It's a no brainer...gun laws should have been made MUCH stricter years ago.

How would tighter gun laws stop what happened at Virginia Tech?

Stricter gun laws are not the answer. Americans have the right to bear arms as declared in our constitution.

Anti-Gun Laws only benefit criminals, not honest citizens trying to protect themselves.

If the people who were killed in this tragedy were allowed to carry weapons of their own this maniac would have been stopped much sooner.

Too funny that moonbat liberals who believe in 9/11 conspiracies and who accuse Bush of curtailing liberty, ect., think that the government disarming private citizens is a grand idea.

At the end of the day the 2nd amendment is the most important right of all.

Chicago has had gun prohibition for at least a dozen years. We still have several hundred murders a year.

What type of sentences are gun possessors supposed to receive? If 15 years isn't enough to deter someone from USING a gun in a crime why would a criminal give up his gun in response to a lesser penalty?

Do you really think juries are going to meat out hard core punishment to some old lady who totes one in her purse because she's been robbed at the bus stop? We don't need even more toothless, "feel good" legislation that's selectively prosecuted.

Remember the old adage, "outlaw guns and only outlaws will be armed."

Interesting results, no surprises though. And, it truly shows how clueless many are as to the real issues. First, note that I am a liberal for the most part, but I do target shoot regularly. Not quite a "gun-nut", but close.

What I do not understand is the resistance to restricting handguns. Then, on the other hand, there is this strong desire to ban so-called "assault rifles". There is overwhelming evidence "assault rifles" are rarely used in crimes, and similarly overwhelming evidence that handguns are.

Part of the problem is when legislators talk about "assault rifles" they evoke pictures of Uzis and AK47s. When they define them in laws they include almost every semi-automatic rifle, including those popular in target shooting. The AR-15 is by far the most popular semi-automatic in target shooting, and almost never used in crimes.

I do not think banning handguns will solve anything, but I do think we need to make them less available. One handgun a month laws make sense to me for example, putting a small dent in the ability of "straw purchasers" to obtain large quantities of guns for resale to criminals. Requiring safety training will also help, making newbie users more aware of the issues, and requiring more effort to get one (rather than just a simple FOID, or in states other than Illinois, just a drivers license).

Hopefully sense will prevail, and some serious thought as to what we can do to minimize handgun availability will occur. Unfortunately, I think emotions will prevail, useless laws will be passed, restricting rights while solving little of the real problem.

Everyone I have talked to is saying different. They say in a world like today we need protection from the crimials that have guns. The people that want guns banded and strickter laws are the kind of people that favored military cut backs and would proberly draft doggers. Today we don't even have enough military to fight a war. Wake up people and get your head on streight. We might have to fight a war on our own front step one day. What would you fight with for your own safty with if that day ever comes?

So if we are satisfied with our gun laws then we have only ourselves to blame when the tormented/disturbed individuals create tragedies.
Does anyone really think the founding fathers anticipated young adults being able to purchase rounds of ammunition that would allow them to shoot up dozens of people in a few minutes, and that they would condone this as a "right?" Why are Americans better at defending gun laws then they are at defending free speech? Is it because very few people make money off of free speech?
Not only are we a nation of sheep but we go like lambs to the slaughter

The guy was mentally sick. It wasn't the fact that he happened to use guns to kill people. What if he had used a knife? or bow and arrow? It is a ridicuous thought to ban guns or make stricter laws, soon only criminals shall have them. Where is the sense in that? Mental illness needs to be addressed, not weapons.

Everyone I have talked to is saying different. They say in a world like today we need protection from the crimials that have guns. The people that want guns banned and stricter laws are the kind of people that favored military cut backs and would probably be draft dodgers. Today we don't even have enough military to fight a war. Wake up people and get your head on straight. We might have to fight a war on our own front step one day. What would you fight with for your own safety if that day ever comes?

This article is wrong, 95% of Americans favor less restrictive gun laws (like repelling the Brady law!) You guys need to get your facts straight and not twisted!

Here's how I interpret the 2nd Amendment: You can own shotguns and bolt action rifles. If you want to shoot a handgun, go to the Police Academy and if you want to shoot automoatic and assault weapons, join the military.

To say stricter gun laws would have prevented the VT tradegy is a leap. Never underestimate the determination of an individual in "trouble". Having said that, the pro-gun rhetoric is so shallow and based on nothing it is pathetic. i love Ted Nugent, but Ted, too much acid and dope..it has affected your mind. You are full of it---time to retire and please stop interviewing this guy, he represents no one.
You want the right to buy a gun here are some options...
1. Picture needed a passport-(US only)-buyer must prove citizenship.
2. A picture, finger-prints and eye scan required. Hell it's harder to get a drivers license. All records kept with FBI, State/Town Agencies and IRS...
3.Trigger lock, required for all guns-hand and rifle
4.Register the gun at the Town Hall where one lives, within 5 days of purchase.
5. If a crime is committed and it is traced to your gun, if it was stolen, missing whatever if not reported...hand or rifle, you go to jail, simple-period.
6.Three month waiting period-credential check. Credential check paid for by tax on gun, if credentials come back "bad" payment still required.
7.Outlaw automatic guns or anything that can be modified.
8.All gun owners pay an annual "ownership" tax with their fed tax return.
9.All US gun manufacturers to pay a tax and to be forced to build into each gun a serial number tracking system.
Why is it so dam hard in this country to enact a law, that will save lives. The right to own a gun does not preceed my right to safety.

100% of the manpower and resources needed to pay for the above is covered under the "Tax" paid on the gun which should be substantial----if the gun buyer wants to by a gun, they need to demonstrate they can maturely handle the responsibility.

Bye bye, 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. And any other part of the Bill of Rights that the Big Government types don't like.

MOST AMERICANS FAVOR???!?!?!?!?!!?
Did you take your poll in a church or a Democratic rally?

A poll of a small segment of the population will never, never give a true feeling of where and how the the public truly wants the government to legislate. Only thru a general election could that be possible....polls are for those that talk to the candidates to make them feel good.(the, i blew college so i'll tell others how to ... crowd)

Never make a statement like you have unless you have a national poll to back your claim. Anything less is totally irresponsible, and generalization and sensationalism.

These "polls" are based on pure and complete ignorance. Anyone who has legally used or possessed a firearm is opposed to stricter gun laws. It has been proven time and time again that municipalities with less gun control and the right to conceal carry have less crime simply based on a higher ratio of the public having the fundamental right to protect themselves.

A vast majority of those polled who are in favor of stricter gun laws do not even know what the laws are because said laws don't concern them!
The government (Democrats) preys on this ignorance in their quest to abolish our second amendment right.

Leave it to the ignrorance of the typical liberal to blame the murder of 32 to people on an inanimate object rather than the psycopath responsible. GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. It was clear Cho Seung Hui was an extremely troubled individual who was going to snap at some point and kill people by any means necessary.

Leftists like Daley can keep preaching that kids (it appeals to other liberals' sympathies) are being killed and there are too many guns in America. Maybe people like him should spend more time incarcerating the criminals on the streets who illegally possess their firearms.

Sidenote: There is no such thing as an "assault rifle". It is based purely on opinion and the government determines it based on aesthetics. Anything that can be used to kill can be referred to as an "assault weapon".

It's amazing that you report that most Americans favor stricter gun laws. I am 50+ years old, have been in business for many years and know many many people. I honestly can not come up with one name of anyone I know who would vote for more strict gun laws. Not one! Where are all these nuts that do not support the US Constitution. I sure don't know any of them. Thank God.

The states with the most liberal gun laws have the lowest rate of violent crimes, per capita. More good guys with guns equals less crime. Qualified citizens should be able to carry firearms where ever they need to, even in public facilities, like schools. Would if be ok to have an armed sheriff on the grounds of a public university? If so, why not a qualified university employee. One armed "good guy" could have taken this kid out and save many life. All of these recent tragic shootings, in CO and PA as well as VT happened in "gun free" zones. We need more good guys with guns!

Sticter guns laws is NOT the answer. On the contrary! If even ONE of the victims or other bystanders had had a concealed gun permit or had access to a firearm to protect his or herself think of all the lives that could have been saved.

I'm surprised that no one has blamed George Bush yet for this tragedy.

How about a change of pace as far as blaming Bush for everytiing wrong in the world?

Let's blame this on Oprah and Obama!!!!

What would you pro-gun posters tell the VT student interviewed this morning who had the misfortune to be in the cafeteria at Columbine High School on that fateful day eight years ago this week? Should she start "packing heat?"

The Second Amendment Says:
"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."

I'm a big supporter of the second amendment. I think that anyone who has a gun should be part of a "well regulated militia". I have to assume that, before you join that "well regulated militia" you have to go through some kind of background and character check. Then you have to go through military training. Then you have to report for regular training exercises. All that would be expected for the part of a "well regulated militia". I assume that everyone who owns a gun is doing that. Right?

I'm glad to see that most of the posters on here aren't gun grabbers. I'm a little surprised since this is a Chicago rag. Look at the cities with the tightest gun control laws and you will see the highest violent crime rates: DC, Boston, Chicago, San Fran.

This may be a news flash for most, but criminals don't obey the law... coincidentally that includes gun laws. Gun violence is growing in many countries where guns have been outlawed for decades, i.e. UK. Yesterday the Mayor of Nagasaki was gunned down in Japan, a country with some of the strictest gun control laws. Frankly, I trust myself more than my gov't to protect myself and my family.

Here's another news flash for the gun grabbers: cops aren't employed to protect you. They are employed to enforce the laws of their jurisdiction.

My favorite question to ask the gun grabbers is what they would do if someone broke into their house in the middle of the night? What do you do during the time it takes for the PD to arrive? In my area it takes the PD 2-5 minutes to respond to a 911 call. I can get to my shotgun and deny my stairwell in about 10-15 seconds.

p.s. Most Americans favor keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and whackos. If you can figure out a better way than the process that is in place now, I would love to hear it.

Uh, yeah, to all the Archie-Bunkers who say that one student with a concealed gun could have prevented this tragedy, bear in mind that guns were EXPRESSIVELY PROHIBITED by university rules:

www.studentprograms.vt.edu/judicial/documents/SectionII.pdf

I would like to extend my prayers to the victims and families.
The shootings at virginia tech are a great wake up to the gun laws in the usa. The Campus Should not Have Been a Gun free zone!!!!!!! The only people who listened to this law were those who are the victims. The person who committed the shootings broke the law ( of course) when you have a person who is willing to kill, he will even break laws to aquire the weapon of choice to carry out those killings.
If you can't stop the criminal by legislation ( the gunmen purchased the gun legally )then maybe ,just a thought, you should arm those who are the would be victims to defend themselves. Look at the past, people say that the educational setting is sacred. I say that it is a launching ground for those who want to find a crowd of unarmed, kids or young adults who are being told that they are safe.
Criminals who are intent on committing crimes of mass murder tend to have second thoughts when looking down the barrel of a would be victims gun.
I am not saying to arm all of the kids at colleges, just the ones who meet the requirements in order to carry a protective weapon. ie. handgun
The criminals are the ones who will still have the guns if you take them away. law abiding citezens will always pay the price for the criminals actions whether it be while the crime is being committed or during the after math of everyone scrabbling to find out why this happened.
This behavior has always been around and it always will. you can't predict when it will happen , only react to it when it manifests

Many years ago my civics teacher taught that any change to the Constitution of the United States required an established ammendment proceedure. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is covered by the second ammendment and any change requires another ammendment, i.e. Prohibition. Congress does not have the authority to alter the Constitution to fit their agenda. Thus any law passed by Congress that is contradictory to the Constitution is in itself an unlawfull act. A citizen has the right to resist an unlawful act by any means necessary. To include necessary force.

Why is it easier for troubled youth, criminals and the mentally ill to get automatic assault weapons than it is to get a driver's license or even to vote??? I'm certainly pleased that isn't the case everywhere in the United States but it certainly is in Virginia. You don't have to jail a young adult who has exhibited "odd behavior", "violent fantasies", threatening suicide, stalking or other troubles they refused to get counseling for. But you sure as heck could flag them for interviews when they tried to buy a weapon as powerful for mass murder as the 9mm is. Background checks to keep assault weapons out of the hands of criminals and crazies is a no brainer totally unrelated to the 2nd Amendment.

You got it right, Karla. Thanks for posting.

Lets just outlaw all guns. How do you like that gun control supporters? Criminals love unarmed victims. Liberals lack of logic in their reasoning never ceases to amaze me. Surround me with concealed carry law abiding citizens and I feel much safer.

Ok for everyone that says that this wouldn't have happened if the students had guns. There are a couple things wrong with this statement. First, the students were allowed to have guns as much as the shooter was, they decided not to. Second, not everyone feels comfortable carrying a gun. Some people should realize that by everyone carrying a gun there would be more accidental shootings.

I am not for total gun prohibition, but I do feel that the strictest laws possible should be enforced.

We need to realize that the Second Ammendment was written in a time when guns were VERY different. Instead of being able to get 100 rounds off in a minute one could get maybe 6 (if you were good). With a 5-10 second reload time someone would have been able to tackle the shooter.

To those looking for someone to blame, this is totally unfair. Let people mourn. The only person who is really to blame is a mentally diseased person.

If anyone from Tech is reading this, or anyone who knows any of the victims you have my condolances.

There is unbelievable anger and belligerence radiating from many of the writers who have commented on this story. I would be worried about allowing anyone filled with such hostility, not just the criminal and the insane, to have access to weapons. When the civil allow the violent to dictate social behavior, the result is bullying.

As one commenter observed, the rhetoric is shallow and the logic twisted. One person stated that if the students at Virginia Tech had been allowed to carry guns, the tragedy could have beens stopped sooner. The fact is, they are allowed to carry guns. If the attacker, may his inglorious name be forever stricken from our mention, could purchase handguns, so could the other students. Perhaps the writer meant if the students had been allowed to carry guns into the classroom.

Speaking as a former college teacher, and one who grew up in the South, where guns are common and hunting was once a necessity, I would refuse to teach a class whose students were carrying weapons. Good luck finding a competent teacher who would tolerate such a situation.

I don't really get what "strict" gun laws mean. Does it mean you have to do extra work to get a weapon (like pay a heavy tax, buy certain safety equipments, limit the type of weapons given, give reasons to buy weapons, wait longer to own a pistol/automatic rifle?). If that is what stricter gun laws mean, then all it's going to do is delay someone from going on a rampage by a certain amount of days. I think we have to look at the root of the problem: troubled people. Everyone has problems, but we need to identify people with serious issues who can either hurt themselves or others around them. Sadly, this kind of thing will never happen, because for everyone 1000 crazy person, probably only 1 would actually do something to themselves or others.

As far as this Cho person goes, I feel he would have just done something else if he hadn't had a gun. For example, he could have stabbed someone, blow up something, or just something worst. It's not really about the gun; it's about the fact that he had a twisted mind bent on hurting people and he was going to do anything to "get" the people (which in this case he did through the use of a gun).

As far as the people with weapons, I'm not so sure. Sure, having citizens with guns might prevent certain things, but it is never a good idea to just arm people. Bringing in more guns, would just present another issue, which is fear. I certainly wouldn't feel safe going to a school where I knew students carried weapons. What if you made that person angry and he/she intimidate you with the weapon? Then it would become another issue about people carrying weapons.

So all in all, it's not about gun control, and it's not about arming citizens. It's about identifying troubled people and giving that person the help he/she needs before he/she goes out to hurt him/her self or others.

Columbine and VT have one thing in common: the police are either unable or unwilling to protect us when the lead is flying. I take my Second Amendment responsibilities seriously. I train to protect myself, my family and my community. An incident like this would not go unchallenged. Get armed, get trained and be willing to defend. Also, insist on long sentences for criminal gun use.

I am so surprised that so many Americans support gun usage in this country. I suppose that you are not relatives of the victims.
One person even suggested that killer can use knife or bow to kill people, so it's not the gun to blame. Sure, knife will do when he tries to kill a few, but not 33 in one day. At least police has time to catch him before he kills more people. Would you please use some logic in your thinking process?
We have to admit that human beings are not perfect, and that's why there are endless wars and fights. Giving each man a gun is like giving each country a nuclear weapon, think about it, and please do use your brain.

wow, the gun nuts are really up in arms about this (excuse the pun). God forbid a debate regarding the availability of guns is sparked by a mass shooting.

for those saying that an armed student or teacher could have prevented this massacre: if the shooter was able to legally get a gun and bring it to campus, what was stopping anybody else from having a gun and using it during the shooting?

excuse me, but more guns are not the answer. I don't want to have to rely on the lucky chance that some good guy with a gun happens to be around at the right time. sane and non-partisan people realize that instead, the answer is to dissuade bad guys from getting guns in the first place.

I don't care what gun laws there are and what may be passed in the future.

I am an honest, hard working, law abiding, tax paying American and I will always own weapons to protect myself and my family.

Go Ahead, make my day!!

everyone I know supports stricter gun laws including the ones that own guns. I think we need stricter gun laws but that doesnt mean I think no one should be allowed to own guns. Some of you fruitcakes seem to think that stricter gun laws means no more guns, It doesnt. It means requiring background checks, gps tracking chips implanted in the guns, fingerprinting of anyone attempting to buy a gun etc. I also dont think that a non citizen should EVER be able to buy a gun in the us.

stricter gun laws does not mean you are being stripped of the right to bear arms. Its time for gun owners to join the discussion for stricter gun laws. If gun owners continue to force the issue to be black and white either you can buy guns freely or not at all the majority of people will win and guns could end up being banned or restricted beyond the accessability of the average person.

Consider Switzerland. Every sane and healthy male between 18 years of age and 50 is required by law to be in the military reserve and have a superbly crafted assault rifle and 200 rounds of ammunition in his home, at all times, except when he goes to practice. His commanding officer may knock on his door and demand he present his weapon, clean and ready for use, at any time of the day or night. How many crimes are commited with these weapons? Zero.
Americans must look at their culture, not their equipment. When a person's motives are criminal and violent, the means of committing deadly crimes are as convenient as a gasoline station. Americans must civilize their population and end the love affair with violence and pornography, and thus rid the nation of its 42nd St. attitude toward other people.
Chris Coughlin

Faculty should have been able to have handguns in Columbine, the tragedy would not have been able to go so far. Utah and Oregon are the only states where it is allowed, and guess what, crap like this never happens there. This is our way of life, protect it, by being able to defend ourselves or have people we trust, defend our children. CCTV, and cops at every class room, are not going to do anything but cost tons of money, and show us exactly HOW it happened, w/o a way to stop it in it's tracks. I'm a middle leaning liberal with common sense, I'd like to join sane conservatives in a similar frame of mind on this, and I hope this is something we all can agree on.

Amen Charlie, jethro, and Debbie Graham

Our founding fathers could have never anticipated a society like ours and I'm sure would have the common sense to change what they wrote if they were alive today.

What earthly reason is there for the common citizen to own a weapon who's sole purpose is to kill as many people in the shortest amount of time possible? To repeal laws restricting these things is just unbelievably insane.

And Andy, I don't know where you get your figures from but it's obviously not representative of a true cross section of society.

I'm not against "The right to bear arms" but the lax and permissive laws and attitudes we have today have got to change. This unfortunatly will probaly not happen because america is too entrenched in a violence drenched gun culture.

I really fear for my children growing up in this day and age.

After the predicable post-massacre liberal outcry for more gun control laws started hitting the media, and the Prime Minister of Australia started pontificating, I did a quick Google of Violent Crime Statistics Australia.

I learned that Australia, which imposed draconian gun laws after a horrendous shooting there (35 dead) and England, which has long hated an armed citizenry, both have violent crime rates higher than the U.S.

Washington, D.C., which has stingent gun control laws, is one of the most violent, shot up places on the planet.

Rather than further curtailment of our Second Amendment right, maybe we should be looking at the First Amendment. After all, it was thoughts and ideas encapsulated by words that fueled Monday's massacre.

But seriously, it's true that if guns cause violence then spoons cause Rosie O'Donnell to be fat. Corrupt (liberal) leaders are afraid of an armed citizenry and they want to attack the Second Amendment rather than deal with the underlying social diseases that they have helped to create and nurture.

What exactly is the problem with trying to protect innocent people by making stricter gun laws? Proponents of gun control laws have NEVER said they want to eliminate the ability to own guns. They simply want to make it more difficult for people to access the kinds of weapons that can do this kind of damage in such a short amount of time. Don't listen to the NRA types who claim the laws will prevent you from owning a weapon. They have their own agendas, which include profiting from the manufacture and sale of these weapons.

If you want to protect yourself from muggers or even the crazed campus killer, what's wrong with owning a small revolver? Why do you need 15+ rounds? Why do you need to be able to reload in 1.5 seconds? Those abilities are what allowed the killer to kill so many in such a short amount of time. He he been using a revolver somebody could have tackled him while he was trying to reload.

When you deconstruct the arguments used against gun control they just don't hold up. The second amendment was written over 200 years ago, when our country was still in its infancy and we didn't have an organized military or police force. People needed the ability to protect themselves from possible invasion from the British or other countries. Now we have local police, the FBI, and multiple branches of the military all trying to protect us. The argument that their MAY be a war on our soil and we'll have to protect ourselves is such a stretch. But even if that were the case, if the military, FBI and police can't protect us then how do you think you are going to protect yourself with a few guns?

The argument that guns don't kill, people do, and that the Virginia Tech killer could have still killed people if he had a knife or bow and arrow may be true, but how many people would have died in that case? You can only kill one person at a time with a knife, and you have to be within arms distance to do it. And if you've ever used a bow and arrow you'd know it takes quite a bit of skill, unlike a gun which a child can fire. The reality is if he didn't have a gun alot less people would be dead.

The cliche term "gun laws" is very inclusive. It could mean many things. It could mean that 56% of people polled supported laws that provide for stiffer penalties for gun offenses not necessarily restriction of acquisition or ownership. Let's be realistic here, even if you pass gun acquisition restrictions can you tell me that with the current state of our borders that guns will not come in to the country on the black market from somewhere?

Honestly we need stiffer penalties for criminal use (like maybe a 3 strikes 25/Life/Execution.) and an well-armed populace. History indicates that a well armed populace that will offer resistance makes the landscape of offenders the "hard core" criminals, who in most cases feel they have nothing to lose, which in turn makes for less work on our police forces. The people who turn to crime these days do so as a weighted viable alternative to productive avenues in society because they realize that they will come across little resistance in their criminal activity which emboldens them to purport more heinous actions.

The fact that there are not more serious consequences that mirror the seriousness of the criminal act, is why most disparaged people, desperate people, and misguided youths turn to criminal activity these days.

The VT shooting was a senseless tragedy that could have been averted if the murderer knew that there would be considerable resistance from armed students and/or faculty. If he still pursued that route, he would most likely not have killed more than 2 to 3 people, which is not to make light the death of even 1 person. I honestly think that requiring as part of the position in an education establishment that if you do not want the people you are educating carrying weapons, and want to limit their odds of survival, then you need to pick up the tab to even those odds. I would support all administration and educators to be required to acquire concealed weapons permit as part of their credentials. They don’t have to own a gun or actively use one, but the knowledge that every educator and administrator is trained to use one and might have one is a very considerable deterrent. It would also enable those who do wish to carry a weapon the opportunity to do so and save the lives of more people when incidents like this occur.

The point I am trying to make is that with more armed people the odds are then stacked against the criminal because if someone gets it in their head that they are going to do something there is little you can do to stop them. Determination and will can be focused on evil too. Sometimes people forget that little fact when looking at these types of situations. The laws of probability and the odds of events occurring if you limit the scope and rules in which the event occurs are either greatly increased or greatly decreased if you modify the control set.

Therefore more guns in the hands of more people with stricter penalties equals less criminals per capita but increases the probability that the criminal will be a more hardcore or violent criminal. Less guns and loose penalties equals more criminals per capita which in turn scales up to incorporate the principals of the free market, supply and demand spurs competition. In competition you get more violent events that occur in the criminal element since everyone wants to be on top. If you don’t believe me read about the rise of the Mafia families. Listen to hip-hop and tell me the whole crew, cliché, set, gang mentality is not there and then explain to me how free market economics does not apply to the streets and the black market.

I guess it comes down to whether or not you want feel good legislation and want to be humane to people who would never think even more than half a second about being humane to you. Then you go ahead and restrict the rights of people who are responsible and want to defend themselves, and continually support weak penalties for criminals with their lawlessness and reckless disregard. If you want results, please reread this as a guide for common sense solutions.

I came from a communist country. There were strict guns laws, and all the people become slaves to the government. That's the agenda of some politicians here. We had crimes there, done with knifes or other tools. If you want to kill someone, you will find a tool. I believe that, the main problem of crimes in schools today, is the:" Evolution theory" that is taught as a fact, not as a theory. If God is erased from the kids conscience, that human been is ready to do all kind of evil, because he/she believe in some kind of stupid freedom, and ego satisfaction. According to the evolution theory, the strongest individual will survive. This are the roots of criminality: Do you believe there is a God? Then you believe in accountability before Him. Otherwise, you have to come against all those who are opposing you, in every way.

Fear the government and/or politician who fears the gun!!! The right to own a gun is more about leveling the playing field and keeping those who oppose guns honest. It is a right that every American citizen should take advantage of. Those who favor more strict gun laws are the same ones who belive that W is trying to take away our rights. Give up the guns and you will have already given up all your rights!

What do George Hennard, Eric Harris, Cho Seung-hui, Colin Ferguson, Dylan Kleebold and Mohammad Attah all have in common?

---- ---- ---- ----
This morning NPR's Mr. Kasell reported on the legislative mood of our state and federal officials with regard to the implementation of more gun control laws. He commented on how the pro-gun control stance of VP Al Gore contributed to his loss in the 2000 election and that many of the new congress ran on pro-gun rights platforms.

What he failed to report is the gun-control restrictions that pass by default. Earlier this year the Virginia General Assembly failed to act on House Bill 1572. The bill died in subcommittee. The citizens of Virginia are permitted to carry concealed weapons if they get a proper permit from the state government. In fact, Virginia has one of the highest percentages of concealed carry permits among its citizens of any state in the union. These permits allow these FBI certified law abiding citizens the right to self-defense… unless they happen to be on a college campus. House Bill 1572 would have allowed these certified honest citizens, including college students and employees, with appropriate training, background checks and permits, to carry concealed firearms on campus.

After the state legislature killed the bill, Larry Hincker, spokesman for Virginia Tech, addressed the legislature stating: "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."

---- ---- ----
By the way, the common factor among the above list of terrorists is that each of them chose to attack their victims in locations where their intended prey was disallowed by law to provide for their own defense. Before Barbara Olson left home to go to the airport on the morning of September 11th 2001, she took her Glock 9mm and her Virginia Concealed Carry Permit out of her handbag and put the weapon in a gun safe instead of bringing it with her. She did exactly what Mohammad Attah knew she would do. She obeyed the law.

Crime is the intersection of a motivated offender, opportunity, and the lack of capable guardians. This crime is no exception. Unless you target all three, an individual will find a way around the latter two - bc they are motivated enough.

Where does that leave gun laws. As an abstract issue (still very much debated philosophically without a real concrete right or wrong answer), and very irrelevant since the gun was legally purchased by an individual, who as a permanent resident, is afforded all civil rights granted to citizens. He should be, as should all the citizens in this country. ( Give and take some revisions in gun restrictions - as some states vary in them and could use some revisions) Banning guns will not stop the black market - or the people who frequent it. This is the same way we went about drug laws. If they didn't work - make them tougher. Did that stop the drug trade. No. What it did is put more people in prison for longer periods of time - without the necessary treatment ( due to overcrowding which has strained the availability of resources ).

What we need is to enforce the existing gun laws effectively. Target the black market effectively - which is hard considering the arms trade is connected to the lucrative drug trade and the illegal drug trade exists because as much as certain countries are against it - it is a form of economic income.

Unless we target violence - or gun violence- from all the angels that percipitate it - including the reason why people resort violence ( not only who can or can not use guns) we will just end up crime controlling the issue - not solving it but even compounding it (like the drug laws - making them worse).

This tragedy can not be just oversimplified into pro gun vs no gun. The answer will not come from taking this tragedy and seeing the similarities between what happened here, and other school shootings. Each shooting has to, in addition to, be seen as an individual act, and analyzed from the stand point of all aspects involved. A murder is a murder, but no two crimes are alike.

In this case, I feel, he was troubled and ignored. The campus lacked effective security measures - and I will assume it is because (like many said from VT) no one expected something like this to happen in this small town (wrong - and shows how blind we are to think there is such a place that we can deem as "safe"...especially after the bomb threats/incident with the jail escapee in this case).

For those who think that if more people were allowed to bear arms - in this case the students - he would have been caught in his tracks. Interesting, but given that the possibly of some one (police included) to hit someone dead on and kill them is somewhere around 15- 20 %, I believe, this incident could have been a blood bath (if other were to utilize their weapons in response). It is enough to have two guns firing, but I'm not going to promote the existence of more guns in the area ( even by innocent people defending themselves) bc it could have ended in more casualties. For those who think law enforcement and the military should be the only ones to handle guns. It will not prevent unfortunate incidents - that does not make society any safer or prevent unfortunate incidents such as this - look at the incident in NY. An officer fired some 50 rounds - reloading twice - into one person.

Guns - its not only about who uses them, but how and why. This debate will have to divulge into the working of this society, as much as into gun regulations.

This is a tragedy - I don't want to take away from it by transgressing too much. Its just my too cents.

VT community and families of lost ones - I'm sorry for your loss. I hope we learn from it, and that you recover from it.

All of you anti-gun folks can make a positive step towards civilian disarmament today!

Post a sign in the window of your house or apartment, stating that you live in a "gun-free" zone, and that no weapons are on the premises.

Since you have no problems telling the rest of us how to live our lives, you certainly won't have a problem leading by example. Right?

"I can get to my shotgun and deny my stairwell in about 10-15 seconds."

Posted by: Rich | Apr 18, 2007 8:41:52 AM

I don't want to take your shotgun. That type of weapon cannot be used for high body counts in a short amount of time. Its the handguns w/ large clips and automatic weapons that are a threat because they are used for the sole purpose of killing humans. Stop using NRA scare tactics.

As a follow up to my previous post I would like to add the following thought to the discussion:

If hypothetically speaking a small percentage of the nation decided to start using their cars to mow down pedestrians and commit vehicular manslaughter, is the logical response to outlaw the tool, in this case a car, or would the response be to make sure that the car cannot reach the pedestrian by passing "car laws" to restrict purchase etc.. or show the logic to the pedestrian about the benefits of being a driver to put the individual on an even level?

I hate the ignorance of the argument, "guns kill people". So do kitchen knives but everyone has one because it is a widely accepted useful tool. That same tool can be used for evil purposes if one has the will and determination to do so as well as it's intended purpose, chopping up carrots.

And to Jack Butler: The reason the responsible gun owners who have carry permits did not carry their guns is proof of the existence of law abiding citizens unlike the criminal who performed the actions. You are absolutely right that they had the same opportunity but the proof is in that fact. They followed the law, the killer did not. Therefore the law does not work and causes more harm than good.

joe wrote -"excuse me, but more guns are not the answer. I don't want
to have to rely on the lucky chance that some good guy with a gun happens
to be around at the right time."

I disagree. An armed citizenry is the answer. Look at Switzerland and Israel.

If you happen to be near an armed citizen when some wacko goes crazy,
then you are lucky; if not, you're toast (call 911? hah!). An armed citizen
makes his own luck and won't go down cowaring in the corner.

Crime is the intersection of a motivated offender, opportunity, and the lack of capable guardians. This crime is no exception. Unless you target all three, an individual will find a way around the latter two - bc they are motivated enough.

Where does that leave gun laws. As an abstract issue (still very much debated philosophically without a real concrete right or wrong answer), and very irrelevant since the gun was legally purchased by an individual, who as a permanent resident, is afforded all civil rights granted to citizens. He should be, as should all the citizens in this country. ( Give and take some revisions in gun restrictions - as some states vary in them and could use some revisions) Banning guns will not stop the black market - or the people who frequent it. This is the same way we went about drug laws. If they didn't work - make them tougher. Did that stop the drug trade. No. What it did is put more people in prison for longer periods of time - without the necessary treatment ( due to overcrowding which has strained the availability of resources ).

What we need is to enforce the existing gun laws effectively. Target the black market effectively - which is hard considering the arms trade is connected to the lucrative drug trade and the illegal drug trade exists because as much as certain countries are against it - it is a form of economic income.

Unless we target violence - or gun violence- from all the angels that percipitate it - including the reason why people resort violence ( not only who can or can not use guns) we will just end up crime controlling the issue - not solving it but even compounding it (like the drug laws - making them worse).

This tragedy can not be just oversimplified into pro gun vs no gun. The answer will not come from taking this tragedy and seeing the similarities between what happened here, and other school shootings. Each shooting has to, in addition to, be seen as an individual act, and analyzed from the stand point of all aspects involved. A murder is a murder, but no two crimes are alike.

In this case, I feel, he was troubled and ignored. The campus lacked effective security measures - and I will assume it is because (like many said from VT) no one expected something like this to happen in this small town (wrong - and shows how blind we are to think there is such a place that we can deem as "safe"...especially after the bomb threats/incident with the jail escapee in this case).

For those who think that if more people were allowed to bear arms - in this case the students - he would have been caught in his tracks. Interesting, but given that the possibly of some one (police included) to hit someone dead on and kill them is somewhere around 15- 20 %, I believe, this incident could have been a blood bath. It is enough to have two guns firing, but I'm not going to promote the existence of more guns in the area ( even by innocent people defending themselves) bc it could have ended in more casualties. For those who think law enforcement and the military should be the only ones to handle guns. It will not prevent unfortunate incidents - that does not make society any safer or prevent unfortunate incidents such as this - look at the incident in NY. An officer fired some 50 rounds - reloading twice - into one person.

Guns - its not only about who uses them, but how and why. This debate will have to divulge into the working of this society, as much as into gun regulations.

This is a tragedy - I don't want to take away from it by transgressing too much. Its just my too cents.

VT community and families of lost ones - I'm sorry for your loss. I hope we learn from it, and that you recover from it.

"If God is erased from the kids conscience, that human been is ready to do all kind of evil, because he/she believe in some kind of stupid freedom, and ego satisfaction. According to the evolution theory, the strongest individual will survive. This are the roots of criminality: Do you believe there is a God? Then you believe in accountability before Him. Otherwise, you have to come against all those who are opposing you, in every way."

Posted by: Mihai Ile | Apr 18, 2007 9:28:19 AM

This kid was a Christian fanatic!!

I believe that, the main problem of crimes in schools today, is the:" Evolution theory" that is taught as a fact, not as a theory. If God is erased from the kids conscience, that human been is ready to do all kind of evil, because he/she believe in some kind of stupid freedom, and ego satisfaction.
Posted by: Mihai Ile | Apr 18, 2007 9:28:19 AM

Another wonderful example how religion gets perverted by someone's ignorant, twisted logic. The problem, my friend, is that we live in a society that does not teach love and compassion. THAT is what GOD IS. We focus on fear and otherness instead of realizing that we are all dependant, not separate from each otherl. Go ahead and buy your guns, enact your controls on them, and put up your layers of security devices and protocols, but in the end till we realize that we are all one, these tragedies will occur.

George,
Your argument that "Honestly we need stiffer penalties for criminal use (like maybe a 3 strikes 25/Life/Execution.) and an well-armed populace." simply doesn't fit the case in VT, because the killer didn't want to continue his life on after killing.
You are saying that people need a gun to protect themselves, which makes me wonder what time I am living in. Where is all the police and army? We are not paying tax for nothing.

The police are not here to create disorder, they're here to preserve disorder. --Richard J. Daley

How true. As we witnessed on Monday, the police are utterly incapable of interdicting this type of outburst. The images of armed policemen in full protective gear hunkering behind trees while a lightly armed student (a 9mm and .22 handgun are not considered heavy weaponry) was free to kill should remind us of their impotence. Last year in the Amish school, and during Columbine, I would say that the citizenry who expected the police to mount a vigorous defense were let down. The uniformed police, quite frankly, act as an instrument of the state to intimidate law-abiding citizens. Believe it or not, they are not legally bound to protect you.

Also, this week in history has produced: Columbine, OK City, Waco, Hitler's Birthday (big celeb for Nazi types), and now this. April is truly the cruelest month.

I welcome stricter gun laws to the point of having all eligible citizens going through a gun-safety course, having certification and a license, before they can purchase a handgun.

We do this for other weapons, such as cars.

Our country would be much safer if there were more law-abiding gun-carrying citizens who could react to incidents of gun-violence by murderers, crazed individuals, terrorists, thugs, etc.

Where's the logic to allowing criminals free reign to rob and steal and murder in a society where no one can fight back? What are you supposed to do, throw your slipper at a home invader?

Kurt J. Eckhardt has the best point. In my opinion, the only gun law we could really do is to outlaw all guns period at the federal level. Make it an executable offense if you're caught with a gun. Until that this happens and good luck selling it to the American public, people need to be able to protect themselves / family and their property against the scum of society. Sure you can call 911 and hide in the bathtub until the police arrive...make your father in law proud.

Gun control kills.

If the kid's girlfriend or someone else in that dorm had had a gun, perhaps 30 people would still be alive.

Self- defense isn't just a right - it is a duty.

And free people do not need to ask for permission.

This country has the most liberal gun laws among all industrialized nations in the world. How many billions of guns are in this nation? How many hundreds of thousands of Americans have to be maimed & killed before we figure out that gun ownership couldn’t bring us any further from the security & safety we pretend the 2nd Amendment gives us?
The rest of the normal world has this figured out.

Gun laws wouldn't have made a difference in this situation. The shooter acquired the gun legally. I think there needs to be more of a discussion on how people get to such a terrible mental state that they feel they have to harm others. All of the shooters in school massacres have had significant mental health problems, and a gun happened to be their outlet. What if instead he'd chosen to drive his car through the university Quad and run over as many people as he could or tried to poison a classroom? We'd still be mourning the loss of 32 people.

As a person living in Europe, but frequently coming to the US and a true lover of this country, I am amazed to see how many of your readers consider fundamental the right to own a gun, many of them say that if all the people in the campus had a gun the dead would be much less. I can only imagine a scene of terror and fire coming from everywhere. The second amendment is 200 years old, don't you think it might be out of time?

I have been a policeman for 26 years. Anyone who leaves the responsiblity for their own protection in the hands of the police are fools. Most of the police officers I know support the right to bear arms because we know cops can't be everywhere. A five or ten minute response time is not good enough if someone is breaking into an occupied home, or in a violent crime.

Police officers don't fear common citizens having guns, we worry about criminals that have guns. Most criminals ignore gun laws. We have dozens and dozens of gun laws....

Lasty, I'm not bad mouthing the response to this campus shooting because I was not there, but I will say that police must be more aggressive when they have active shooters in a public place.

Not sure where Vern is getting his stats (probably the NRA's website). The website I looked at (nationmaster.com) showed the US in the top 25 for murders per capita (in the company of such beacons of safety as Colombia, Venezuela and Russia). Australia, the UK and pretty much all of Western Europe rounded out the bottom of the list.

To say that making guns illegal would not prevent a crime such as this is ridiculous. Could a determined person still kill others? Yes. But to reach the level of carnage seen this week one would need explosives. Do you think VT or Columbine would have been so gruesome if the killers were only weilding knives?! On the other hand, do you think a gun can protect you from a suicide bomber who is concealing explosives and, unannounced, pushes a button in a crowded place? Wake up people!

Consider the recent controversy over the death penalty. I kept reading about how we should let a hundred guilty people go free if it will save one innocent person. Yet now because of the actions of one man there are calls to disarm millions of law abiding people. This seems to be the exact opposite message. Are we now to punish millions of innocents in the hopes of catching a few criminals?

One observation: all you gun rights posters really come across sounding paranoid and militant.

Our country glorifies gun violence. It's really pornographic. If that's what we want, then fine, but we're going to have to accept that in this nation of 300 million people somebody's going to go on a mass shooting rampage every now and then. Just like our fellow citizens are shot to death at vastly higher daily rates than in the UK, Australia, or other first world countries. If you think arming VT professors or Amish schoolgirls is a solution, then there's no hope for you.

In response to Apollo Screeds posting: Police can and do successfully intervene in many of these situations. In many instances you don't hear about them because the shooters are taken out quickly and the loss of life does not carry the news.

There have been several instances in Arizona where the police didn't wait for swat teams, entry was made and the killer(s) were taken out.

Don't rush to judge the police response in this case. This will be reviewed and if their response was not aggressive enough it will be apparent.

Don't target guns. Every animal on the face of the earth has the instinct for self preservation. Guns are the most viable means the human being has for self defense.

The biggest cause of violence in our society today is the media. The violence portrayed daily has desensitized our young people. Repetition is known to be the most effective way of teaching. We teach it so we reap the results. The constant sensationalizing of this type of crime only begets copycats. Before the advent of TV these problems were remote and the perpetrators were dealt with appropiatly.

If parents would take control of their childrens lives and made it a point to find out what they are watching and doing instead of pursuing their own pleasures a lot of these things could be prevented.

Don't blame the gun. Blame the society you and I have allowed to be morphed. My gun may be the one that protects you or yours.

most college campuses have rules or their states have laws that ban having a gun on campus, unless you are an officer of the law.

If you are walking down the street on a college campuse, you are nearly 34 times less likely to be shot.

Trust a newspaper that shows declining sales to try to whip up some sensationalist stuff in order to market itself to a specific constituency, in this case, those who would much rather see guns banned than look at what happened impartially and give an honest conclusion. The Tribune's anti gun dance is little more than a marketing gimmick, an attempt at snaring subscribers in Chicago who have, in recent months, switched to the even more left of center New York Times by imitating the Times' stand. Good luck - you're burning your bridges in the process with others who read your newspaper. Pro gunners vote their sport and with their wallets. It would be interesting to watch your circulation figures six months from now.

Condos at the Tribune property in downtown Chicago anyone? Get in line - that is the Tribune's future and I'll wager my last penny on it.

More guns and more Va Tech and Columbine. Less guns and less Va Tech and Columbine.

Plus, we should obey the Second Amendment. If you want guns, join the military.

You want to protect your home gun nutz?
GET A DOG!!

PEOPLE(AVERAGE CITIZENS) AND GUNS ARE NOT A GOOD MIX. ONLY POLICE AND MILITARY SHOULD CARRY WEAPONS (GUNS). ANYONE ELSE CAUGHT WITH A GUN OR USING ONE SHOULD GET 25 YRS IN JAIL WITHOUT PAROLE AND HAVE NO LIBERAL JUDGES, LAWYERS OR POLITICIANS BE ALLOWED TO REFORM IT OR CHANGE IT. THIS WOULD WORK!!!!!!ALSO, HAVE THE NRA COME WORK IN THE PROJECTS OF A LARGE INNER CITY THAT I WORK IN AND SEE IF THEY THINK "EVERYONE" SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO BARE ARMS LIKE MENTIONED IN THE 2ND AMMENDMENT. THAT WAS WRITTEN FOR LIFE AND TIMES IN THE 1700'S. IT IS LONG OVERDUE TO BE CHANGED FOR TODAYS TIMES.....

"Consider the recent controversy over the death penalty. I kept reading about how we should let a hundred guilty people go free if it will save one innocent person."

Posted by: Rob | Apr 18, 2007 11:06:09 AM

I'll assume you're not an idiot and what you said came out wrong. I don't know of anyone that wants to let capital offenders go free to walk the streets. I know plenty of death penalty opponents that want to keep them behind bars for life however.

Pro gunners vote their sport and with their wallets. It would be interesting to watch your circulation figures six months from now.

Condos at the Tribune property in downtown Chicago anyone? Get in line - that is the Tribune's future and I'll wager my last penny on it.

Posted by: Mehul Kamdar | Apr 18, 2007 11:18:19 AM

Pro gun idiots don't read the newspaper. They watch homo-erotic sports. An are suspicious of someone w/ a name like yours.

Sure, banning guns is the answer. It's only guns that kill people. Take the UK. Most of their murders are now committed with knives, so they are talking about banning Butcher knives.

How many "gun control" laws and university rules were broken by the VT murderer? Lets make more laws and rules to be broken by those that want to do this sort of thing, and leave more potential victims either defenseless or guilty.

I don’t know what kind of twisted logic or facts make some people think that allowing “good citizens” to legally obtain guns will somehow balance out only bad people having them.

How many stories have been reported of Mr/Ms Ordinary Good Citizen successfully defending themselves and/or others from an attacker because they happened to have a gun available?

Now compare that to how many stories we’ve heard of “bad guys” obtaining guns and using them to murder many innocent people? Or stories about children who somehow innocently got access to their parents’ legally-obtained gun and ended up shooting themselves or others?

In Japan, ordinary citizens are strictly banned from owning handguns and hunting rifles are strictly licensed and enforced. In 2006, there were *53* reported gun-related injuries. 53!! That’s down from 158 in 2002. (Source: Chicago Tribune “Japanese Mayor Killed by Gangster.”) For a “rough” comparison, there were 29,573 firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2001 (Source: CDC/National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 52, No. 3, September18, 2003, p.71), and that doesn’t even include gun-related injuries.

So maybe people should try to read up on some facts before making grand speculations about how many lives could be saved “if only someone else had a gun.”

The Constitution writers may have included the right to bear arms, but it was also originally stated in the Constitution that only men could vote and slaves counted as being only “three-fifths of a white person.”

excuse me, but more guns are not the answer. I don't want to have to rely on the lucky chance that some good guy with a gun happens to be around at the right time.
Posted by: joe | Apr 18, 2007 9:01:04 AM

Well Joe, the good news is that you live in a free country and have the opportunity to become one of the good guys yourself. Get a firearms permit, purchase a concealed firearm, and take some safety and training courses on how to use said firearm. You'll never be at the mercy of hoping someone with a firearm (police included) responds quickly enough to any dangerous situation that you might be caught up in. You'll be just the law abiding person who is trained and equipped to defend yourself and possibly others. Many other people nationwide will owe their gratitude to you for exercising your individual 2nd amendment rights, even if they themselves choose not to.

To John who wrote "you want to protect your home gun nutz, GET A DOG! What do you do when the lunatic gets in and shoots your dog?!!! I like the fact that I can give me and my family a chance at surviving because I have a gun. By the way, I got a dog also.

"Mental illness needs to be addressed, not weapons."

I couldn't agree more. On that note, why don't we allow more weapons to be available, including automatic. Don't stop there, few grenades stands in major US cities would be nice, if guns don't kill people, why would grenades kill people???

But back my my original point, yes, mental illness does need to be addressed first - mental illness of individuals who think guns should be LEGAL to average citizens. Want to shoot a machine gun - hey, US military wants to talk to you

"George,
Your argument that "Honestly we need stiffer penalties for criminal use (like maybe a 3 strikes 25/Life/Execution.) and an well-armed populace." simply doesn't fit the case in VT, because the killer didn't want to continue his life on after killing.
You are saying that people need a gun to protect themselves, which makes me wonder what time I am living in. Where is all the police and army? We are not paying tax for nothing."

Liz:
You obviously disregarded everything that you read following that statement as I am advocating stiffer penalties for the purposes of deterrence which limits offense to only hardcore criminals who have the nothing to lose attitude, that will of course only work if the citizenry is armed as well. The laws that currently exist that bar guns from campus did a lot of good didn't they. I am not just suggesting that people "need" a gun to protect themselves, I would strongly urge that people have one to protect themselves because when it all boils down to the bottom line the only person who will ever feel the same way and care as much about your life, is you. The police and the army well.. The police will show up in just enough time to draw the chalk