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 Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Generic -- Original Source: http://www.patriotledger.com/archive/x883016434
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 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-page2.shtml
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 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
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 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-page2.shtml
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: The Pitt News - April 23, 2007
Shooting proves need for gun control laws
By: Joe Bialek Posted: 5/2/07 The shooting crisis at Virginia Tech has once again sparked the debate about gun control. The second amendment of the United States 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." Obviously the need for a state militia has been replaced by the National Guard and Coast Guard whereby trained military personnel are entrusted with the defense of this country against domestic enemies. Their weapons are tightly controlled and safeguarded. The only two reasons for a citizen to own a firearm are for hunting or defense of the household from intruders. In either case, ownership of a handgun, shotgun or shoulder rifle is more than adequate to satisfy these purposes. There is absolutely no need for any U.S. civilian to own any weapon more powerful or sophisticated than these. Accordingly, all handguns, shotguns and shoulder rifles must be licensed and registered to the degree necessary to match weapon to owner at the click of a computer key. Furthermore, if we had prohibited the purchase of more sophisticated weapons, several innocent victims would not have died at the hands of Cho Seung-Hui. Joe Bialek Cleveland, Ohio -- Original Source:The Lantern - May 2, 2007
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:The Lantern - May 7, 2007
New bill consistent, sound policy By:Unknown Posted: 5/7/07 Following the Virginia Tech incident, governments have examined many of the legal practices for the sale of firearms. Some of the proposals have come under attack by gun advocacy groups such as the National Rifle Association, including a recent bill granting the attorney general the authority to prohibit gun sales to those on the terror watch list. The terror watch list includes those suspected of being terrorist threats, even when they have not been convicted. As reported by the Associated Press, NRA executive director Chris Cox wrote in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, "the word 'suspect' has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties." If Gonzalez and the Bush administration show any consistency in their policies, they will support the plan to deny Second Amendment rights to terror suspects, because they have had no problem denying other constitutional rights to those suspected of having terror connections. Those of us who pay attention might remember Guantanamo Bay, where it is a matter of procedure to deny due process and other rights to those accused of having terror connections, and sometimes even those who have been exonerated. Although The Lantern appreciates the NRA looking out for our constitutional liberties, we wonder why all of a sudden gun rights get a special pass. The Lantern believes the rights guaranteed in the constitution are created equal, and the fact that one might come in the Second Amendment makes it no more important than those in subsequent amendments. It is true that the political ideologies in the United States have latched onto certain rights to call their own. Some on the left have taken freedom of religion to mean absolutely no mention of God in public, ever, while some on the right have taken a well-regulated militia to mean an AK-47 in every home. Still, we should remember it takes a significant majority to amend the constitution, which means at one point in time the issues addressed by the amendments were not simply tools for partisan bickering. The NRA is not at fault here, because they exist for the preservation of gun rights and it is their job to advocate against anything they see that would abridge those rights, just as the American Civil Liberties Union should not be attacked for fighting for the liberties of those detained at Guantanamo Bay. In the end, it is probably for the good of the nation's security that the government have the ability to deny gun sales to those who might pose a serious danger, as the threat of terrorism is one ever growing in a world where the United States continues to make more enemies than friends. Those who support the NRA in opposing this bill, yet were silent when other liberties were denied for the same reasons, are hypocrites taking a stance based on politics rather than philosophy. -- Original Source: The Lantern - May 7, 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: The Miami Students - April 17, 2007
"Skotzko, Stacey Nicole" <skotzksn@muohio.edu>
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 ­- 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:The Miami Daily - April 20, 2007
Letters Wednesday April 18, 2007 The Guardian 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. Michael Hunter 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. Andrew Harris 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. Eric Liggett 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. Laurence Mann 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. Dr David Lowry Stoneleigh, Surrey Special report United States Related articles 25.10.2002: Captured in their sniper's nest 25.10.2002: Dropped clues that led police to sniper 25.10.2002: Rifle costs just $800 Useful links National Rifle Association Violence Policy Centre Brady Campaign Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Copyright Guardian News & Media Ltd 2007. -- Original Source: Guardian Unlimited http://www.guardian.co.uk/usguns/Story/0,,2059479,00.html
Eve Thompson-Acting Permissions Executive Syndication;permissions.syndication@guardian.co.uk
Threats to Civil Liberties arising from the fallout of the Virginia Tech Forcible-disarmament Frenzy
May 1, 2007 4:51 pm An article from a new contributor: Loren Bliss THERE ARE TWO EXCEPTIONALLY grave dangers to American liberty arising from the present, post-Virginia-Tech forcible-disarmament frenzy. These are: (1)-The criminalization of even the mildest forms of mental illness, as proposed by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), in HR 297. (2)-The criminalization of political protest and dissent, as proposed by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, (D-NJ), in S 1237. Each of these measures is enthusiastically supported by the Bush Regime. The Lautenberg bill was written at White House/Justice Department request — a leading Democratic senator serving as the mouthpiece for a despised Republican administration — an unprecedented act of collaboration with the most corrupt regime in U.S. history. Once again, opposition to the Second Amendment is being used as a diversion behind which to conceal an all-out, bipartisan attack on the entire Bill of Rights- including, via S 1237, repeal of the presumption of innocence that is the cornerstone of all English-language jurisprudence. Meanwhile, welcome to the New American Reich, where (if McCarthy, Lautenberg and Bush have their way), anybody deemed a mental case, an effective labor activist or a disruptive political nonconformist will soon be forcibly disarmed, denied all rational means of self defense and thereby condemned to perpetual victimhood. ********* Modern efforts to criminalize mental dysfunction have a long history dating back to Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany and are typically part of a broader right-wing agenda of oppression and euthanasia. But in the United States, the primary advocates of criminalization are the forcible disarmament cult and the Communitarian movement, members of which universally (and often vehemently) claim to be leftists and/or "progressives." The Communitarians have argued for at least two decades that diagnosis of mental illness should instantly terminate not only all one's civil rights but also strip one of all privileges as well, driver's licenses included, after which the victim of such determination could then theoretically earn back the abolished rights and privileges in carefully supervised increments. Toward this end the Communitarians — who despite their leftist disguise and innocuous-sounding name are radical Skinnerian fascists of the harshest sort — are demanding creation of a national registry of mental patients. Deliberately established and maintained as a powerfully oppressive tool of social control, this roster of official pariahdom would include the names of anyone now or ever in any form of mental health treatment, regardless of the relative mildness or severity of the condition for which they are being treated. (Google "communitarians" and scroll at will for additional information.) Despite its huge contempt for the Constitution, the Communitarian faction is but one small portion of the forcible disarmament cult, but it is probably disproportionately powerful. Its intellectual prowess is considerable, and it often assumes a behind-the-scenes leadership role, focusing on the development of strategy, tactics and ideology. Another venue of profound Communitarian influence is the Hillary Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. It was the Communitarians who provided the Clintons and their cronies with the ideological justification for the Democratic Party's abandonment of New Deal principles and its subsequent wholesale betrayal of the working class. The Communitarians' grasp of Orwellian principles is also very evident in the present-day effort to redefine forcible disarmament as "gun safety" and the present tactic of concealing disarmament schemes behind apparently friendly but patently false gestures toward firearms owners. All this dovetails neatly with the broader forcible-disarmament-cult agenda of reducing legal firearms ownership by any means possible. Since it is credibly estimated as many as 50 percent of all U.S. citizens will at some time require some form of mental health treatment ("treatment" defined in the broadest sense, to include grief counseling, post-divorce therapy and even self-esteem classes or remedial reading for dyslexics), a favorite ploy of forcible disarmament fanatics is to demand closure of "the mental health loophole" in such a way that participation in any treatment process is penalized by automatic forcible disarmament: either turn in your guns before you see the professional caregiver, or the police will soon be there to kick in your front door, shoot your dogs, wreck the interior of your house by violent search and terrorize your spouse and children into lifelong bouts of shivering catatonia. Typically — and the forcible disarmament advocates make no secret of the fact they are obscenely aroused by the prospect of unleashing such police brutality against firearms owners — this means criminalizing all forms of mental illness or mental dysfunction and thereby forcibly disarming anyone who is or ever has been in any sort of therapy or formalized healing, permanently abolishing their gun rights, no appeal allowed. This is already the law in New York City — if you consult a mental health professional even once in NYC (no matter the nature of your problem), your name is reported to the police and you lose your gun rights forever. Indeed, the Democrats attempted to impose a similar restriction on Washington state residents in 1994, but it was vigorously resisted there by a coalition of mental health professionals, who recognize in such criminalization a huge disincentive to voluntary treatment. Which brings us to the present "mental health loophole" bill pending in Congress. As originally written, it was called the "Our Lady of Peace Act" (Google for details), and it would have permanently denied firearms ownership to anyone "adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution," which is further defined as occurring whenever "a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority determines that an individual is mentally retarded or of marked subnormal intelligence, mentally ill, or mentally incompetent" (HR 4757, 2002, Sec. 103 and 103:c). By including the phrase "other lawful authority," the measure would have empowered any psychiatrist, psychologist or even guidance counselor to deny someone their gun rights forever, merely by declaring that person "mentally ill" — a designation that covers everything from definitively murderous Andrea Yates/Cho Seung Hui psychosis to the mildest cases of neurotic nail-biting and low-self-esteem fidgets. The generic designation "mentally ill" would also have allowed the forcible disarmament of anyone ever found to be "mentally disabled" — never mind that "mental disability" is a very specifically focused evaluation of one's employability or lack thereof, typically for purposes of granting welfare stipends or Social Security disability payments. Thus a finding of "mental disability" has absolutely nothing to do with one's suitability to own firearms, vote or exercise any other Constitutional right. But the Our Lady of Peace Act, which McCarthy has introduced in every Congress since 2002, would nevertheless require the Social Security Administration and every state welfare agency to add to the federal government's computerized catalogue of criminals the name and dossier of every individual who had ever been found to be even temporarily "mentally disabled" — resulting in a permanent loss of Second Amendment rights against which there would be no possibility of defense or appeal. Thus criminalizing "mental disability" (or any other mental disorder in even the mildest forms) would clearly further the forcible disarmament cult's long range objective of making the requirements for legal firearms ownership increasingly prohibitive — ultimately reducing the number of legal firearms owners by the aforementioned 50 percent. The cult's triumph would be all the greater for the fact the imposition of "prohibited person" status would allow disarmament by outright seizure, thereby exempting government from any compensatory (buy-back) costs. Under extreme pressure from mental health professionals, McCarthy has slightly modified her present proposal, HR 297, so that those denied their Second Amendment rights on the basis of mental health considerations would be specifically limited to persons who have been "adjudicated as mentally defective or...committed to mental institutions." Alas, the term "mental defective" remains undefined — leaving unanswered whether it includes those who have been found to be "mentally disabled." It also leaves a number of other questions as to its scope, such as whether a child diagnosed as suffering from attention deficit disorder is to be branded "mentally defective" and therefore — after reaching adulthood — denied firearms ownership for life. Apparently — though this is not clear either — McCarthy has meanwhile broadened the term "committed" to make it as prohibitive as possible: that is, to permanently deny gun rights to anyone formally committed to a mental institution of any kind (including out-patient clinics) regardless of whether the commitment was mandatory (court ordered) or voluntary. (Present federal law allows those who undergo voluntary commitment to retain their Second Amendment rights unless other specific prohibitions apply.) Furthermore, McCarthy — who formerly made no secret of her froth-at-the-mouth hatred of firearms and firearms owners but now (in service to the Democrats' new deception policy) speaks much more softly — recently told ABC News that in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, she would amend the bill back to its original, criminalize-all-mental-disorder wording except for the fact "the NRA...is holding everybody hostage." Given that the National Rifle Association has supported the Our Lady of Peace Act from the very beginning, HR 297 included, McCarthy's accusation is not only false but is an especially misleading, hypocritical and even malicious claim: no surprise given the infinite maliciousness that is the forcible disarmament hysteric's most notorious characteristic. But on the HR 297 issue, the NRA (to which I have belonged since 1951) is equally treacherous and hypocritical, especially given its demonstrably false claim to be a defender of the entire Bill of Rights. Indeed the NRA's opposition to the civil rights of mental patients reveals the frustrating extent to which the organization has deteriorated into nothing more than an instrument of the Republican Party. (And the Republican Party — especially since Big Business America's 1930s alliance with Hitler, Mussolini and Franco — is itself the U.S. equivalent of the fascist parties that formerly dominated Europe.) Thus the NRA implicitly embraces the right wing position that "mental defectives" should be savagely oppressed if not actually euthanized. Not that the NRA is out of step with American opinion: most U.S. citizens — though they are loathe to admit it — emphatically agree that "mental defectives" deserve the harshest treatment possible. As a consequence, the U.S. has long been infamous for the industrial world's most superstitiously ignorant fear of mental affliction and its most violent rejection of anyone so afflicted, attitudes that have been credibly traced to the enduring influence of Abrahamic religion and the grave extent to which our society remains a defacto theocracy. (Anyone who doubts this assessment of our national values need look no further than our officially murderous hatred of those who are homeless.) Meanwhile other Second Amendment advocacy groups remain stonily silent on the patient-rights implications of forcible disarmament,* understandably (given these selfsame U.S. attitudes) terrified they will be accused of supporting "guns for crazies." Never mind that study after study proves mental patients are statistically no more dangerous than any other group of Americans — and far less dangerous than some. _________ *Gun Owners of America has vehemently opposed the Our Lady of Peace Act and HR 297, and it has done so for the very best of reasons: these measures could "bar mentally stable people from buying guns" merely because they had sought mental health treatment, and it is "morally and constitutionally wrong to require law-abiding citizens to first prove their innocence to the government before they can exercise their rights — whether it's Second Amendment rights, First Amendment rights, or any other right." Alas, GOA — which based on its rhetoric seems to be very closely tied to the Christian Theocracy faction of the Republican Party — also opposes such legislation for the very worst of reasons: it echoes the traditional Jewish/Christian/Islamic stance that the husband is god's representative in the household and, as god's enforcer, has unlimited god-given right to beat his wife and children. Thus GOA protests that denying guns to family patriarchs convicted of domestic violence is inflicting punishment for "very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or...merely yelling at a family member" — never mind the bloody testimony of Crystal Brame's death and far too many other murders just as bad or worse. ********* The criminalization of labor activism, political agitation and effective dissent is not the stated purpose of Lautenberg's newly introduced S 1237, which was dropped in the Senate hopper very late Friday 27 April 2007, the introduction obviously timed to minimize public disclosure and avoid press scrutiny. But given that the Republicans now and for a long while have condemned anyone who opposes Führer George Bush and his New American Reich, denouncing each opponent as a "terrorist" or "terrorist sympathizer," the impact of the measure is made obvious by its stated purpose: "to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists." Predictably, Bush himself has already demanded S 1237's immediate enactment. Just as predictably, Lautenberg — perhaps even more fanatical a forcible disarmament advocate than McCarthy — lauds its unprecedented subversion of the Constitutionally implied principle of presumed innocence as "too long" overdue. Absolute proof of the calculated political malevolence embodied in the Lautenberg proposal — proof too of how the Democrats have finally abandoned any pretense of being civil libertarians and now (in the name of forcible disarmament) fully and even gleefully embrace the Bush Regime's agenda of totally nullifying the Bill of Rights — is found in the federal government's post-9/11 redefinition of the term "terrorism" to include any form of political protest that is genuinely disruptive. Participants in a legitimate strike or a protest that blocks or even slows vehicular traffic could thus be persecuted as "terrorists." Quoth the American Civil Liberties Union in an analysis disseminated on 6 December 2002: "The definition of domestic terrorism is broad enough to encompass the activities of several prominent activist campaigns and organizations. Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Vieques Island and World Trade Organization protesters and the Environmental Liberation Front have all recently engaged in activities that could subject them to being investigated as engaging in domestic terrorism." Meanwhile Reason magazine, the official journal of the Libertarian Party, has repeatedly noted that in the eyes of the Bush Regime, "terrorist" and "enemy combatant" are synonymous In other words, any member of any labor union that participated in the Seattle WTO protests could be labeled a "terrorist" merely based on the union's presence there and — under Lautenberg's S 1237 — he or she could be forcibly disarmed forever. But the reality is far more chilling: given the criteria of disruptiveness, the participants in any effective strike or job action can now be subjugated as "terrorists." And given the Third Reich cloak of secrecy that now hides all U.S. security matters from judicial scrutiny, such subjugation could never be appealed. Indeed it is conceivable a labor activist (or any other opponent of the status quo) could be disappeared forever into the gulag of Guantanamo merely on the basis of the spurious argument that the (denied) attempt to purchase a firearm is absolute proof of "enemy combatant" intent. The law that would enable such outrages should more properly be labeled the Lautenberg/Bush/Alberto Gonzales Bill of Rights Nullification Act of 2007 because it would not only subject all future U.S. firearms ownership to the tyrannical whims of the modern-day incarnation of the dread Reich Security Service (RSHA), but it would but it would repeal the presumption of innocence that is the great wellspring of the American legal system. Thus, with active Democratic party collaboration, at the very least the Bush Regime is laying the groundwork to forcibly disarm every labor activist in the United States — and anyone else it chooses to put on its (secret) enemies list. Thus too another advance for the modern-day variant of fascism — not marching forward on hobnailed jackboots but sneaking past us on politically correct rubber soles. Note also how McCarthy's HR 297 undeniably anticipates enactment of S 1237: "The Secretary of Homeland Security shall make available to the Attorney General...records, updated not less than quarterly, which are relevant to a determination of whether a person is disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm..."(Sec. 101:b.1.A). Now the relationship between the two measures comes into sharp focus: Lautenberg abolishes the presumption of innocence and grants the government the unprecedented power to rule on our political reliability while McCarthy provides the infrastructure to make sure the secret police get every possible scrap of information. Suddenly I wonder if closing the alleged "mental health loophole" — though no doubt an egregious blow to our freedom — isn't maybe just another red herring to distract us from the genuinely fatal wound that would be dealt our liberty by Lautenberg's coup-de-grace against due process. ********* Predictions past and future: as some of you may remember, before I was booted off Progressive Independent for speaking tactless truth to tacky tyranny, I predicted that the Democrats would take back Congress in 2006, would founder pathetically in their efforts to accomplish any meaningful socioeconomic change, and would then cut a win-win deal with the Bush Regime to impose forcible disarmament and further subvert the Bill of Rights in general, thereby enabling each side to claim accomplishments dearest to its ideologues' alleged hearts. Though the onslaught is not developing exactly the way I imagined it would, there is no doubt such an offensive is underway. But just as I foresaw the betrayal of our electoral hopes for Medicare reform and the restoration of labor rights, I can no longer doubt this new Democrat/Republican collaboration to abolish the presumption of innocence and grant the Homeland Security apparatus the ultimate power of approval or disapproval over all individual civilian firearms purchases is (A) the beginning of the final assault on the Constitution by representatives of the corporate ruling class and (B) the beginning of a Bush Regime effort to co-opt public reaction to the Virginia Tech massacre and thus rehabilitate its public image by launching its own forcible disarmament campaign — not out of the craven hoplophobia that so agitates the Democrats and alienates so many voters, but in the name of the same self-proclaimed robust patriotism that seduced us into cheering the (failed) conquest of Iraq. I can hear it now: "if y'all love your country, you'll give us the common-sense power to determine who's politically reliable enough to have a gun." The last time the politicians said something like that, the language was German. ********* NOTES: The text of HR 297 and the unfolding details of S 1237 are available through the excellent and superbly useful Thomas legislative search engine: http://thomas.loc.gov/ I am posting this same essay on my blog, Wolfgang von Skeptik, http://wolfgangvonskeptik.mu.nu/ -- Original Source: http://www.midwest-populistamerica.com/articles/threats-to-civil-liberties-arising-from-virginia-tech/ Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5.
Virginia Tech massacre an unbelievably sad event
Friday, April 20, 2007 - The China Post A total of 32 people were killed Monday in a Virginia Tech campus building in the deadliest shooting rampage in modern U.S. history. The gunman, a student from South Korea, took down his victims in two attacks that were spread two hours apart. The tragic incident has sent shockwaves around the world. We wish to express our sympathy to the victims' families and hope they will get all the help they need to make it through this very difficult time. The other students at the university should also be assisted so they can overcome the shock and grief they are suffering. U.S. President George W. Bush has ordered flags flown at half staff across the nation. Speaking at a memorial service on the Virginia Tech campus, Bush said "it's impossible to make sense of such violence and suffering." "Those whose lives were taken did nothing to deserve their fate," the president said. "They were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now they're gone -- and they leave behind grieving families, and grieving classmates, and a grieving nation." At first it was reported that the alleged killer was a student from China. Later, however, police found the gunman was a fourth-year student from South Korea, described in the media as a "loner." Authorities said he was a legal resident of the United States. The suspect committed suicide after the attacks. Police said there was no evidence of any accomplice at either of the two attacks, but are exploring the possibility. The shocking incident has prompted debate and discussion about the prevalence of gun ownership in the United States. An Indonesian mother, according to a news report, bemoaned the availability of guns in the United States after learning her son was among those killed in the massacre, while South Koreans expressed shame and shock that the gunman came from their country. "Why can people bring guns to campus?" the Indonesian mother said, recalling third-year doctoral student Partahi Lumbantoruan, who had such a promising future. The family had sold property and a car to finance his civil engineering studies. The lax gun-control legislation in the U.S. is something on which people in many parts of the world don't agree. Here in Taiwan, gun control legislation is tough and gun possession is generally confined to law-enforcement personnel. The local Gun Control Act even bans the production of toy guns that could be converted into life-threatening firearms, or those bearing similarities to real guns in appearance, material, structure and trigger device. The strict gun-control legislation here has without a doubt played an important role in preventing violent crime from rising rapidly. In the United States, there is a powerful gun lobby, and legislators fear that advocacating stricter gun control would result in a loss of votes. Another reason why guns are readily available is the common American belief that in a free country, citizens should be free to own guns. The slogan of the lobbyists is: "Guns don't kill people, people do." Well, that's like saying, "Bombs don't kill people, people do." If restrictions on gun possession in the United States were stricter, the Virginia Tech shooting rampage -- and many other campus shootings that have occurred in the past -- might not have occurred. Hopefully, this tragic event will lead to vigorous efforts in the U.S. to pass some sensible gun control legislation. -- Original Source: The China Post http://www.chinapost.com.tw/archive/detail.asp?cat=1&id=107654&d=2007420
Ponderation over shock from US campus shooting rampage
UPDATED: 17:04, April 19, 2007 A total of 33 people, including the gunman Seung-Hui Cho, 23, were killed Monday at Virginia Tech University in the deadiest shooting rampage in modern US history. The whole of the United States is stunned and shocked, and so is the entire world. At the time when people, full of sympathy, are plunged themselves in an extreme sorrow and grief, they cannot but naturally ask such a question: Why it (the shooting rampage) has been again occurred in the U.S., and again in on the campus? In fact, this is not beyond people's expectations, as it is neither the first tragedy, nor the last, because there are two reasons involved: First, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution specifies that the American people are endowered with the "right to keep and bear arms", which cannot be encroached upon. So the sale and purchase of firearms are legal in the United States according to law. Consequently, a large number of American families possess guns. Approximately 200 million guns are owned privately in the U.S., which has a population of 300 million, note relevant statistics released by the US Department of Justice. It has been reported that Seung-Hui Cho, the gunman on the Virginia campus killings, bought his first gun, a 9mm handgun, on March 13 at Roanoke, Va. Gun store, and he timed the purchase of his two firearms to be far enough apart that he would not run afoul of the "one gun a month" law. Why does the United States still not amend its Constitution to ban the use of firearms after a frequent occurrence of mass killings with guns? Almost every shooting rampage is followed by a nationwide debate on whether or not the possession of firearms should be banned. But bills for banning the ownership of guns will not be passed in Congress in the end. This, however, has something to do with the influential and powerful National Rifle Association of America, or NRA. Having a membership of some 3 million that includes arms dealers, rich hunters and firearms fans, the NRA has both money and the vote with a significant impact in both Congressional and presidential elections. Any amendment of the US Constitution has to be rectified with a two-thirds majority at both chambers of US Congress and, therefore, the rigid draft firearms banning code remains a "still born in the womb". And gun owners seem to have some kind of reason, alleging that it is the gunman not the gun that kills people and the guns themselves cannot massacre people automatically. Second, every society is made up of all kinds of people, and an undeniable reality is that a handful of people do not have a "sound" or healthy mind or character and still a small member of people are somewhat in mental disorders. Once these people seize firearms, others will be exposed to an immense threat. Relevant statistics show that close to half the killers have mental problems of some sort and, so for the sake of safeguarding social security, it is a must to reduce or prevent their accesses to firearms. Just imagine how is it possible for the gunman in the campus shooting rampage in Virginia Tech to massacre so many people if he had only a sword or a knife, not two guns in hand? Furthermore, to make an in-depth analysis of its causes, a kind of culture to adore the force has been fostered and spread in the process from the War of Independence in 1776 to the subsequent extension westward in the late 18th century and early 19th centuries. In the meantime, violence and bloodshed scenes have been kept flooding "cowboy" movies and audio and visual products based on high-tech Star wars. This has created notions in minds of kids to worship the force and resort to it to solve problems. On April 20, 1999, two teenagers, aged 17 or 18, killed 12 fellow students and a teacher and wounded 24 others before taking their own lives at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. What they did was solely simulated and designed with meticulous care on audio and visual items to peddle or spread violence and crimes. Seung-Hui Cho, a South Korean American student, has been in the U.S. from a very young age. If he was in South Korea, a nation of his birth instead of the U.S., would a tragedy of such a scale could happen? To date, the entire world has been mourning with a deep grief over victims in the Virginia campus killing rampage, and another round of debate for prohibition of firearms ban is in sight in the United States. If only the loss of 33 precious young lives on the Virginia campus will arouse the awareness and introspection of American statesmen. By People's Daily Online, and its author is Li Xuejiang, a top PD resident reporter in the U.S. -- Original Source: People's Daily Online, China http://english.people.com.cn/200704/19/eng20070419_368006.html
Editorial: The necessary right of self-defense
From the May 2007 Print Edition 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 Patriot 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 The New York Times 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 http://californiapatriot.org/magazine/issue/8/8/editorial Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License
Letters to the Editor The forest for the trees Tragedy struck at Virginia Tech Monday. Unfortunately, the sadness of events is not only in the actions themselves, but also in the reactions. I want to assert that we still need to keep an eye on the forest while inspecting the trees. Reporter after reporter fired questions, and I use the term fired here for a reason, at Virginia Tech Police Chief Flinchum, about security policy. The officer looked visibly shaken, dismayed, saddened and reporters piled on frustration as he tried to deal with the condescending questions from the gallery. Now, let's be clear. Was the reaction as good as it could have been? Of course not. Was it even good? It doesn't appear that it was. But let me say this. I'll bet that if you poll anyone who went to college after1999 (Columbine), you'll find that over 85 percent of the students have or had no idea of any kind of "lockdown policy." As a recent University graduate, I can't even tell you what the school's hurricane policy is. But here is where we're missing the point yet again. The problem here isn't campussecurity. Chief Flinchum didn't kill anyone. The Virginia Tech police didn't harm anyone. The problem yet again is gun control. As we approach the eight year anniversary of the tragedy at Columbine, what has happened since? To truncate the depressingly long list of school shootings, I'll just focus on Virginia colleges. In 2002, the Appalachian School of Law was the site of a tragedy where a dean and fellow student were killed by a student. Two of these shootings in five years in the same state at college campuses exemplifies the problem we're facing as a nation. So what's the real problem here? Is it security? Is it emergency response? Of course not. If people want to commit crimes, people will commit crimes. The problem is that when they want to commit these crimes, access to weapons with which to commit these crimes is tragic. What's the answer? If we continue missing the forest for these trees, we'll never get to the real problem. Aaron Schmidt CLASS 2005 -- Original Source:The Cavalier Daily - April 18, 2007
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 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-04/18/content_853638.htm
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 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2007-04/19/content_853892.htm
Anyone who is not living an incredibly secluded life (if you are, can I join you there?) has probably heard about the tragedy at Virginia Tech. where a gunman killed some 33 people, including himself. I've struggled whether to weigh in on this or not, but I felt that I would do so because I feel like a lot of the subtext of what is being said is awful. First and foremost, as a Christian, I am praying for those actually affected by this. Friends, families and Virginia Tech's students and faculty are hurting right now. God of all comfort, be near to them and somehow work this evil towards good. Christ, have mercy. I implore people to not use this as a springboard for their agendas. Gun control lobbyists, anti-video game lobbyists and people of this ilk: I'm talking about you. While you may have some valid points, just shut up for a while and grieve with those who are mourning. I also understand that, in pain, people want someone to blame. Since the killer committed suicide, he does not prevent the convenient target. Please don't turn the school's president and the the chief of campus police into scapegoats to satisfy your pain-fueled desire for justice. Guess what: there won't be any here. The pain won't go away just because you feel like you have someone to blame. To the news media: you disgust me. Human suffering is not a commodity to be packaged, sensationalized and delivered to consumers. You're a pack of vultures; a bunch of parasites of pain. Stop giving voice to the lobbyists who want to twist this for their own cause. Learn to listen, learn to suffer with those who are suffering. Tell us what's happening, and get the hell out of the way. Please. To those who will inevitably say, "let's ensure this never happens again," I have news for you: you can't do that. What you can do is learn to live a life that is full of joy and pain amidst many uncertainties. I'm not saying that nothing can be done, but I am saying that fear and pain do not drive anyone to make good decisions about the way things can be. Every crisis is an opportunity. Let us not miss out, no matter how ugly the package this crisis came in. Published on April 17th, 2007 -- Original Source: mattwiebe.com http://mattwiebe.com/2007/04/virginia-tech/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.
More gun control doesn't infringe on right to bear arms By: Editorial Board Posted: 4/23/07 It took little time for the journalists and political pundits to start talking gun control. This editorial is not just about last week's Virginia Tech shooting. It's also about the North Mecklenburg High School student who brought a gun on campus last Wednesday, threatened two other students and then left and shot himself. It's about the rumors of a planned shooting that circulated around Orange County High School last Friday and about the student who killed his father, then injured two others at that same school last fall. This editorial isn't about the Second Amendment or taking away Americans' right to bear arms. It's about how to keep guns away from those who are unfit to use them. It's about taking away an easy means of suicide for the roughly 16,000 Americans who killed themselves with a firearm in 2004. It's about limiting the 14,000 murdered by guns in 2005 and the 650 fatal accidents the year before. One reason to study history is to avoid making the same mistakes as in the past. Stricter gun control laws might not prevent tragedy from striking, but they can make it far less likely. Even simple regulations such as background checks can make a huge difference. If somebody has a history of mental illness, that should certainly show up in a background check and prevent that person from buying a gun. And there is no sense in destroying information gathered during those checks after 24 hours, as is mandated by national law, when, in some states, that person can return to buy another gun 30 days later. A comprehensive registration system of gun owners would not hurt anyone but criminals. In Texas, residents do not need a permit to own a gun and do not have to register their firearms. The authorities don't even know how many guns are in the state. In addition, 80 percent of prisoners who own guns received their gun from family or a friend or bought it on the street or illegally. These person-to-person transactions go unrecorded. Automatic and semiautomatic weapons - for instance, a 9 mm Glock - only are available to police in almost every other country. You can buy an AK-47 online for $379.99, and nobody in their right mind - and certainly nobody not in their right mind - needs one of those. The assault-weapons ban, which expired in 2004, should be renewed. Gun-related crime has fallen since the mid-1990s, but rose sharply again in 2005. Unfortunately, the rates are still exorbitantly high. The gun-murder rate in America is more than 30 times that of England. Tighter gun control won't necessarily bring that down. If somebody has a strong enough inclination to kill another, that person likely will find a gun regardless of how strong the restrictions are, but it sure won't hurt to conduct thorough background checks and ban automatic weapons. We're not trying to take away Americans' rights to hunt or own a gun in case anyone feels the need to start a militia and revolt against tyranny. But nobody should complain if America is a safer place. -- Original Source: The Daily Tar Heel - April 23, 2007