, but I honestly also think guns are quite awesome when kept to the realm of fiction, as in video games. Most U.S. politicians tend to take an inverse stance, being way more comfortable supporting restrictions on the mere depiction of guns rather than restricting guns in real life. Personally, I would rather there not be necessary restrictions on anything, and that American culture could just chill out with the guns out of its own volition. That, I think, will bring more peace than any law will bring about, but it will be a long time in coming.
--
Original Source: <a href=http://media.www.pittnews.com/media/storage/paper879/news/2007/04/23/Opinion/Gun-Control.Wont.Work.In.U.s-2873292.shtml> The Pitt News - April 23, 2007</a>
KONRAD KLINKNER
2007-08-19
Sara Hood
Annie Tubbs <annietubbs@gmail.com>
eng
Gun licenses safe choice
By: Karl Spaulding
Posted: 5/7/07
When Florida liberalized its restrictive and disjointed system of concealed carry laws in 1987, many states followed suit. In each case, naysayers predicted everything from "blood in the streets" to "parking lot shootouts." Just as regularly, after each state changed the law to allow more law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns, the results were peacefully anticlimactic. Within a year or so after a law changed, a law enforcement or political figure would be quoted in an article admitting they were surprised that there had been no major problems.
Now after the Virginia Tech shootings, there are those wanting concealed carry to be allowed on college campuses. I've wanted this for ages, not as an "answer" to mass shootings (there is no single answer), but because it would further improve the safety of individuals who are legal to carry elsewhere in Ohio.
Predictably, the naysayers are still at work. They claim the same tragic consequences as they always have, aggravated by our youthful population and the abuse of alcohol. One of the arguments that keeps popping up is that "everyone will have a gun." They expect us to believe that the most irresponsible students will start carrying guns while drunk, wreaking havoc in our residence halls and classrooms. What they don't mention is that in Ohio the minimum age for a concealed handgun license is 21. Plus, applicants have to take a 12-hour training course. At most, only around 4 to 5 percent of state populations obtain gun carry permits. Plus, schools could still be allowed to ban guns from their residence halls. I could state that these predictions are balderdash, but there is a better way to show this: real life results. "Campus carry" already exists.
Utah is the only state that specifically allows licensed gun carriers on college campuses. Until just recently, the administration of the University of Utah banned legally concealed guns, but a decision from the Utah Supreme Court forced them to comply. Other colleges in Utah, including the College of Eastern Utah, have had legal concealed carry since at least 2003. If there were serious problems with these schools, wouldn't we have heard of them by now? Opponents of campus carry don't like to talk about what happens in the real world; only what happens in their pessimistic, sociologically illiterate minds.
The best reason for allowing CHLs on campus is that those of us who want to go armed need to carry as much as possible to make it a habit. The safest place for a defensive handgun is on one's person, not locked in a car (currently allowed by Ohio law on campus) or at home. No one can predict when they might be attacked, so one needs to carry a defensive weapon as much as possible. Do you only wear your seatbelt when you think you will be in a crash?
Proper weapons training (another thing most administrators don't have) dictates that weapons should be carried in the same place as much as possible. When faced with danger, the mind will be occupied by other things, and one's weapon presentation should be automatic. This is true for any weapon or tool that will be used under stress. Unfortunately, our society ignores the real purpose of defensive weaponry, and stigmatizes handguns as suitable only for killing people instead of admitting their real purpose: saving innocent human life from an unexpected attack. A 1995 study, which showed firearms are used more than 2 million times per year in self-defense, described how prosocial uses for weapons at the very least cancelled out the negatives. Another criminologist, the late Marvin Wolfgang, followed that article with his own, expressing surprise as well as admiration because he had long been against firearms ownership, but could find nothing wrong with their methodology.
CHL holders do not become violent, "Wild West" savages when they come onto campus. Those of us who carry simply want to be able to protect ourselves to the best of our abilities at all times. Yes, campus is relatively safe, but the neighborhoods surrounding OSU and the places where visitors come from may not be.
Society is not made any safer by restricting individuals' right and means to self-defense.
--
Original source:<a href=http://media.www.thelantern.com/media/storage/paper333/news/2007/05/07/Opinion/Gun-Licenses.Safe.Choice-2896369.shtml>The Lantern - May 7, 2007</a>
Karl Spaulding
The Lantern
2007-08-16
Sara Hood
GERRICK LEWIS <lewis.1030@osu.edu>
eng
Gun-control debate rages on
The following is a short piece by myself, published in the Irish Sunday Business Post.
~NiK
-------------------
<a href="http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2007/04/22/story22922.asp">http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2007/04/22/story22922.asp</a>
Gun-control debate rages on
22 April 2007
By Nicholas Kiersey
Six days have passed since the horrific events at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, during which 32 people were shot dead by a lone gunman, Cho Seung-Hui, before he killed himself.
It is hardly enough time for students and staff to begin to reflect upon the scale of the event and how it is already provoking what will probably turn out to be a major round in the US gun-control debate.
Of course, the human dimension to the story is being played out this weekend in the homes of the families and friends of the victims. Memorials are taking place around the state. Funerals are being arranged for tomorrow or Tuesday, depending on how soon the police release the bodies.
The university administration wants students back at school for resumption of classes tomorrow. Professors and teaching assistants are being briefed in the coming days. The regular curriculum will be suspended for tomorrow's classes, in favour of discussions on the events from a variety of perspectives.
Elsewhere, the nation's media are already turning to eager 'talking heads' and pundits for their commentary on the killer, his psychological state and how campuses might better prepare themselves to ward off similar attacks. Conspicuous by its absence in this dialogue, however, is a meaningful engagement by US politicians with the question of gun control.
On the left and right alike, US politicians have long considered the issue of gun control to be very tricky. Analysts have attributed John Kerry's defeat in the 2000 election to his stance on the banning of assault weapons.
The news networks are affording the pro-gun movement ample space to express its views. The views of Susanna Hupp, herself a survivor of a shoot-out in a Texas cafe in 1991, are not atypical.
As she put it in a debate on CBS last week, the most heinous of all mass killings in the US, like those at Columbine and Virginia Tech, have all taken place in 'gun-free zones', places where even basic side arms are banned.
Such views are popular in America and are not uncommon even among students and alumni of Virginia Tech. As one friend of mine, a former tech student currently deployed in Iraq with a private security firm, said a couple of days ago: ''If one of the victims had been carrying [a gun] and had reacted properly, a lot of lives could had been saved."
Others at Virginia Tech are perplexed by such opinions. The idea that weapons-bearing students might somehow have averted last week's massacre seems to ignore the likely complexities that such a situation would produce.
How, for example, would students in separate classrooms have been able to distinguish friend from foe? Would such a scenario not make the job of law enforcement officers extremely difficult?
President George W Bush last week asserted his support for the second amendment, the instrument of the US constitution that grants the right to bear arms to all citizens.
The day before his speech at the Virginia Tech memorial convocation, his press secretary, Dana Perino, said: ''The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed."
However, the second amendment was written when the US nation was still insecure about foreign invasion. Its sole instrumental purpose was to ensure citizens were equipped to form a militia in the absence of a standing army.
Meanwhile, news is breaking about the sheer quantity of ammunition expended by the Virginia Tech killer. Among the inventory he carried on the day were hollow-point shells and ammunition clips capable of holding up to 30 bullets.
Protagonists on both sides of the gun debate in the US tend to stereotype their opponents, yet the pro-gun movement seems incapable of articulating a balanced view on the sorts of weapons required by the average citizen.
The fact remains high-powered guns are too easy to get in Virginia. Second-hand weapons may be purchased with no background check, and there are no state restrictions on the sale of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, such as the AK47.
As we learned last week, a Virginia judicial officer certified in 2005 that Cho presented ''an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness''.
As such, Cho probably fell within the category of ''adjudicated as a mental incompetent'' used in the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968. However, none of this showed up in his background checks on the day he purchased his weapons.
My gun-advocate friends often argue it would be impossible to fully regulate the ownership of guns. Better then to let everyone carry a weapon so that they might defend themselves and thereby create a deterrent.
Yet they ignore the experience of many Europeans, such as myself, who have grown up in countries where gun ownership is regulated quite successfully.
This weekend, most Virginia Tech students will be envious of the sort of peace and security that such regulation can provide.
Nicholas Kiersey, who is from Blessington, Co Wicklow, is a PhD student at Virginia Tech
Nicholas Kiersey
2007-04-29
Nicholas Kiersey
eng
How to Stop a Killer
April 18th, 2007 by Ben
The tragic massacre this week at Virginia Tech will be one of those events that you will remember how you first heard the news, where you were when you heard it, and what you were doing at the time. Like September 11, 2001, it will stick to the national memory for the rest of our lives. The shooting was the most violent act perpetrated on American soil since September 11.
Coming almost eight years to the day after the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre">Columbine shootings</a>, the VT murders are the latest and most violent example of the psychotic, suicidal student rampage. Like Columbine, the VT shooter, now identified as senior English major Cho Seung-hui, <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3048467&page=1">was calculated and cunning.</a> He chained potential exits shut to prevent possible escape routes. He was carrying multiple clips of ammo. He lined up students and shot them execution-style.
On the Monday night newscasts, the networks went all-out, providing coverage with limited commercial interruption, and many reported directly from the campus. If you listened carefully you probably heard the most repeated phrase of the night: "This is the worst incident of gun violence in American history."
This is true. But the story really has very little to do with guns. Did the anchors get hung up on "the worst incident of airplane hijacking" angle when covering September 11? The story has everything to do with a psychotic <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/17/vtech.shooting/index.html">"loner"</a> who decided it would be better to take as many innocent people with him when he ended his own worthless life.
Acts of mass murder always follow a predictable pattern. First, there is the period of shock. Depending on the magnitude of the incident, this phase can last for days, even weeks. Then there is the healing process: the dead are mourned and remembered, moments of silence are observed around the country. Finally, there is the "let's-not-let this-happen-again" phase.
With September 11, this phase was complex and expensive. More airport security. "No-fly" lists. Federal air marshals. All of these steps have doubtless made our skies safer and have helped prevent a repeat attack.
With shooting sprees, like Columbine and Virginia Tech, the final phase <a href="http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0402f.asp">revives the gun-control advocates</a> from their slumber. "See," they say, "look what guns do. They kill people. Guns are bad." Do guns kill people? Or, maybe, is it actually <em>people</em> that kill people?
We could prevent another September 11 by banning all airplanes. That would solve the problem, right? We would all just have to drive cars or ride riverboats everywhere. Maybe bring back the horse and buggy. No biggie.
Already the gun control lobby is licking their lips. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Cal.) <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/17/AR2007041700826.html">said in a statement</a> that she believed the killings at Virginia Tech would “re-ignite the dormant effort to pass commonsense gun regulations in this nation.” Of course they will. It's the preventative instinct.
We could try to prevent another Virginia Tech by banning all handguns, but it's a lot easier to keep an airplane out of the air than it is to keep a gun out of someone's hand. Let's start with those evil airplanes first.
Just as we learned on September 11, the issue is the attacker (in that case, radical Muslims, who we now know want to kill us all), not the weapon. If Cho Seung-hui didn't have access to a handgun, would that have stopped his homicidal plans? Doubtful. He would have just found another way to kill people�a homemade bomb, perhaps.
Tragic as they are, school shootings will never disappear. We can't wage war on psychotic students like we can on radical Islam. The best way to stop future campus rampages is to allow students to carry handguns. If just one student or professor had had a gun in one of those classrooms, there might be a lot more Virginia Tech students alive today.
--
Original Source: <a href="http://joneckert.eckertservices.com/wordpress/?p=61">http://joneckert.eckertservices.com/wordpress/?p=61</a>
Licensed under <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/">Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5</a>
Ben Blanton
2007-05-26
Brent Jesiek
Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5
eng
It's time to confront the gun lobby
by D. Grant Haynes <i>Thursday, Apr. 19, 2007 at 2:10 PM</i>
<i>The senseless murder of 32 people at Virginia Tech underlines once again the necessity for stricter gun control laws in the United States.</i>
Americans are busily soul searching one more time after another mass killing at an educational institution.
This time the setting was a university rather than a secondary school.
But the ghastly spectacle that unfolded at Virginia Polytechnic University in Blacksburg, Virginia, on April 16 when a disaffected student--Cho Seung-Hui, 23--systematically executed 32 innocent students and faculty members was fully as terrible as other such recent massacres in America--only worse.
More were killed at Virginia Tech than at Columbine High School in Colorado eight years ago. And the killer's cold-blooded and methodical resolve, as well as an inexplicable lack of appropriate and timely responses from police officers on the scene, will put the Virginia Tech massacre in a class apart always.
Media pundits, politicians, university administrators, psychologists, clergymen and others talk endlessly now about what lessons might be learned from Virginia Tech.
The university should have had a better evacuation or lock down protocol in place.
University and other police officers should have been more diligent in protecting students from Cho Seung-Hui's rage after his first shooting spree in which he killed two individuals more than two hours before he reappeared on campus to kill 30 more students.
The mental health community should have done a better job of intervention when Cho Seung-Hui had, over several years' time, displayed symptoms of mental illness.
There is ample blame to go around in this botched and bungled phantasmagoric mess that, seemingly, could not have been handled in a worse way than it was handled.
But in all of the hand-wringing 24-hour non-stop media reportage and speculation about Blacksburg, few professionals and fewer politicians with their fingers to the wind and their campaign coffers chock full of National Rifle Association dollars in some cases, have been willing to state the obvious.
Cho Seung-Hui could not have murdered 32 people so efficiently in Blacksburg, Virginia, on April 16 without access to two pistols and endless rounds of ammunition for them.
Cho was a brooding youth. One of his teachers had identified him as deeply troubled because of the excessively violent nature of his fictionalized scenarios. She had even referred him for counseling.
He had had encounters with the university police over allegations of stalking others.
He had been described as a potential menace to himself and others by a mental health professional.
Should not these facts alone have been a red flag sufficient to dictate a more than perfunctory look at him when he sought to acquire death-dealing hand guns?
That should have been the case and would have been in a more sensible culture.
Had minimally effective gun control laws been in place in Virginia when Cho sought to purchase his pistols and cartridges, he would have been denied a permit and 32 dead Virginia Tech students and faculty members would be alive today.
For all practical purposes, anyone in this nation can obtain a firearm, regardless of his or her emotional stability, maturity, or legitimate need for the weapon.
This is wrong and is cause for people in more sane societies to fear for their very lives when contemplating a trip to America. This writer knows whereof he speaks because he lived in Great Britain for a time and was asked often about the danger of being gunned down in America.
What must they all think today?
More stringent gun control is the only answer to the madness of disaffected youths and others who, repeatedly, have walked into schools and work places and murdered innocent people.
But cowardly Democrats who should be at the forefront of gun control legislation are already distancing themselves from calls for tougher gun laws in the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy.
Congressional Democrats fear the wrath of the National Rifle Association and that organization's clout with a certain segment of American voters too much to do what they know is both right and desperately needed.
Senate majority leader, Harry Reid (D-NV) squelched serious talk of more rigid gun controls following the Virginia Tech shootings. The Associated Press reported Reid's lackluster and cowardly response to questions of stricter gun control as blood was being mopped at Virginia Tech.
"After the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid cautioned Tuesday against a 'rush to judgment' on stricter gun control....
"I think we ought to be thinking about the families and the victims and not speculate about future legislative battles that might lie ahead," said Reid... ."
And you should also be thinking about the families and the victims of the next such massacre, Senator Reid.
A ban on the sale of assault rifles in the United States--one that was in place from 1994 until 2004 when a Republican Congress permitted it to expire--should be reinstated as soon as possible.
And hand gun acquisition requirements should also be made more restrictive as soon as possible.
The American with a legitimate need for a personal hand gun--certainly and especially a license to carry such a weapon on his person--should become a rare exception rather than the rule.
The Cho Seung-Hui's of this nation should never be permitted to purchase a handgun or an assault rifle. Background checks prior to the sale of a pistol should be infinitely more thorough--modeled, perhaps after the British system.
The only viable solution to the epidemic of mass killings at American educational institutions and work places is to drastically reduce the number of guns in the hands of Americans.
This can be done and should be done.
And to those who would at this point trot out the tired old bromide, "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns", one can only observe that we must start somewhere and at some point in time.
The process may take decades, but if assault rifle acquisitions are stanched altogether and hand guns are made infinitely more difficult to obtain, there will be ever fewer of each in circulation over time.
That would represent a move in the right direction and would be a fitting memorial to those who gave their lives at Virginia Tech because Virginia's gun laws had permitted a psychologically impaired youth to acquire the instruments to murder 32 people on a morning that will live in infamy throughout American history.
How many more Virginia Techs must occur before our elected representatives muster the courage to confront the gun lobby and do what must be done?
--
Original Source: <a href="http://la.indymedia.org/news/2007/04/197101.php">http://la.indymedia.org/news/2007/04/197101.php</a>
(c) Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center.
D. Grant Haynes
2007-05-25
Brent Jesiek
(c) Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center.
eng
Letters to the editor - April 17, 2007
VT tragedy requires look at gun control
For too long this country has refused to take a realistic approach to gun control legislation, often pointing to the debatable phrasing of the Second Amendment. This negligence has led to the horrifying events that unfolded at Virginia Tech Monday, capping a disturbing trend that the American public has largely chosen to ignore.
Demonstrating this, an article covering the shootings in the London Times contained a "Timeline in U.S. School Shootings," something that would be impossible for an American paper commenting on a similar story in Europe to include. Although the timeline detailed only the last 10 years, it contained 15 massacres at the cost of 72 lives and many more injuries. Lawmakers have to date been content to be bullied by the gun lobby into an inculpable submission, but they remain blameless no longer. If Columbine and Enoch Brown weren't enough to catalyze change, then Virginia Tech must, for the sake of schoolchildren across the country.
Daniel Witt
wittdd@muohio.edu
--
Original Source:<a href=http://media.www.miamistudent.net/media/storage/paper776/news/2007/04/17/Editorials/Letters.To.The.Editor-2845823.shtml> The Miami Students - April 17, 2007</a>
Daniel Witt
The Miami Student
2007-08-14
Sara Hood
"Skotzko, Stacey Nicole" <skotzksn@muohio.edu>
eng
Letters to the editor - April 20, 2007
By:Paul Morrow
Posted: 4/20/07
As details regarding Monday's tragic shooting at Virginia Polytechnic Institute continue to emerge, and in particular, information concerning the of the shooter, Cho Seung-Hui, I want to urge all Miami students to show solidarity for Miami's small, but burgeoning, community of international students.
Since September 11, student visas for study at U.S. universities have become much more difficult to acquire. The worst possible policy outcome of Monday's tragedy would be to increase to these restrictions. Foreign students enrich the academic and social climates of American universities, especially universities like Miami, where they help diversify our largely homogenous student body. Miami administrators are currently working to increase Miami's population of international students; this is an important process, and should not be halted or impeded because of the actions of a single individual who, it appears, committed his crime out of motives of romantic jealousy that, though disturbing, are all too universal, and hardly restricted to "foreigners" or "resident aliens" (terms incorporated much too glibly into the media's coverage of the massacre).
As a resident of Wells Hall, I am privileged to be acquainted with a number of Miami's international students and I want them to know that the university community will continue to support and appreciate their presence even as we grieve over Virginia Tech's losses.
Paul morrow
morrowpc@muohio.edu
--
Hatred toward shooter serves little purpose
As the tragedy that occurred Monday at Virginia Polytechnic Institute weighs on our minds, I have been bothered by a widespread sentiment permeating the public mind-set. In the wake of this horrific shooting, there seems to be quite a bit of hatred generated toward the shooter. Having experienced the untimely deaths of two friends my own age over the past few years myself, I understand and can directly relate to the emotional roller coaster that comes with the loss of a close loved one in such a brutal way. In spite of that, I don't think it's necessary or useful to extend loathing or other ill will toward the deceased gunman. No amount of contempt will bring the victims back to life, nor will it bring peace to their families. The disdain I have seen over the last few days mirrors the same sort of malice that led to this tragedy and others like it. As vicious as the act was, and as easy as it is to harbor such animosity toward Cho Seung-Hui, I contend that we should focus our energies elsewhere Â- namely on the return to tranquility, particularly for the friends and families of those murdered. As we mourn and exhibit sorrow over these next several days, by all means hope, wish, and pray for the serenity of the victims' families and friends. However, bear in mind that there are 33 families directly suffering, as there were 33 killed Monday, not 32.
Julio santana
Santanj@muohio.edu
--
No link exists between gun control, shootings
I am writing in response to Daniel Witt's letter that appeared April 17. I was very disappointed to see a political response to the Virginia Polytechnic Institute shooting so soon. In all fairness to those who read Witt's letter, I would like to respectfully disagree with the points he made and add a little clarity to the discussion.
A little reported fact regarding the Virginia Tech shooting regards Virginia conceal and carry laws. At the end of January, 2006, Virginia House Bill 1572 which would have allowed students to carry concealed weapons on campuses was defeated. Following the defeat Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was quoted as saying, "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions, because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." This was the same spokesman who is currently speaking to the media about student deaths at VT.
Witt also mentions Columbine. When the horrible shooting there took place, a stringent Federal Assault Weapons Ban was in place. This legislature didn't do anything to stop the deaths of those students. Afterwards, one of the parents of a slain Columbine student said, "You can make all the laws you want, but when someone wants to get a gun badly enough, they're going to."
I am confused as to the relevance of Witt's decision to cite the 1764 Enoch Brown massacre unless he is advocating restrictions on muskets and tomahawks.
Following the Virginia Tech shooting, both ABC and CNN news services hosted a poll on their Web sites asking if gun control was an effective means of stopping violence. The CNN poll ended with 56 percent of participants saying they felt gun control was not effective. The ABC poll, as of 4 p.m., April 17 showed that more than 70 percent believed it irresponsible to link shootings to gun control.
Firearms should be taken seriously. They are objects that can kill, just as a car can. In high school, we weren't simply handed the keys to a car, but given detailed instruction. The same should be true of firearms.
There are many misconceptions about firearms today. I encourage those who have opinions about gun control to do some solid research before simply suggesting another such gun ban.
I feel it is also important to note that after any such large-scale violent act, we as a society search for a solution, a way to end it once and for all. However as sure as there are such people as Cho Seung-Hui, there are people who will do anything in their power to kill others.
Whether by one means or another, if a person is motivated enough, they will follow through with such violent desires.
scott guye
guyesh@muohio.edu
--
Original Source:<a href=http://media.www.miamistudent.net/media/storage/paper776/news/2007/04/20/Editorials/Letters.To.The.Editor-2870765.shtml>The Miami Daily - April 20, 2007</a>
scott guye, Julio santana, Paul morrow
2007-08-14
Sara Hood
"Skotzko, Stacey Nicole" <skotzksn@muohio.edu>
eng
Lodge: Cho's choice: Murder
By Richard Lodge/Daily News staff
GHS
Fri Apr 20, 2007, 12:20 AM EDT
The debate over gun control in the wake of Monday's massacre at Virginia Tech had already reached the presidential campaign trial by midweek, and it's sure to surface many times between now and November 2008.
Why had it been so easy for Cho Seung-Hui to buy a 9mm handgun from a Virginia gun shop, then use it to kill 32 fellow students and professors at Virginia Tech, those within the gun-control faction asked?
If only the Virginia legislature hadn't voted down a bill in late 2006 that would have allowed students and staff at VT to carry guns on campus, Cho would have faced armed resistance before Monday became a massacre, declared the defenders of the Second Amendment.
This tragic slice of life in America is only partly about guns, although that's likely what the debate will boil down to. The Virginia Tech massacre is about mental illness and whether we can learn to recognize it and treat it.
As more comes out about Cho's disturbing behavior, the trail of red flags seems clear. One of his professors, Lucinda Roy, raised the alarm years ago about Cho's disturbing writings and behavior and tried to urge him into counseling. Virginia authorities revealed that in December 2005, a court magistrate ordered Cho to undergo an evaluation at a psychiatric hospital. The magistrate signed the order after an initial evaluation found probable cause that Cho was mentally ill and was a danger to himself or others.
So how could Cho so easily buy a handgun - legally - from a Roanoke gun shop to use in his murderous spree?
Tougher gun laws might have delayed Cho's purchase with a waiting period, but his lack of a criminal record would not have prevented the gun dealer from selling him the weapon. Should psychiatric exams be part of the process to buy a gun? There's not a legislature in the country that would have the backbone to do that. And even if they did, how would such an exam be done without excluding and stigmatizing anyone who has been treated for depression or sought psychiatric help at some point? Unlike a felony record, which is an obvious stop sign in the legal purchase of a gun, mental health records would be open to interpretation, and possibly abuse, by the reviewing authority.
But history shows you don't need to buy a gun legally to commit a massacre. Anyone bent on crime can buy a gun on the black market or steal one.
Closer to home, the tragic fatal stabbing at Lincoln-Sudbury High School earlier this year shows that a weapon as basic as a kitchen carving knife can be the means to a terrible end.
But for wide-scale school violence, the common thread of mental illness and easily obtained guns is clear.
For example:
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the Columbine High School killers, bought a rifle and two shotguns through a straw purchaser, illegally circumventing the law. Five years after the Columbine massacre and the suicides of Harris and Klebold, the FBI's lead investigator and several psychiatrists labeled Harris a clinical psychopath and Klebold as a "depressive" under Harris's influence.
In 1998, Mitchell Johnson, 13, and Andrew Golden, 11, stole seven firearms from the home of Golden's grandfather and used some of them to kill four students and a teacher at a school in Jonesboro, Ark.
In March 2005, Jeffrey Weise killed his grandfather, stole two of his guns, then used those guns and a third one to kill seven people at Red Lake High School in Minnesota.
Even mass murderers who bought guns legally have tended to have mental problems as a common theme.
Charles Whitman, who used the rifle he bought at a hardware store to kill 15 people from his perch in a University of Texas clock tower in 1966, had been prescribed medication for depression.
In 1992, student Wayne Lo used an SKS rifle he bought legally at a store in Pittsfield, Mass., to kill a teacher and student - and wound four others - at Simon's Rock of Bard College in Great Barrington. Experts at his trial disagreed on whether Lo suffered from schizophrenia or simply had a "narcissistic personality disorder."
Time and time again, killers - almost always men - murder innocents. It's impossible to imagine that any of these killers is sane.
The Rev. Paul Papas, a pastoral counselor and president of NAMI (the National Alliance on Mental Illness, Framingham chapter), agreed Wednesday that mental illness is a likely trait among those like Cho.
"It's all about choice, about a person's ability to choose," Papas said.
In Cho's case, evidence now says a professor and several others who knew Cho tried to convince him to seek counseling. Apparently immersed so deeply in his own mental quagmire, Cho rebuffed offers of help and rarely even spoke with other people.
Asked what lesson might come out of this week's tragedy in Virginia, Papas suggested that people paying attention and caring for others might be a good start.
"Anybody who has any kind of relationship with somebody else, hopefully they would see changes in that person and recognize that they might need help, and that they should seek help," Papas said.
But, as we're learning this week, getting through to a person as deeply troubled as Cho might be more than is humanly possible.
Richard Lodge is editor of The Daily News and writes a column published on Friday. His e-mail is rlodge@cnc.com.
--
Original Source: <a href="http://www.dailynewstribune.com/columnists/x232888155">http://www.dailynewstribune.com/columnists/x232888155</a>
Licensed under <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5</a>.
Richard Lodge/Daily News Tribune Staff
2007-05-31
Brent Jesiek
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5
eng
Never Again?
<p>Lessons learned on the 8th anniversary of Columbine.
<i>-- Diane Edbril and Daniel Loeb</i>
Yet another American gun massacre, and though the scale is more horrific, it is not surprising. The Virginia Tech massacre is not unlike the Amish schoolhouse shooting in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania, late last year. Both of these, while unbearably sad, are hardly unexpected in this country. Our weak gun laws make it a certainty that the United States will continue to suffer recurrences of such preventable tragedies. There is a crying need for Americans to understand - It's about the guns!
Phil Goldsmith, President of CeaseFire PA, said "Since the Columbine shooting tragedy it has become even easier to obtain guns, as well as high capacity ammunition magazines. Many states, including Pennsylvania, have passed pre-emption laws that have undermined the ability of local governments to enact stricter gun laws. (Pennsylvania has preempted local regulation of firearms for over a decade.) Concealed carry laws have multiplied. In addition, for the last six years, the US Department of Justice has required the destruction of gun purchase background check records after just 24 hours, a measure that has prevented a comprehensive review of those who may have acquired guns despite falling into a prohibited category."
Currently:</p>
<p><ul id="obj"><li>Most of our states do not require gun owners to be licensed and for guns to be registered.</li><li>Most of our states have not closed the gun show loophole, so thousands of guns are purchased without background checks.</li><li>Most states impose no limits on the number of firearms one individual can acquire, making it easy for illegal gun traffickers to supply the criminal element.</li><li>Many of our states do not update criminal history databases in a timely manner, making it easy for criminals to obtain firearms.</li></ul></p><p>Imagine how much worse this tragedy could have been if Cho Seung-hui had been in possession of a military assault weapon as is his "right" now that Congress has allowed the Assault Weapons Ban to expire.
Cho Seung-hui was able to obtain firearms despite his psychological record since the burden of proof is on the government to prove that he was a danger to himself and those around him. However, when I get a driver's license, the burden of proof is on me to prove that my eyesight is adequate and that I understand the rules of the road. When I send my children to school or to summer camp, the burden of proof is on me to show that my children have been immunized and are not carrying any communicable diseases. Why not shift the burden of proof and require a recent attestation of sanity from a psychiatrist or psychologist before anyone can handle a firearm?
Will the American people stand up to the gun lobby and demand change, or will the administration simply blame the media for not concentrating their coverage on the majority of universities which do not have gun violence at any given moment?
As Phil Goldsmith observed: "Congress called for a Moment of Silence in response to this massacre. Indeed, a moment of silence is appropriate for such a devastating tragedy with such pain for families and students. But we also need loud, uncompromising noise, particularly in Pennsylvania, where too many of our citizens are being shot and killed in urban areas. The majority of Pennsylvanians favor sensible handgun laws, including Governor Ed Rendell. It is time for the majority's voices to be heard loud and clear."
<i>For information about the Stop Gun Violence Through Peace, Action & Education - A Community-Based Interfaith's Conference on May 20 and the weekly vigils. See last month's article on <a href="http://www.pjvoice.com/v22/22007guns.aspx">Interfaith Initiative Against Guns</a>.</i>
<b>Liviu Librescu Links:</b></p>
<p><ul id="obj"><li><a href="http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/virginiatech.shootings/victims/profiles/liviu.librescu.html">CNN Tribute Page</a></li><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liviu_Librescu">Wikipedia</a></li><li><a href="http://www.esm.vt.edu/~llibresc/RESUME%20L.%20Librescu.pdf">61 page resume</a></li><li><a href="http://www.chabad.edu/templates/articlecco.html?AID=504498">Family Condolence Page</a></li></ul></p><p>--
© 2007. Permission is hereby granted to redistribute this issue of The Philadelphia Jewish Voice or (unless specified otherwise) any of the articles therein in their full original form provided these same rights are conveyed to the reader and subscription information to The Philadelphia Jewish Voice is provided. Subscribers should be directed to <a href="http://www.pjvoice.com/Subscribe.htm">http://www.pjvoice.com/Subscribe.htm</a>.
Original Source: <a href="http://www.pjvoice.com/v23/23001vatech.aspx">http://www.pjvoice.com/v23/23001vatech.aspx</a></p>
Diane Edbril and Daniel Loeb / The Philadelphia Jewish Voice
2007-07-01
Adriana Seagle
Daniel Loeb (daniel.loeb@verizon.net)
eng
On Virginia Tech anniversary, Saugus mom lobbies for changes
By Mike Gaffney
GateHouse News Service
Posted Apr 16, 2008 @ 01:37 PM
SAUGUS —
A year after she lost her son Ross in the Virginia Tech shootings, Lynnette Alameddine is fighting for legislation that would require universities to issue campus emergency notifications in 30 minutes or less.
Wednesday marked the first anniversary of the massacre at Virginia Tech. One of the 33 victims of the deadliest school shooting in this country's history was Ross Alameddine, 20, a Saugus resident and college sophomore known for his sharp wit and uncanny ability to make people laugh.
In a recent interview, Lynnette Alameddine declined to reflect upon Ross's death and its affect on her family for personal reasons.
But she found the courage during an emotionally draining week to talk about the causes she is championing so other parents do not have to experience the same heartbreak.
Over the last few months Alameddine has been working closely with Security on Campus Inc., a nonprofit organization committed to improving student safety at institutions of higher learning.
Security on Campus wants to strengthen the Jeanne Clery Act that requires colleges to warn their campuses about crimes that present ongoing threats in a "timely" manner.
The problem with the federal legislation, Alameddine explained, is the act fails to define what "timely" means. As a result, warnings are sometimes issued many hours after a university becomes aware of an emergency, or even the next day.
History shows that colleges do not always follow the guidelines of the Clery Act. Alameddine mentioned one particularly troublesome case at Eastern Michigan University when a coed was found raped and murdered in a residence hall, but officials issued a statement that no foul play was suspected in her death.
Alameddine and Security on Campus hope Congress revises the Clery Act so universities must initiate a warning process within 30 minutes of an emergency being confirmed.
Thus far Alameddine said a bill has been introduced at the House to include the 30-minute time limit in the renewed Higher Education Amendments of 2008, but no such clause exists in the legislation being worked on at the Senate level.
"There has been a lot of resistance from university presidents who don't feel they can complete the notifications in that amount of time," Alameddine said.
Mere minutes can mean the difference between life and death when a threat of a shooter surfaces on a college campus, Alameddine pointed out. In the case of the Virginia Tech Tragedy, two hours passed between the discovery of the shooter's first two victims in a dormitory and when the university sent out its alert.
Alameddine traveled to Washington, D.C., recently to share her concerns with an advisor on Sen. Edward Kennedy's staff and the vice president of Security on Campus. Her daughter, Yvonne, has become the president on Facebook for the Students for Emergency Warnings in 30 Minutes or Less.
A decision on the specific language included in the Higher Education Amendments is expected by the end of the month.
With this looming deadline in mind, the Alameddines are encouraging the public to call or e-mail their senators to request they support the mandatory campus warning provision of 30 minutes or less. For more information on this cause, log on to www.securityoncampus.org.
"I think this has the potential to prevent tragedies from happening," Alameddine said. "It is shocking that colleges and universities don't notify people about emergencies on campus."
Advocating gun control
Another concern of Alameddine's is how easy it can be to secure a firearm. Earlier this month she attended a gala in the nation's capital sponsored by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, an organization that strives to enact and enforce sensible gun laws.
The gala featured a special tribute to the survivors and families affected by the Virginia Tech shooting. Also honored was Abby Spangler, a Virginia native and staunch gun control supporter affiliated with the Web site www.protesteasyguns.com.
After the Virginia Tech shootings, Spangler took it upon herself to hold a silent protest expressing outrage over the senseless loss of human life. The movement eventually evolved into a phenomenon culminating with the National Lie-In.
On April 16, the grassroots group organized 80 lie-ins in 31 states. To honor the memory of the Virginia Tech victims, Alameddine said each protest involved 32 people — signifying the number of students and teachers killed by shooter Cho Seung-Hui — who dressed in black with Virginia Tech colors and laid down for three minutes.
"That's how long it takes someone to get a gun in this country," Alameddine said.
Several lie-ins were held in the Boston area, including a silent protest organized at Simmons College by Katie McKendrey, a close friend of Ross Alameddine's.
From the research she has conducted, Alameddine said it is alarming how effortless it is for people to purchase guns. She hopes to close the existing loophole that allows private dealers at gun shows to sell firearms to customers without conducting a background check.
According to statistics collected by www.protesteasyguns.com, approximately 40 percent of sales at the 5,000 gun shows held every year in this country are made by unlicensed sellers who aren't required to perform background checks.
At last count 35 states had yet to close this loophole. Alameddine is convinced the time has come to take action and close the loophole so the guns used in crimes no longer find their way into the wrong hands.
Although Alameddine acknowledged the need to respect the rights of the National Rifle Association, she said precautions should be taken so firearms are kept away from dangerous individuals and off college campuses.
Gun control laws differ considerably from state to state, which Alameddine noted can lead to troubling circumstances where common sense isn't always taken into account. For example, she expressed concern over finding out some universities allow students to carry concealed weapons on campus.
Licensed under Creative Commons
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/">Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Generic</a>
--
Original Source:
<a href="http://www.patriotledger.com/archive/x883016434">http://www.patriotledger.com/archive/x883016434</a>
Mike Gaffney
2008-04-19
Kacey Beddoes
eng
One more rampage, same weapon of choice
By Judy Polumbaum
Updated: 2007-04-19 07:10
Details of the shootings on the Virginia Tech campus on Monday have unfolded to confirm that the gunman was a US resident originally from South Korea. He is Cho Seung-hui, who killed 32 people and then himself in the worst campus carnage in US history.
Cho, a senior English major at the university who had come to the US at the age of 8, went about his murders methodically. Doors of one building where he opened fire on classes had been chained from the inside.
Two hours earlier, a young woman and a resident hall assistant had been shot at a dormitory, a presumably related incident that police at first interpreted as a domestic dispute. Their assumption led to the calamitous delay in alerting the campus and community to the threat.
The Virginia shooting inevitably brings back memories of a gunman's rampage one drizzly November afternoon more than 15 years ago on the campus of the University of Iowa, where I teach. The killer at Iowa was Lu Gang, a Chinese doctoral student in physics and astronomy.
On November 1, 1991, just up the hill from my office, Lu shot to death one fellow Chinese, three professors and an administrator, and critically wounded an undergraduate student, leaving her a paraplegic, before killing himself.
Undoubtedly, as more becomes known about the Virginia Tech shooter and his circumstances, people will reflect on what produced the sort of nihilistic rage that could lead someone to commit mass murder.
Such rumination, among both Americans and Chinese, ensued after the Lu Gang shootings. Most of us on the Iowa campus, and US observers generally, viewed Lu Gang's crimes primarily as the actions of a deranged individual. In China, by contrast, people sought broader social explanations.
A prolonged discussion carried out in the pages of the Beijing Youth News raised a variety of notions, including that Lu Gang's generation lacked good values due to defective early schooling during the "cultural revolution". A minority of readers suggested that the unfair pressure and discrimination that Chinese students suffered abroad was the root cause.
Such analyses were contradicted, of course, by the story of the young Chinese colleague among Lu's victims. Shan Linhua, brilliant, outgoing, well liked, the son of poor peasants from Zhejiang Province, had flourished at Iowa, winning a prestigious dissertation award and a research job on campus after his graduation.
Among the factors once again under discussion in the wake of the Virginia tragedy are an American "culture of violence" celebrated in mass media, a prevalence of "narcissism" among young people who lash back when they feel slighted, and shortcomings in provision of psychological counseling for troubled students.
Ultimately, however, what enabled both campus killers to cut down other human beings was the easy accessibility of guns in the United States.
After the Iowa shootings, Lu Gang was found to have purchased guns and practiced his markmanship at a local shooting range. Similarly, Cho Seung-hui wrought bloody mayhem with two guns and ample ammunition in hand. Reports say that five weeks earlier, wielding merely a credit card, he had paid $500 for a gun.
Weapons fanciers among US bloggers and commentators are raising a hue and cry against using the Virginia episode as another argument for gun control.
The zealots claim the mantle of the US Constitution, specifically, the Second Amendment. They selectively stress the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" while conveniently ignoring the larger context, which is to support society's ability to maintain a "well-regulated militia" for its security.
Nothing could be less secure than a nation awash in guns. We speak of "random" violence in connection with these campus shootings, but such incidents are not random. They're a logical result of the doctrine that gun ownership is an unassailable personal right, along with the blithe attitude that trade in guns is simply another unexceptional form of commerce.
Even in US states with stricter regulation, any lunatic who wants to buy a gun can find a way. The fact that both Iowa and Virginia shooters were of Asian heritage is mere coincidence. Their shared instruments of choice are not.
Judy Polumbaum is professor of journalism at The University of Iowa
--
Original Source:ChinaDaily
<a href="http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2007-04/19/content_853892.htm">http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2007-04/19/content_853892.htm<a/>
Judy Polumbaum
2007-07-24
Na Mi
eng
Our Opinion: Gun Control
<strong>Emory's Campus No Place For Guns</strong><br />
Issue date: 5/1/07<br />
Section: Editorials
The recent controversy concerning funding for a College Republicans' trip to a shooting range has brought the issues of gun control and campus safety to the forefront of the Emory discourse.
Last Wednesday, College Council denied the College Republicans funding to help pay for a trip to a local shooting range. The College Republicans said they hoped the trip would promote safe and responsible gun handling and ownership. College Council legislators say they withheld the funds due to safety concerns, even going so far as to propose an amendment to the organization's monetary code prohibiting the use of College Council funds to purchase or rent firearms and ammunition.
Generally speaking, we believe College Council should be able to fund activities like a trip to the shooting range. Shooting is a sport recognized by the NCAA, and shooting range sessions monitored by professionals are exceedingly safe. Amending the monetary code to prevent such trips is unwarranted.
It's unfortunate that the shootings at Virginia Tech took place just weeks before the scheduled date for the trip, but given that the College Republicans had been planning this event for quite some time, we don't believe the shootings are an adequate reason for the trip to be cancelled. Although some could perceive the trip as insensitive, there is still an immense difference between safely firing a gun at a target and using a gun to commit mass murder. If the College Republicans want to take a trip to the shooting range, then they should receive the same support given to any other group.
What we cannot condone is the College Republicans' plan to request permission from University President James W. Wagner to carry concealed weapons on campus. This idea was proposed by nationally syndicated radio host Lars Larson on whose show Tittsworth appeared to discuss the Council's decision to deny funding.
Under current Georgia law, it is illegal for a civilian to carry any sort of weapon or explosive compound while on school property. There's a reason such a law was passed. We understand the need for protection and the value of feeling safe at school, but we do not believe that allowing more guns on campus will help foster the open learning environment we want at the University.
Allowing guns on campus would propagate an atmosphere tinged with the spectre of possible violence. This would make us less safe, rather than moreso. The only people who should be allowed guns on campus are those who have gone through rigorous training to become certified in their use and have taken an oath to protect the citizenry - in this case, the Emory Police Department.
The College Republicans should realize that by tying the issue of funding from College Council to the ludicrous question of concealed weapons on campus, they are only hurting their prospects of getting that money in the future. Who would want to give money for a shooting range trip to a group that has expressed its desire to carry concealed weapons on campus?
As the Second Amendment states, there is a place for guns in our society. The shooting range is one of those places - Emory's campus is not.
--
Original Source: <a href= http://media.www.emorywheel.com/media/storage/paper919/news/2007/05/01/Editorials/Our-Opinion.Gun.Control-2889391.shtml> Emory Wheel - May 1, 2007</a>
Editorial Staff
2007-07-11
Sara Hood
"Christopher H. Megerian" <cmegeri@LearnLink.Emory.Edu>
eng