Washington File

As an honorably discharged member of the armed forces, and current employee at VT, I would not have any problem with faculty wishing to carry a firearm on campus to do so. First, they either have to have military training or attend the police academy for required training to development techniques for resolve the issue with the minimum amount of force. In essence, they would be equivalent of our police officers protecting the streets and neighborhoods in which we live. There are numerous non-lethal weapons available to incapacitate the aggressor without lethal force. I have carried a concealed weapon for 11 years now, and never has the gun wanted to go on a rampage.

It has been revealed now that he was on mind altering anti-depressants and that he had suddenly stopped taking them. I once took Zoloft which is similar to prozac and I can tell you that I thought I was going to lose my mind when I was taking it. These drugs are bad news and I believe that when you suddenly stop taking them your body/brain is unable to compensate for the loss of both the drug and the natural brain chemicals and the result is a type of temporary insanity.This is not the first time that these drugs have been associated with murder. While I did not feel murderous, I felt out of control. I will never go near those drugs ever again. These mind altering drugs must be investigated.

Why was there no look into why he had a weapon in a university? there were signs showing he may have some mental issue, is that not enough to look deeper into some form of gun control? Especially concidering that he bought all the weapons legally.

Well - lets just pretend this place wouldn't have been a "gun-free zone" and some of those that been there would have been armed too, this would have been over before it would have even started and the aggressor either down and secured or dead.
Now, unfortunately it took place in an zone where citizens been disarmed and the only one with a firearm been the aggressor - mayhem as usual and some ignorant people calling for more gun control despised the more then fresh evidence that this idea has failed more then once. Why is it so important to disarm citizens if you see them fit to vote or be a vital part of community? Do you want to forcefully create an environment where the criminal is safe and free from fear of an law-abiding citizen that defends itself? i guess you have to be either this or in favor of an dictatorship in which it is also uncommon for the oppressed citizens to have a right to bear arms.

And the absences of legal guns never created a gun free world either - as their are always to be illegal weapons out there - criminal don't care for laws, that is why they are called criminals. But they care to get the best advantage possible to subdue their victims. So why want you to disarm the future victime - does this makes you feel any safer?!

Let's face the facts. Every time there is a shooting people quickly blame the firearms used. This is an emotional response and has little bearing on the facts.

There are many authorities - including Canadian university professors - who are quick to condemn blaming firearms, firearm registries, and firearm restrictions as simply a "public appearance" show; which is exactly what I believe they are.

When looking at crimes such as drinking and driving (which can also result in death), does anyone blame the alcohol manufacturer? The car maker? No. The general public is understanding and clear-headed enough to say that the responsability lies with the person who commits the crime.

The responsability for the crime rests with the individual who commits the crime. Why do they do these horrific things? Likely there are underlying social / socioeconomic issues. Why don't you pursue the root causes rather than swiping at the symptoms? Because to ban guns makes you feel good, makes you feel safe. It is rather like the increased airport security, which does nothing to actually increase security, but give the perception of safety.

I would like to add an observation.

Are we not giving kids mixed messages?

We have kids growing up telling them it is wrong to be violent and kill yet at the same time,we tell them it's okay to do the same under the guise of war.

We tell them it is not okay to bully people that talking and finding alternate ways to find solutions[talking/compromising]then when another country doesn't agree with us or we don't like their way of life,what do we do?

We claim we are going to war to bring 'democracy' to the people.

So in fact,we teach kids if you don't agree with each other, kill them.

Then we sit and scratch our heads as to why the kids are growing up they way they are totally desensitized to violence.

We adults are the problem.

Oh, and for those who think banning guns will stop these types of killings, you should consider I.E.D.`s( improvised explosive devices) ,Timothy McViegh and the uni-bomber just to name a few. Instead of reading about just a few people being killed, we could instead be reading about many more killed, just like there is in the middle east. And there is no running away from a bomb. If people are intent on killing others, they will do so with whatever devious means they can come up with. Where we need to be focusing our energy is on creating a kinder and gentler society that does not glorify guns and killers and that offers support to people who need it.

Yes guns were designed to kill.They were designed to kill animals for food.Then they were found to be usedful to kill people who were trying to kill you.Before guns were invented, people still killed each other. Mostly big strong people killing weak people, like women and children.So then guns were used by weaker people to defend themselves against strong people.Of course stronger people could use them too.But at least people were "equal" and this put everyone on a level playing field.Now today,we have people who "hate" guns and want to be unequal again.We cannot un-invent guns and they will always be with us, forever.So we have to learn to accept them and work with them.People talk about automobiles here.They may not have been designed to kill people but nonetheless, they are killing us at an umprcedented rate in human history.A TV show called Crash science said that it is estimated that three thousand people PER DAY are dying in car crashes world wide.And that is not counting the injured.There are drunk drivers, enraged drivers, sleepy drivers and so forth. We have cars with five hundred horsepower engines. Todays headlines talk about a street racing that killed seven people.Should we now be talking about banning cars?Do we really need them? Can we not use mass transit and bicycles? Can we not use motor scooters? Are cars causing the destruction of the atmosphere and causing global warming? What is the oil industry doing to the world? Every freedom we have has a price, even guns.

Gun control will not stop anyone from getting them on the street illegally or prevent someone who has no record from getting one to commit the atrocities of Virginia Tech. Gun Control will ultimately fail like any government intervention. Gun Control is focused on law abiding citizens who own guns to defend themselves and if that is taken away from them they are defenseless against criminals who have no respect for the law and (this may be a surprise to you libs) don't get their guns legally most of the time.

Rick from BC makes a valid point when commenting on the idea that victim's of gun violence can't sue weapons makers' for the harm their products are put to. He points out that the same consideration be given Ford or Chrysler because their products can also be used as weapons. News Flash: Guns are made to destroy living flesh, tissue, bone and sinew while cars and trucks aren't. Cigarette manufacturer's have been successfully sued for the harm their products have caused. They aren't allowed to advertise their products and there are very strict controls on the sales of their products. Minors aren't allowed to buy cigarettes, for example. Cigarettes are a proven health hazard, as are drugs and alcohol - each is either heavily regulated or illegal. Violating the laws surrounding those products could mean stiff prison sentences yet you don't hear gun nuts whining about how smoking, drinking and doing drugs as a basic right do you? My dad was a gun nut who became nearly hysterical when confronted with the spectre of gun control. All the anti gun control opinion on this blog sounds just like him.

As a teacher , I recoil in horror at the notion put forward (likely by non-teachers) that an armed staff could prevent these tragedies. This is about a whole series of missteps. A disturbed individual didn't the help he needed. He was able to get easy access to guns. Off he went.

Obviously, gun elimination is not the answer, nor is it possible. However, making such weapons harder to get legally and giving the police the tools to track gun ownership seems a reasonable alternative to the unfettered right to own an unlimited amount of destuctive fire power.

As for those who would tout the law of Vermont, might the low crime rate be because Vermont has a different culture? I grew up in downtown Toronto. I never owned a gun. I never knew anyone who did. I never felt that the absence of a gun in my house left my life in jeopardy. Toronto was a very safe city back in the day, despite the absence of "well regulated militias". I guess that I could have walked around all day fearing the worst, but it would have made me nuts.

I watched the segment on Guns In America on the National tonight and I think those students that think they should be allowed to carry arms on campus or anywhere are crazy. I can't believe the attitude of the one guy and his wife who carry consealed weapons that they keep in a big safe in their living room. They don't want a police state because the cops can't be everywhere so they opt for an armed camp. The gun laws in the US where created and engrained in the second ammendment when they were protecting their country from the invading British. With all the screening it was still too easy for the Korean student to get the guns and why would a foreign national even be allowed to buy guns. The ex-NRA employee got it right when he said armed students is a bad idea when the police arrive. They have no idea who the bad guy or guys are and will shoot first. And allowing students to carry guns has the potential for student disagreements to go very, very wrong. Americans have an unhealthy love for guns because of an outdated line in their Constitution and they're paying the price.

Many thanks to Henry for once again confirming to both Canadian and International readers what we already knew. Democracy, no matter what American dictionary you use does not work.
To Felix, no one is disputing your case. What does that tell you. Thank you Felix

To all the victims, RIP – I pray you’re in a better place. To those suffering, may you one day be able to hold on to the memory without the anguish.

To the irrational gun lobby, keep your guns, the government should just ban bullets.

To those wanting to arm the teachers, do we want that in our schools – teachers with weapons? Do we want teachers shooting students? Now as part of Teacher’s Ed, in addition to the three R’s they’ll have to teach target practice too.

But we’re not done. Then the parents who will still let their kids go to a school where teachers are armed, or the students brave enough attend, will demand the right to arm the students – in case the teachers have a bad day. But because the student’s won’t be old enough to get a concealed weapons permit, they’ll carry their weapons in plain view. And at what grade does teacher/pupil arming begin?

But there’s an upside. Because we’ve trained the educators in shooting, they’ll be qualified to teach the students. So where do we put the firing range? And maybe all these guns will encourage everyone to be more civil. No more swearing at the teachers or bullies or fist fights after school. And gun entrepreneurs can bundle pistols into cellular phones, ‘cause no kid or teacher would ever lose a cell phone like they would a pistol, right?

For those who try to argue that bats, knives, hammers and cars are as dangerous as guns, try using one to kill 32 people. Or better yet, arm yourself with one and next time you’re attacked by someone with a firearm, you’re protected – just use your bat, knife, hammer or car to defend yourself.

I believe in responsible, regulated, sensible firearm ownership but the fervent and unreasonable gun advocates have to recognize their arguments have crossed from the ridiculous to the sublime. Teachers shooting students – get real! Such a situation is not a hallmark of a sensible, mature society in the 21st century. Come up with better arguments, if you can.

I generally find at least from my own experience that the people who are in in favour of gun control or a gun registry are people who have never used and most likely never even seen a gun in their life except on television...gun control has nothing whatsoever to do with stopping crime...I mean,come on, do you honestly think that a criminal cares whether the gun he is using to commit a crime is registered or not?...all that the gun registry does besides waste money is to turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals...well that, and it buys votes from clueless people in Toronto

Some people on both sides of the gun control issue have forgot one of the foundational principles of democracy: that everyone has a right to express their opinions fully without being ridiculed on a personal level. The value of a democrary lies in its diversity of view points which we can all take in and use to build a better society. Personal attacks are not helpful to governing a society. Unfortunately not enough actual reasoned debate takes place even on the internet so as to make writers actually answer to opposing view points.

As for my own observations, the personal gun market is huge, and only a small portion of those consumers use them as a hobby. So the question I pose is: eventhough guns can be used morally as a hobby, does the freedom of having this hobby justify the availability of guns considering most of them are used illegally?

As for the fact that criminals will always have guns because by definition a criminal is someone who breaks the law, this issue reveals the interconnectedness we all have between different politcal areas such as national, provincial, or state. If one place outlaws guns and another doesn't, then a criminal can acquire guns from any place where they are available.

The guns themselves have to be eliminated at the point of manufacturing, and this needs to be done as an international effort.

I am very uneducated and do not understand the US 2nd amendment, but what confuses me is this earlier quote:

"What about defense against governments gone bad? ....
The motive behind the Americans'(God love em') 2nd amendment is to shoot to pieces every Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, etc. who dares show his face on American soil."

So say a totalitarian regime takes over the US. Would they not have control over the armed forces, secret police, surveillance, public services and media? Like Hitler, Stalin etc. they could be popular too.

So, if you got together with some gun buddies and decided you had a totalitarian regime in power you needed to topple by shooting them down - what would be your chances? Does consipiring with your gun buddies an armed uprising against the government not make you a "Terrorist"? In pretty much any country it is one of the most serious crimes.

What if another bunch of gun buddies got together who liked the regime - would you have a shootout with them first?

Who would organise this armed militia to topple their own government and get the word out to the private gun owners - The NRA,... Oprah?

Fair enough, there are plenty of law abiding gun owners who I am sure would never commit gun crimes...however...

we license and register people to drive vehicles because there is a social need to ensure that people can drive properly so they do not kill someone. But, cars are not designed to kill, cars are designed to move someone from point A to B. Nonetheless, we seem to get very upset when there are calls to license and register something that is in effect at its root, designed to kill (and yes, you can shoot at targets, but where did the desire for feats of marksmanship arise from? I doubt it was from an inherent desire to shred a piece of paper)

gun control maybe wont stop crime, I would not argue that, there are a great many social factors involved in crime, but it provides an important check. Studies show that safety measures like trigger locks cut down dramatically on gun related deaths. The mere seconds it takes to unlock the trigger for example, may be enough to make the depressed person think twice about his/her actions. Sure, criminals may not follow these procedures, but we are rarely born criminals...the shooter at VT had never been charged criminally in the past, maybe if more stringent registration methods had existed in Virginia, it would have made him less likely to acquire a firearm. Somehow I figure he picked the easiest, and quickest method of killing that he knew of. Sure, he could have made a bomb instead, but what is easier, buying chemicals and making a bomb or passing a basic background check and walking out that hour with a fully loaded implement designed to kill?

I was going to make a comment about the issue of gun control. it sems to me that guns are readily available, but I had a school shooting happen in my high school and I feel that kids are too exposed to weapons period. you should teach your children not to get even and reason their problems out before it gets to the breaking point. cho should have got medical help

Whenever people talk about gun control and the US, the same old NRA gun-lobby arguments come out along with their interpretation of statistics and insluted view of the "world".

The simple facts are that most homicides in the US are committed with firearms - most homicides in, for example Canada, are not committed with Firearms.

Homicide rates from firearms are about 10x that of Canada, and more than 100x that in England and japan. Suicide rates from guns in the US are also very noticably and proportionally much higher.

Geographically and in some ways culturally Canada is close to the US, but has some level of gun control. England has very strict gun control.

So it may be that gun control would not reduce the homicide rate in the US to that of an average modern, western democracy not in a war zone - So then what would and why do people in the US kill each other more often?

If someone in the UK, or Canada for that matter gets into a bar fight they are far less likely to be "packing" and will probably end up punching, kicking, in real bad company maybe pull out a knife. The chance of someone dying then is much less than if guns were involved.

If you are free to own guns but have to register them and transport, store and use them under strict rules (like keeping ammo and guns locked, having this inspected) or be committing a criminal offence. And if you have to undergo scrutiny before buying a gun, then obviously it is much less likely any nut case could pop into a gun shop, and shortly after go and shoot someone - or a robber could steal a gun from a legitimate owner. If there are less guns, it doesn't take much of a leap of logic to figure there would be less homicides caused by people getting shot.

I would rather enjoy living in a safe, civilized society not owning a gun instead of having it pryed from "my cold, dead hands" or the hands of students in school or their professors for that matter.

Arming everyone to make ourselves safer is called an arms race.

Yes, there are scary people out there, and mean, determined people will always find a way to hurt you if they want, no matter what laws exsist or what defenses you think you have.

Hammers are for driving nails. Cars are for transportation. Guns are designed to harm. You can use guns for harmless target practice, and you can also use cars to hurt people (without going anywhere).

Excellent points about airline security and the erosion of other liberties that are taken without so much as a whimper of protest.

Anyone changing their minds out there? Nope? Didn't think so.

Why don't we just ban hammers too? The psycho who committed this atrocity was also seen posing with a deadly hammer that he could have killed one or more people with! Let's just ban the automobile that he travelled to campus with no doubt, it was also responsible for the evil act as well.

At the end of the day, guns are just inanimate objects that are dangerous capable of killing only in the hands of those with bad intentions - just like baseball bats are...

First for all the students and families at VT I give my condolences. Second, for all of those people like GBC and Americans. Guns do not keep a country free. It enables the terrorist, gangs and monsters to keep doing what they do. Instill fear into society. Ever wonder why a country with the same population as say New York or Michigan or Florida has a third less gun issues? Europe had only roughly 50 gun related deaths. New York had roughly 500 with 8 million people.
Let's think about this, lets say the teachers at VT did carry weapons. What is to say that they started to fire their weapons at Cho? Do you actually think that they would hit him on the first shot? My God people, it could have turned into a full scale shooting gallery and more people could have died! If everyone started caring guns people would start using them as a way to settle a difference. Gun control does not mean you have to give up your guns. IT MEANS LETS STOP SELLING TO EVERY TOM DID AND HARRY! Lets do back round checks. I like guns, I really do I think they have some beauty to them but I am for gun control to people that can actual use them for what they are meant too.
Canada has gun control and my grandfather owned 5 rifles. He was able to purchase them right up to his passing. He was an avid hunter. So what is the problem with Gun control?
I am glad I live in a county that I do not have to fear to live in. I would not want to live in a county that fear resides in. I would not want my children to have to fear if their school is next to have a shooting. Fear is not the way to learn. Going through medal detectors, is that a way to go to school?
If America does not do something about this you will see more and more shooting's at schools. You will see more and more shooting's at work and on the street. Keep the gun laws the way they are and more and more children will die. How may children will it take to die before everyone wakes up?

Eliminate the source.
The NY ADA says that we in Canada have no stake in US constitutional issues. However what he fails to realise is that the major source of our illegal firearms (the ones in the hands of criminals) is the US with it's lax gun control. We have the GREATEST stake in protecting our safety and we cannot do that when our criminals are continually supplied by your lawful dealers in death (it's kind of like if we legalised marijuana and you subsequently had a drug problem in the US). We have a stake in changing american attitudes to firearms as they affect us directly and daily.
And just to make things a little clearer to all of you... requiring purchasers of firearms to take a course in their safe usage IS gun control (one aspect, others include registration -- with background checks, restriction, and banning: all of which are aspects of gun control -- banning is not the only form gun control takes).
Also, to all those who say that the US second amendment does not mean people should have assault weapons: that is PRECISELY what it means. Its purpose is to allow the citizens of the US to overthrow a corrupt tyrannical government and that requires military quality weapons, ones that can threaten the government.
Either allow your citizens to have military quality weapons or do away with the 2nd amendment altogether.

Our past governments in Canada have completely eroded our right to defend ourselves against gun-toting lunatics, and at the same time, these governments have enabled criminals to commit such acts of violence through soft sentencing and lenience.

Either let us carry our guns with us, or start hiring more police to protect us.

Either we be allowed to protect ourselves, or our government should protect us. It's a scary to be completely defenceless.

Hmmm, Our Canadian friend, Felix, had an interesting point in his comment. But I wonder if his command of English is as faulty as his logic. The second amendment also mentions "the people." The people in the second amendment has the exact same meaning as does "the people" in all of the other amendments to our Constitution which uses the phrase "the people.". The phrase, "the people" means the exact same thing in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments to our Bill of Rights as it does for the 2nd amendment. Basically, the militia clause is but one clause in the 2nd amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is the other one. Do not conveniently delete that which is so clearly written. There is more than just the militia clause in the 2nd amendment. besides, what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

If we follow the logic of the gun-owners who think owning uzis, etc. is a right, why stop there? If one has the money, why not allow tanks, F-18's, rocket launchers. As long as they are only used for fun and deer hunting, it only makes sense!

Come on, lets get serious here. For those of you who this basic physics seems to elude, it works like this: If people don't have pistols and automatic guns, it becomes difficult to shoot a room full of people. If people have no guns, it becomes impossible. Where do we draw the line? Certainly not at uzis and M-16's etc.

Gun control is always a hot topic in both Canada and America. Gun owners get their backs up, and can say some pretty silly things, like "if every professor at VT had a handgun, this wouldn't have happened". Is that the type of society we want to live in...everyone has to take their handgun to work or school? What I think gun control should have meant in Virginia, is that the gun shops and the clearance process should have had access to Mr. Cho's medical records. Any responsible gun owner who knows his client has been diagnosed and treated for mental illness, including depression and thoughts of suicide, would most likely not sell guns to him. Information is as valuable as gold in our society, and no one is willing to share it. Just like the FBI should share information with State law enforcement agencies and the CIA, the people who approve gun permits in both countries should have full acces to a possible buyer's mental health records. All of you for or against gun control disagree with that?

I'm sometimes uncomfortable with reading on the pages of the newspaper the consistent blaming of media and in this case gun control on school shootings like Virginia Tech. What about looking at the Virginia Tech shooting as a wider social problem?

With the growing access to negative fear raising new (Child abduction, beatings, shootings), a widening income gap, and more individualistic attitudes, the strength of communities is falling behind. We no longer seemed to be concerned for our neighbors and communities, but scared of it. The fear and disconnected consciousness creates isolation and hate. The small town neighborhood I had grown in has more locked doors now, fewer kids allowed to run across the lawns, and cold feeling. There are kids in that neighborhood I can assure who feel it as unsociable and unsafe, when its is the opposite, if they rebuild that feeling of community that once existed.

The isolation, caused by the failing of society, cities, neighborhoods, and even educational institutions to sustain real community, may contribute to a violent trend in cities today, maybe even Virginia Tech. The student was an outsider and sought to get back at his peers. If there was a community system, he may have been turn around or never reached that stage in the first place.

What happened in Virginia was sick; it turned my stomach, but we can’t go around blaming gun control or video games or whatever we have a grudge against; we need to see the bigger picture. Does the community you live feel safe? Does your school, workplace, or social network have a safety net for the troubled? Does it needlessly isolate people? What can you do to change that?

Virginia Tech's shooting my not have been stopped if the school community had a way to reach out to the shooter, but those systems where in place, may prevent another one from happening; something gun control is less likely to do, it controls access to guns, not the motives behind having one.

If Henry Champ is Newsworld's Washington correspondent, no wonder the quality of CBC news is poor.

Henry rambles on about gun control - but doesn't mention at his home base in Washington DC, despite having the strictest gun control laws in the US and much stricter laws than Canada, Washington has been at the top of the murder charts in the US for years. How can that be? They have such GREAT gun control!

Henry laments that not a single major gun control law has been passed lately, and some have been relaxed. This infers that gun control works, which of course it doesn't. Meanwhile, gun crimes are decreasing and states allowing concealed carry are seeing reduced violent crimes without the rivers of blood CBC predicted.

Henry moans that Congress doesn't allow crime victims to sue gun owners simply because their products were misused. I guess he wouldn't mind laws in Canada that allowed suing Ford or Chev if a drunk killed a relative with one of their vehicles. Yes Henry, you can still sue for negligence and the usual grounds.

And on, and on it goes. Henry, your politically correct left-wing laundry is showing, as is your distain for balanced reporting or even accuracy in reporting.

How embarrassing for us... and how typically, smug CBC.

I'm a Canadian who's been going to med school in Oregon for the past three years. Almost done, thank the Lord, can't wait to get back. The only thing worse than a pompous Canadian who takes his social safety net for granted is the legions of American sheep who believe that quality of life is defined by his ability to screw his neighbor over for a buck. 6 of one...

My prayers are with the survivors of all such tragedies, with special attention given to those who never question what they believe or where their beliefs come from.

At this point in time, the American 'right to bear arms' is an outdated concept and one that should be revoked as soon as possible. Allow me, instead of repeating the same pro- or anti-gun control rhetoric we have all heard before, to point out the reason for the US Second Amendment, and why it no longer applies. It reads thusly, as passed by the House and Senate in 1789:

'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.'

Note the talk of a well-regulated militia, and the year of passage: 1789, barely a decade after the United States declared independence - a time when they were still very afraid that the British Empire would decide to reclaim their lost territory. The purpose of this amendment was to save the American government the time of having to arm every militiaman that decided to fight for their country.

Over time its meaning has twisted. America is no longer at threat of invasion by Britain, or indeed by any other nation. Even if they were, the 'well-regulated militia' tends to be a thing of the past. These days we get very poorly-regulated militias - such as in Iraq - or, in first-world nations, army reserves such as the American National Guard. Were America to be invaded by a foreign power, the people would not be organized into a militia as they would have been in 1789. Their personally-owned guns would not come into play.

Truth be told, the Second Amendment should have been revoked a long time ago, essentially as soon as America was no longer at threat of a British invasion.

My underlying point is that the constitutional right that prevents efficient gun control in the United States is no longer relevant. In fact, by this point in time it would probably be safe to call it one of the most misquoted, misunderstood, and misused pieces of legislation in history.

"imagine if the students and teachers had been carrying guns"?

Is that your idea of a solution? Arm EVERYONE?

That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in this entire debate. Ridiculous.

After we ban guns we should ban drugs. All we have to do is put laws in place to ban cocaine, heroine and meth and we will never see them on the streets again.

Sounds like a great plan to me.

I don't care about any of this arguing over whether more or fewer guns would make things better. I only see this in one light.

I own rifles, shotguns and semi-automatic military rifles. I like to shoot them all. On a few rare, happy days, I have even been able to shoot machineguns, without a drill sargeant yelling in my face, for the historical or engineering interest, or for the pure fun of it. I even had a permit to carry a concealed handgun in Indiana for a couple of years.

I have never killed, injured or threatened a single person with all the tens of thousands of cartridges I have fired. And it is for this reason that all of you who want to take my guns away are WRONG.

I didn't kill anybody at l'Ecole Polytechnique, if you try to punish me for it, you are punishing the innocent.

I didn't kill anybody at Colombine, if you try to confiscate my property as a result, you are ignoring the principals of justice.

I didn't kill anybody at Dawson College, if you try to eradicate my chosen lifestyle over that crime, you are a traitor to the idea of liberty.

I didn't kill anybody at Virgina Tech, if you want to limit my freedom of choice in retaliation, you are just plain WRONG.

To those that see gun control as an honest effort to keep guns out of the wrong hands, we can work together. I have no problem with background checks, training courses and police tracing powers, so long as we agree that once passed, good people can have 870s, 1911A1s, AR-15s and even Uzis for their personal use and enjoyment.

For those that see all guns as inherently evil, or that want to ban whole classes of arms, arguing that if an AKM is no good for deer hunting it must be no good for anything at all(an AKM would make an excellent deer rifle, incidentally, though the magazine would be a tad awkward in the bush), you can go to hell.

I see that most arguments here, both for and against gun control, are refering to criminals.

We should not forget that the people who commit the largest massacres are rarely "criminals" who are trying to steal or make money.

The largest mass killings by individuals are done for some reason that usually qualifies said individuals as insane. An insane person is NOT a criminal, that's the law. That's why you can plead insanity. If he thought what he was doing was right and/or didn't know right from wrong, then he's insane. Even if he knew what he was doing was wrong, and he wasn't legally insane, he was definitely out of his mind.

A "normal" criminal kills someone for some other objective than just randomly killing people. Like silencing a witness, or stealing their property. They do not indiscriminately shoot everyone.

I believe gun control, or banning guns, will have very little effect on your run of the mill criminal who is out there to make a buck. But, I also believe that it could easily prevent an insane person from commitng an act like the one at VT.

I don't believe that the practice of stalking makes you a "law abiding citizen". This individual should not have been able to purchase a gun if the correct procedures had been followed. That being said, I believe the gun was only a means to an end; he would have found another way (potentially more lethal). A safe society is a result of both individual and government responsibility.

I am a teacher. I can tell you that if a scrawny-arsed little bastard with a machete walked into my classroom I would kick his teeth in with very little hesitation (maybe a second or two to locate a heavy, blunt object like a chair.)

If that same scrawny little runt had a Glock 9 pointed at my chest, I would certainly hesitate, and probably die because of it. It's a deer-in-headlights reaction, but the knowledge that death is an easy squeeze away would likely stop me in my tracks.

If he allowed me to regin my composure, I would try to disarm him, but I know there's a good chance I may fail, and I am sure most people at VT didn't have that option.

Reading Mr Champ's column further confirms (if it needed additional confirmation) of the extent to which the gun lobby has bought Congress.

Apparently, it will take actions more severe than the deaths of 32 innocent people to generate sufficient anger at politicians that meaningful laws are enacted. Maybe a mass killing of family members or politicans in the order of perhaps several hundred. At least terrorists are probably taking note that this might be one way to wreak havoc in the US.

There is no rational reason why anyone needs a weapon that fires 15 or so rounds in about 12 seconds and then takes a few seconds to reload. Actually, and especially for a deranged loner living in a university , there is one reason: to kill a large number of people in a short space of time. Definitely a right worth protecting. I'm sure that's what the framers of the US Constitution wanted to protect when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

Just a suggestion, but perhaps police officers should stop reading and contributing to blogs, choosing instead to dedicating themselves to protecting the public. Although this may explain why so many of the police officers I have seen in news reports of the VT shooting appear to be overweight.
Finally, to the NY ADA, we'll stop debating your supposed constitutional rights when the US stops making determinations of right and wrong in other sovereign countries.

The guy was one of those "law-abiding citizens", right up until the moment he started blasting people. He used his guns as weapons of war (the purpose they were meant for) - a personal war against the enemies he felt were all around him in life. It was an act of suicide, a kamikaze mission he had no intention of living through. What can you do? He probably felt he was already dead before he started. Saying "someone could've stopped him" is speculation at best.
I've read the US 2nd amendment. I'd bet its authors designed it out of a distaste for national standing armies with professional soldiers, and so it was a way for individual states to form mini-armies (militias) composed of regular citizens. But if the US people can live with the way the 2nd amendment has been interpreted to mean something else, and live with the resulting body count, then let them. That's US tradition & culture & law, let them work it out. It has never been Canada's, and the parroting of NRA dogma has no relevance for Canadians.
One thing, for all these "black helicopters" types writing in: There's a country where gun ownership is nearly universal, where people do indeed depend on their own firepower for all their defense of self, family or property, and government involvement is minimal - it's called Somalia.

To the liberal gun-haters,
If an armed murderer was to enter a classroom containing your helpless children, but was immediately shot dead by a gun-carrying professoror or student, would you still attempt to view that innocent individual and his gun as a menace to a safe society?
Think about it.

A very funny British comedian Eddie Izzard, has a few good points about American's and their love affair with guns.
1 - To the people who say "guns don't kill people, People do" I'd like to lock them in a room with a couple monkeys, for a couple hours.. . then give the monkeys guns and lock them up again (to be fair to the monkeys we would teach them to reload) and then see if the guns make the monkeys more dangerous.
2 - The American people are in the pursuit of happiness... They pursuit happiness with gun's and want to be the first to shot it and hang it on the wall.

RIP VT victims

The terrible irony is that the VT shooter did the killing in a gun-free zone where he knew he could kill without any challenge. He did not walk into a police station or Army base where he would have been stopped or killed on the spot.

If someone is intent on killing on this scale they will find a way. Timothy McVeigh found a particulary effectice way to kill hundreds of people (including children) without a gun.
We don't need gun control (or at least any more than we have now) since that didn't stop Kimveer Gill at Dawson College - we need "whacko control"

While the US gets excoriated by self-righteous Canadians we have had far more than our fair share of killings at schools. Given the size of our population compared to the US and our so-called "gun control laws" we are having far too may killings or they are having far too few.

More gun control is not the answer, more parental care may be.

How many neglectful parents are there preaching on internet boards about the need to ban just about everything, guns, movies, video games?

Get out of your chair, turn off the computer and go and ask your child how she\he is doing.

To those who say you can't commit mass murder with a knife; you're morons.

1) Timothy McVeigh blew up a federal building and killed upwards of 100 people with a truck and some fertilizer.

2) Muslim fundamentalists destroyed the World Trace Centre and killed upwards of 3000 people with box cutters.

3) Yesterday car bombs exploded in Iraq killing nearly 200.

4) Rwanda....no guns used, just good old machetes. I guess it's better to be hacked to death however.

Point being if you're murderous and determined enough there are lots of ways to kill people gun or no gun.

In a situation like this there are no easy answers or solutions as one tries to make sense of it.

We do get closer to the truth however by using facts rather than blanket generalities and unchecked emotions.

Max

Mr. Champ, in your column you wrote:
What is known is that when Cho signed his application at the gun shop to buy a Glock 19
handgun and 50 rounds of ammunition, he left blank the question that asked whether he ever
been treated or examined for mental illness.

You further wrote:
Roanoke Firearms owner John Markell told the Pittsburgh Press-Gazette, "He was a nice, clean-cut college kid. We won't sell a gun if we have any idea at all that a purchase is suspicious."

My questions to Roanoke Firearms owner John Markell are:
1. Why did you or your staff not ensure that all questions on the application were filled out correctly?
2. Given that the applicant left blank the question dealing with mental health, would that not make you, at least, a bit suspicious?

It's amazing how people thinking themselves well educated and sophisticated believe to be true that which is demonstrably false.

States which have very few gun laws and very high rates of gun ownership, such as Montana and Vermont, have the lowest rates of gun misuse, lower than in Canada.

Others claim that gun control is to keep guns out of hands of unfit individuals and is not a precursor to banning. Yet banning is precisely what gun control measures have lead to in dozens of countries.

Others claim that guns are only needed for hunting or target shooting. A few will say they are good for defense against criminals.

What about defense against governments gone bad? Acording to the Economist, governments murdered about 100 million people in the last century. These murderous governments can arise, eventually, after decades or even centuries, anyplace. The peace and prosperity in Canada is a historic abnormality in the context of centuries human struggle. George Orwell feared the day would come when the face of the human race would forever be pinned to the ground by the bloody jackboot of dictatorship.

The motive behind the Americans'(God love em') 2nd amendment is to shoot to pieces every Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, etc. who dares show his face on American soil.

"In Baghdad yesterday, 170 people died because of a car bomb; do you think banning cars will prevent other senseless murders?"

Actually, Yes I do. If there were no cars or trucks on the streets they wouldn't be able to use them to deliver these enormous bombs.

Guns owned by myself - 8. Intent to use illegally - 0. Number of household items which could kill - immeasurable. For those who say we should stop making guns, are you going to go all over the world and eradicate international arm trade? Nope. Those who think mass murder is harder without a weapon, think chemical weapons. What if the melamine which poisoned my cat was in our food? Oh, and career criminals collect illegal firearms the way some collect stamps or coins. Yep these are restricted or illegal (in Canada)such as AK74, M4, MP5SD. They have them. The street gangs have them. If we make them illegal, they'll still have them. Gun control does nothing. If someone wants you dead, you die - it's that simple. With ownership comes responsibility - I'm responsible, millions of other are too. People targeting others have a death wish and are making a statement (they all die in the end). Why are they making the statement? Stop criminalizing responsible people and look at the causes. Or start banning all chemicals, kitchen utensils, cars, bats, pool cues, pool balls, pens .....

Boy there sure seems to be alot of brainwashed and uninformed people out there.
For all of you who think the Glock 9mm made this nutjob kill people your out to lunch.
I'm sure he was just a flower child before he got that baby killing machine in his hands.
Give me a break.
The real problem was not the ability to own firearms, it was that nobody helped this person when they needed help badly!.
Why is it this person checked into a mental ward for help, and they didnt make it mandatory for him to have help, so he ended up leaving?.
Why is it that this was not put as a red flag on his record when he went to purchase a firearm?.
Why is it that your Beloved gun control legislations will deny a good citizen firearm purchaseing abilities when he has a parking ticket, but it wont when they are known stalkers and mental cases?.
Its always the "gun made him do it"
idiotic ideologies.
Heres something for you. Virgina Tech was a gun free zone = mass shooting with no armed resistence.
Appalachian law school 2002, an armed gunman comes on campus, Two legaly armed citizens with handguns stoped him, and held him until the police arrived. This was all before he could harm anyone.

Does this need anymore explaing?.

As a mother of a Dawson Shooting survivor...my daughter was 1 of a small group of students trapped in the Atrium cafeteria with no escape option. She witnesses more death and fear than many in a lifetime. While on the road to recovery, the Virginia Tech event brought it all back. She was stripped of her innocence, her self confidence and spirit. Her survival instinct virtually erased. The nightmares continue, her inabillity to concentrate has her struggling in school. The damage to students, faculty members and staff is immeasurable. To think that once again the media focus is on the criminal and not the impact his acts had on human lives, is unforgiveable. The notion that a gun registry or gun control will never guarantee atrocities of this nature will not happen is used by the gun lobby. Really what guarantees are there in life? What they do do is minimize the risk. If we as a society require to register cars, drivers licences, and even pets why can't law enforcement agencies have access to information on gun owners? The registry is a necessity and Harper needs to understand that. Furthermore policy makers need to focus on outlawing all hand guns, semi automatic and automatic weapons altogether. Surely hunters and sportsmen can live without these!? As for protecting oneself as the gun lobby advocate, I prefer to live in a free and fearless society rather than in one where I need to concern myself about neighbors, fellow movie goers, shoppers and students carrying dangerous weapons lest they feel the need to use them. My heartfelt thoughts go out to all the victims. Those that lost their lives, their families, their loved ones, anyone who experienced this horror first hand. My life along with my family's has been changed forever.

A chef's knife is a kitchen tool that is used to process and make food for people. It can also be used to kill people. Fertilizer is used to make lawns greener and simulate garden production. It can also be used to make a bomb to kill people. The same can be said of gasoline, chainsaws, vehicles, etc. these items are not unlawful, but they can be USED TO COMMIT unlawful acts. The acts would be unlawful if these tools were used in the comission of a crime, not the tools. What would happen if these tools were banned?

I want to enphasize a comment RoydamnMercer (USA) made: "Is it not odd that the only person we've heard that faced up to the VT shooter was an elderly Holocaust survivor? He instinctively knew what to do. (edit).... But laws don't save people. People save themselves. Stand up, fight back, refuse to be a victim." Well said!

Now - take ten seconds to imagine what would have happened if this courageous and honourable hero would have had a firearm instead of only his body to defend his students with.... Imagine!

"Those who beat their swords into ploughshares shall plough for those who don't."

Note to Michael Trahan..Banning cars may or may not reduce the number of innocent people being killed but, and much more logical example, would be if you make bombs easily available to everyone, even a person who clearly has emotional problems, it would lead to much more innocent people getting killed. The fact is he killed people with guns that were very easily available...and one further note...if Cho was in Iraq killing Iraqi students he would be getting medals and would make GW Bush a "Proud" man.......the problem is once in a while the Chos of this world stop killing non Americans and kill Americans and that is when everyone is "Outraged"

Thank you Henry. If only more people would speak up and get the TRUTH into the media! WHEN ARE THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS OF THE USA GOING TO STAND UP AND BE COUNTED? And say 'ENOUGH IS ENOUGH'. Look at the harm you are enabling this administration to do to yourselves, as well as to people throughout the world! I have to believe that YOU, the citizens of USA, are more than what you have been since this Bush administration.

Lets ban all guns period. When we start using baseball bats, lets ban them too! Next, rocks and pointy sticks. While we're at it, lets ban common sense. However, when a government has no problem throwing over a billion dollars into a useless gun control registration process but refuses to provide any real assistance to our education or health system, I guess we've already accomplished the banning of the common sense part. People killing people is the problem. When we can solve that, guns and pointy sticks will not be a concern.

In Baghdad yesterday, 170 people died because of a car bomb; do you think banning cars will prevent other senseless murders?

The mis-information gap. So many opinions so little research so few facts. i.e. "Virginia has strigent gun laws" OH not-so-much. You can get a handgun with only a driver's licence. "there is no reason for civilians to have automatic weapons" Government agrees. Automatic weapons are highly restricted. It's the semi-automatic that is most readily available and there is a definite difference between the two. "If just one (qualified) person ....had been carrying a concealed weapon ..I doubt .. we'd be ...talking about 33 innocent Americans being slaughtered." (Well if he'd been in the right place at the right time and hadn't himself been shot first perhaps) More exaggerated rhetoric. More inflammatory than helpful. To go along with "Handguns serve one purpose, to hunt humans" Sorry, again, inflammatory, not close to being true at least not in reality. Millions of hand guns in N.A. but millions of handgun deaths? Millions of people stalking other humans in U.S. & Canada? Not-so-much. Oh yes and "get people to see that violent crimes need not be commited, thats proactive" No! That's insane. Nirvana, Eutopia. What? Is there a new breed of humans somewhere. We're a violent race. We have to have laws and regulations, police, armies even. You can't trust us to fasten our seatbelts. You have to have restrictive gunlaws. I think Canada's approach to gun legislation is adequate but then the U.S. never learned anything from 1812 either.

no man is born a killing maniac

he is made that way by society

or voted into office

Has anybody thought about what would have happened if even a couple people in those buildings would have been allowed to have concealed weapons? Cho would have MAYBE got a couple shots off before getting himself pegged in the skull.

One person with a gun can control a hundred without one.

Stupid liberals and your gun control... guns are the only thing left that keeps America free. Let's not throw this out the way that you have thrown out all the rest of our freedoms.

Seeking a different outcome each time the same event occurs over and over is a definition of clinical insanity. America is clinically insane. No argument for gun control will they entertain.

This incident has sparked a lot of discussion around the gun laws in the United States and Canada and it is amazing to see how far apart some individuals are on the solution. The problem of increasing gun violence exists in both countries and it is naive to think otherwise. My personal opinion is that it is not the gun laws in either country but the culture that has been ingrained into the citizens. The media today is nurturing a culture of fear and it is this fear that has people convinced that bearing arms is the solution. If society reacted to all fears in this way then nobody would go outside, or better yet nobody would get out of bed in the morning. It's time to stop worrying about what "could" happen and start living life. I fully support the idea of protecting yourself but when it gets to the point where you have to carry a gun with you everywhere you go, you have to question the bigger picture and ask why has our society come to this. My thoughts go out to all those affected by Monday's events.

The majority of comments suggest restricting gun ownership won't have any impact on gun crime. If thats true why are there restrictions on carrying a gun onto a plane? The American public don't seem to mind that restriction and have even accepted a ban on taking a tube of ointment onto a plane. The comments suggest that the students should've been armed to protect themselves, so it follows that if the passengers were armed on 911, they could've stopped the hijackers. So I'm asking all you NRA supporters out there, Why do accept the restrictions imposed by the government when you fly but oppose any general gun restrictions?

Hey Chuck,

"I have never see a gun kill anyone. Usually it is attached to a human who makes a decision to use the gun for legal or illegal purposes."

If you replace "gun" with perhaps you will understand the point of gun-control. There are, and always will be, mentally unstable people, please try not to make it easy for them to wreak havoc on the innocent. I believe that is the point.

I've never understood the "if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" attitude. Replace the word "guns" with something else that is already illegal (cocaine, for example) and see if that logic still make sense.

The drunk-driving analogy doesn't work, either. Cars, unlike handguns, are designed for a purpose other than killing people.

I don't know, though. Perhaps the people making those arguments are in favour of legalising cocaine and drunk-driving as well. After all, according to their logic, it's not as if outlawing drunk-driving has stopped people who are determined to do so...

The cowboy mentality from some Americans never ceases to confuse me. Your government wants to track the books you sign out of the library and listen to your phone calls...but any restriction on gun ownership is too extreme?

Someone in my hometown was killed after being inadvertently caught in the crossfire of a gang shootout. I don't see how the presence of more guns would've helped in that situation.

More guns lead to more gun violence. It's as simple as that.

Did anyone ever wonder what kind of a world we live in when kids like myself would have to consider bringing a concealed weapon into our introduction to calculus course?
I don't know if any of you remember college or university, but it's a different environment. It's not supposed to be like the city streets. It will be a sad day the day a college student wakes up, grabs a quick breakfast and a glock before heading out to class.

Something perplexes me about this discussion. Several people have tried to make the point that if guns are banned, then criminals will still obtain them illegally, and that "law-abiding citizens" will be unable to defend themselves from armed criminals. People, please look at the facts! Have all of you failed to notice that the Virginia Tech shooter obtained his weapons through legal channels? The fact remains that even though he was obviously disturbed, the student was only able to carry out such a massacre because he had such easy access to handguns. Brian from VT says that "if this kid was not able to purchase a gun, he would have made a bomb". How can you know that? A gun need only be bought and operated to kill someone. It requires a substantially higher amount of motivation (and resourcefulness) to build a bomb, than to purchase a gun (especially under relaxed laws such as the ones in question). Brian from VT also states that "in almost every state to carry a gun, you have to take a class, that makes you "qualified"". He implies that this "qualification" results in "good law abiding citizens". Gun-control opponents point out ad nauseum that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Is it not more likely for a "qualified, good law abiding citizen" to kill his or her spouse/neighbour/friend in a fit of rage if he or she has quick access to a gun? Is it not reasonable to assume that had the shooter been unable to obtain a gun legally, he might have been less likely to obtain one at all? If he had been seriously committed to murder, and had set out on campus with other deadly weapons that are easy to obtain (bladed weapons, for example), could unarmed students not have overpowered him? Some people will always attempt to harm others, and human behaviour (normal and abnormal) cannot be fully controlled, but arming everyone doesn’t make us safer, on the contrary, it gives everyone an opportunity to kill.

There seems to be a popular misconception in the commentary that gun control = gun ban. They are not the same thing. Gun control is an attempt to ensure that the wrong people don't buy guns. Gun control is not selling a gun to someone who leaves omissions on the application. Gun control is actually taking the time to check and see that the claims made on those applications are true.

However, no one is going to convince a "gun nut" of the logical fallacies of their belief in unrestricted gun ownership. That is why they are nuts - they treat the issue emotionally and not rationally. It doesn't matter how many statistics you throw at them, or how many gun control success stories (e.g., Australia) you throw at them, they've made up their minds, don't confuse them with the facts.

Every thinking person has been affected by this tragic incident, and there have been many emotional responses. I heard an interesting comment yesterday that everyone goes to their "security blanket" when things like this occur and say things based on instinct/emotion/values etc. And that we should give everyone a 48 hour period to think. I know I reacted strongly, and now I have had a chance to think a bit more. I went to www.nationmaster.com and got some country statistics on Murders With Firearms. On a per capita basis, the U.S. is number 8 with .03 murders/1000 people. South Africa is first with more than double the U.S. rate, followed by Columbia, Thailand, Zimbabwe, Mexico, Belarus, & Costa Rica. Canada is #20, Ireland #26, and the UK #32. In terms of Total murders with firearms, the U.S. is number 4...South Africa again is #1 with the highest.
When you scan the total list, what is apparent is that countries that have personal gun restrictions have lower murder rates. My next bit of research is to look at suicides with firearms because maybe there is also a connection between the availability of firearms and suicides.

Oy...pontificating Canadians, please shut up and run your own country.

A 1994 survey estimated that THEN there were 192 million guns (including 65 million handguns) privately owned in the US. If you think there is going to be some magic wand waived to make them disappear, you are a fool. Only gullible dopes determined to be "law-abiding" (i.e. victims) could be expected to comply. True criminals, of course, would do what they always do--break the laws and prey on the defenceless. But you would have an enormous wave of civil disobedience, turning tens of millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals themselves. That and that alone would be legacy of the gun grabbers.

So, go back to your Cheez Whiz and ketchup chips leave our guns the hell alone.

I love reading these comments from 'educated' Americans, pontificating on the virtues of their Constitution and their flawless form of democracy. The US Constitution is the most misquoted document in the free world. If you feel the need to have an assault rifle join the military; a hand gun, join the police.

You can be assured that you will be welcome in the US Army where you will be given an assault rifle, all the ammo you can carry and be told to go and cram US style democracy down the throats of the Iraqi people. Do they have a right to bear arms? If they do are they not summarily shot?

Instead of gun control maybe the US should consider ammunition control. Only authorize the sale of 9.2mm, .47 and .359 cal ammunition. Watch the morons try and cram that into their beloved freedom defenders.

Let it burn!!!!

The VT student in question had a record of pscyhological problems and had been committed briefly when a fellow student had called the police worried about a suicide attempt. I do not understand how anyone who has been committed in the past could be allowed to purchase a gun legally.

A lot of people seem to be rather confused about gun control. The point is not necessarily to limit average people from owning weapons. It is to stop unstable people from owning them. If there had been any sort of check done, the VT guy wouldn't have had a gun. Period. For those of you who claim that he would have stolen one - if gun owners are actually responsible, then they wouldn't leave their weapons out availible to be stolen. Anyone irresponsible enough to allow a gun to be stolen, is not responsible enough to have been allowed to own it in the first place. You need to stop whining about rights and consider your responsibilities.

Yes, if guns are limited, then only criminals will have them ... but that's the point! And who are these criminals going to steal them from? If they can't buy them, and they can't steal them, then where are they going to get them? The whole argument of the pro-gun movement is based on terrible logic. If everyone has a gun 'to protect' themselves, then everyone is under the threat of being shot!

Of all the comments made surrounding the massacre at Virginia Tech, I find none so striking as the oft expressed wish by many Americans that the whole problem could have been solved if only a teacher or student had possessed a firearm of their own to kill Cho Seung-hui before he could kill anyone else.
What perverse logic is this? Would the shootings in Blacksburg have been any less tragic if Cho had only killed four or five innocent individuals before being killed himself? Would the results have been any less traumatic for the other students in the classroom, the greater VT community, or the poor individual forced to pull the trigger? Would the righteous slaying of a killer carrying a firearm by another individual carrying a firearm have someone validated the American preoccupation with their antiquated right to bear arms?
It is sad delusion for a society to believe that it is better served by allowing all citizens to carry firearms in their own self-defence rather than prohibiting anyone from doing so in order to secure the safety of all. And it is sad truth that no number of school shootings, street shootings, police shootings, domestic shootings, or lone gunmen seems enough to convince America of this very simple fact.

I'm shocked that even after such a horrific incident, the American gun supporter will continue to argue that guns can protect them.
Despite endless statistics that show more guns in a society equate to more gun deaths, somehow they insist that firepower can beat firepower. Statistics and fact mean nothing, opinion and blind faith are everything.
I can't help but see a correlation between this and the same mindset that believes waging war can somehow make the world a safer place.
My prayers go out to these victims, their friends and their families.

Any government would be happy to see the people are discussing and talking in the wrong direction. They do not want to bear responsibility of any incident like this one. Talking about the ban is the pleasure for the administration. They do not want the citizens to discus the real reasons behind these acts!! How many Americans out there walking in the streets are in need to treatment because of depression? Some polls says over 40%! How can we blame the college’s administration? If they want to hold every student they suspect of violence; they cannot keep going on!
When our guy talked about his problem; the media translated it very easily, that he hates the rich people! I agree he hates the rich people; but why? He wrote that in his declaration. Why they do not release his notes so every body knows his motivation and his way of thinking? Is there problem with the economic system that the administration does not want the citizens to discuss? Unfortunately, the media do not want to discus this matter because, may be, it is under national security ban. Let us discus the real problems behind this kind of horrible acts and not put our heads in the sand.

Not to beat a dead horse, but anyone who thinks that Gun laws will prevent tragedies like Virginia Tech is living in a dream world. Let me put this into plain simple language" CRIMINALS AND THE MENTALLY DISTURBED DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE LAW."
Congrats to those who realize this and have tried to come up with reasonable ideas on how to curb this kind of senseless tragedy.
Why don't we turn our attention to the media circus that has erupted? Every would be psycho out there is being saturated with this lunatics image and mad ranting. How long do you think it will be before they snap themselves? Should we not be asking some hard questions about media coverage of such things? Henry, this is in no way a reflection on you. I watch you regularly and appreciate your insightful reporting.

It is the love of guns that seems to generate the problem with the USA, Fahrenheit 911 noted that per capita Canadians have a equivalent number of guns, but we don't embrace gun culture and have a far lower homicide by gun ratio (and a far lower homicide rate!) American response to tragedy like Virginia Tech seems to ARM EVERYONE, then we will be safe. Answer... Ban assault rifles, ban semi automatic weapons, and for God's sake arm your campus police

There is no reason for civilians to have automatic weapons. Firearms for hunting and use at a firing range need not be the kind that would lead to mass murder in a short time if in the wrong hands.

The toughest conversation I have had with my daughter, was not about sex, boys, drugs or puberty. It was about not being a victim. One can avoid dangerous situations...but sometimes it comes to you. If you cannot run, you must fight. Passivity is not an option anymore. Is it not odd that the only person we've heard that faced up to the VT shooter was an elderly Holocaust survivor? He instinctively knew what to do. We are raising a generation of passive sheep. What if one of the victims parents had the conversation I had with my daughter...would things have changed? We can second guess forever. But laws don't save people. People save themselves. Stand up, fight back, refuse to be a victim.

In reply to Vic's comment:

"God did not make men equal, Samuel Colt did. Socialism seeks to control it's subjects through any means necessary. Including making them sheep."

I have to say, come on...
1. I thought your Constitution made men equal. How can you rely on the constitution for your right to bear arms, but not for the equality that it grants? And, if I get your drift, a non gun-owner is thus a lesser person. Interesting...
2. This has NOTHING to do with socialism. For your info, lots of people had weapons in the USSR (I know, I went there). And although I'm sure you would hardly call the UK socialist, they have very strict gun laws. Socialism is about economy, gun control is about politics. Get your facts straight.

Oh, and for the record, I am a law-abiding gun-owner who thinks that gun control can to a certain extent be part of the solution, but that blaming gun manufacturers and owners and gun-control policies is ignorance at best.

Cheers.

If only one person other than the shooter, had a handgun & confronted the looser, the outcome very well may have benn a lower body count. With legal ownership of firearms comes the responsibility of being properly trained & proficent in their use. Your life or that of your loved ones may depend on it!

I don't know - most European nations, many Asian nations and Canada have stricter gun laws than the US, and violent deaths are far less frequent.

Canadians just have an easy access via the US.

And yes, there was murder before guns, but a knife wielding wacko would not kill 30+ people in a school.

Guns make it easier to kill people. While most gun owners will never try to harm another human being, it is far far easier to kill large numbers of people with a gun that a gas bomb, a club or a crossbow. Guns are the choice weapons of anger because they are so easy to use- even a coward is capable of killing mass amounts of people with one.
Gun control will not stop these massacres. It would, however, make it more difficult. Why are people so alarmed about making it difficult for someone with a history of violent crime or mental illness to get a gun? I couldn't do anything but laugh at the fool who claimed gun control was a socialist device to turn people into sheep. You could make exactly the same argument for law itself- if there weren't those oppressive police and judges we could ensure justice always held sway!
The student who killed all those people walked into a gun store and with little difficulty bought the weapons that he used to kill. Is it really so threatening to have laws in place that make it more difficult for people like that to get guns? Apparently.
It's important to distinguish between gun supporters and gun fanatics. Gun supporters want the availability of the weapons and recognize some restrictions are reasonable, human nature being what it is. Gun fanatics use the old rhetoric of blaming the person not the ease with which that person gained the power of life and death over others.
I can't wait for the scenario that the gun fanatics like to use- when your average citizen draws his own weapon and uses it to gun down someone like the killer in Virginia. Aside from all the mistaken shootings of suspicious looking people, there will be a lovely shoot out in which by-standers are killed and the gunslingers mistake each other for killers. But of course, the guns aren't to blame, it's the people. And no doubt the whole thing would be staged by socialists as part of the conspiracy to disarm the populace for the coming revolution.

VT already had a stringent gun ban in place. In fact, it was so stringent that even the campus police were not permitted to carry guns with them! The only ones they had available were locked up at the police station.

Even a nationwide gun ban won't work since guns have been found in prison inmates' cells during shakedowns. If the authorities can't even keep guns out of the hands of people in a prison, how can they be kept out of an entire country?

School shootings in recent history, such as the one at the Appalachian Law School not too far from VT, have been stopped because a law-abiding citizen had access to a gun, and he used it to defend himself and the people around him. Sadly that wasn't an option at VT... and 32 students paid the price for being in a victim zone at the wrong time.

The American's claim they have the right to bear arms, well tell them to roll up their sleeves.

Making guns illegal means that only those who don't follow the law will have guns. If this kid was not able to purchase a gun, he would have made a bomb. Someone said they have no objection to qualified people having guns. I am a police officer, but I can tell you that in almost every state to carry a gun, you have to take a class, that makes you "qualified". 99.9% of the armed citizens out there are the kind of people that I fully expect would help me out if I were in trouble while on the job. Those who believe gun control is a good thing, have no understanding of what the gun owning community in our country is like. They may not be the same sort you socialize with, but 99.9% of them are good law abiding citizens. Letting some screwed up kid make our laws for us is ignorant.

More "blame the object, not the person".

Guns are no more responsible for the VT shootings than a car driven by a drunk driver is responsible for a vehicular homicide.

Does anyone really think that a person who's snapped and has decided to murder as many people as possible is going to be slowed down by the fact that a tool to do that has been labeled as "illegal"? No, they wont.

The Constitutional RIGHTS for the millions of law abiding Americans should not be infringed based on the isolated actions of the mentally imbalanced. It's simply an unacceptable trade off for false, very false security.

When the police can instantaneously appear at each and every crime minutes before it unfolds, to intervene in the behalf of the potential victims, we will no longer need to defend ourselves....but as we ALL know, that will never be possible.

The criminal wins if they succeeded in permanently disarming law abiding citizens based on the emotional hysteria that follows such a tragic event.

"If it bleeds, it leads" is the media's way. What you'll NEVER see reported are the millions and millions of law abiding Americans that responsibly own firearms in defense of themselves and their loved ones. Which makes the reaction to such horror at VT an emotional reaction in calling for the disarming of America. Emotional reactions are understandable....but do not expect THIS American to give up his right to protect himself because of an emotional response from those who have chosen to defer their own physical safety to others.

It is my right to be able to defend myself....and that is a right I will exercise if needed, with the tools afforded to my under the 2nd Amendment. Personal safety is the responsibility of the individual, not the State.

school was gun free zone-If concealed handgun carry was possible there would be no massacre. In cities where concealed carry is enacted crime goes down 30%-50%-we have unrestricted carry in vermont and are safest place to live in u.s

As an Assistant District Attorney in the USA, I can tell you with 100% certainty that the majority of gun crimes in my jurisdiction are caused by STOLEN guns or guns that are circulated in the criminal circles. This means that even if you banned guns, these same guns would still be out there and you'd give criminals the shot they want at raping and pilaging our society, since they'd know everyone is disarmed.

As an ADA, I'm afforded the right to carry a firearm full time in NY, which no one else can really do. I think this should change immediately! There's a good trend in other parts of the country where concealed carry laws have decreased violent crimes or the criminals are killed in the commission of their violent acts. Those states should be the model. Why should we be disarmed? Why should we rely on police who have no LEGAL DUTY to protect us??? When it comes down to it, you can only rely on yourself for protection.

If only one person were armed in VT (no gun zone), this tragedy might have ended with no or fewer deaths. But unfortunately, that's not the case, because our politicians think that younger people are irresponsible with guns. These same hypocrit politicians have security details and carry guns themselves. I say allow everyone to carry - it'll be the biggest deterent in the world against crime, since no one will know who has a gun and who doesn't.

But in the meantime, don't debate our Constitutionally protected right as if you have any stake in it. Your laws have already proven ineffective, don't afflict us with your sickness as if its the cure.

A coward is the man who refuses to defend himself. Never surrender your arms for it may be you who is lined up against a wall one day.

I am a police officer. We cannot be everywhere and people need to be prepared to defend themselves. Criminals won't follow any gun laws you pass. So allowing law abiding citizens to defend themselves is the true smart police and it also helps us, the police.

This sort of thing will continue to happen regardless of whether there's gun control or not, simply because the type of people who end up doing this sort of thing are usually the last kinds of people you would ever suspect capable of doing such a thing. You can't stop what you can't see and don't know, and you can't be everywhere at once all the time. Something happens and a person snaps: a can of gas or a machine gun - it just doesn't matter so long as there's a target and a plan. There's no way you can prevent it from happening, even with all the warning signs that were evident, and oh so compelling after the fact, in this case still nothing was done or could have been done. How many other mentally ill people are out there right now, all over north america and in every city, sitting on a slow fuse just waiting to go over the top? All those who blame the courts, the cops, the faculty, the health care system, could spare themselves the time and the trouble: people fall through the cracks all the time, and however they manage to do that a shoot 'em up usually always results. Forget it and move on: buy stock in gun companies and funeral parlours, sit back and watch the show on TV. People are going to die anyway so why fuss? Besides, it's far easier than actually trying to do something isn't it? Cheaper too: our taxes don't go up and that's the important thing. Build more prisons! Arm everybody! Cancel democracy! Deus lo volt!

It's insane. Congress won't even let people sue gun makers. Merchants of death are untouchable.

America is a violent nation, more so than any other nation in the world. Billions are spent annually by the gun manufacturers and the military industrial complex on killing people at home and abroad. Gun culture in America is so deeply rooted and protected that it will most likely never change. It is sad to think that gun sales in America probably skyrocketed in the days following this tragedy, no doubt a byproduct of the lawlessness and hopelessness and perpetual fear Americans live in. Again, have I mentioned this is all very sad. Debating gun control is pointless unless there is a shift in the American culture away from their strong desire to arm themselves with any and all possible justification.

Regulating personal arms
isn't one of the powers delegated
to the Federal Government.

(see the Federalist Papers)
(see article 1. section 8. U.S. Constitution)

"Make the sale and production of guns illegal." Wow, what a wonderful solution. Then I guess all of the guns of the world will disappear and there will no longer be murder; because there was no murder before the gun was invented. Why didn't I think of that?

I wonder why these twisted people always attack the weak and defenseless(schools)instead of those that can defend themselves with equal force,like police stations.As sick as they are, they are not stupid.

If you ban guns, do you really think criminals will turn theirs in? Are you that naive to think they will not seek to obtain them anyway? Again the cry returns to punish law abiding citizens and give a further edge to criminals. Did you ever stop to think that if the courts were not so leniant, better than half the criminals would'nt be on the streets to start with? Let the police do their job. Untie their hands and this alone will make a great improvement. If this fellow was dealt with accordingly for stalking and harrassment, and a possible arson case, he probably would not have been in the position to do what he did.
Oh, and bye the way, loading more cartridges into a magazine does in no way make the gun fire any faster. A tad misleading, I might add. Lowering the number of cartridges in a magazine is nothing more than a weak attempt to gain political points. It's not going to make any difference if the guys carrying 10 loaded magazines. It only takes a second to reload a new mag.
Now farmers are the root of the illegal gun trade? How Laughable.

In response to the arguments that gun control is impractical, expensive, unrealistic, uneeded, and will do more harm than good.

It used to be legal in the United States (and many other countries including Canada) to own people as slaves, to beat your wife or children, or to take property from less powerful ethnic groups. There are now laws against these things. For many people born in the last fourty years it is hard to believe that such things were ever seen as "normal".

Statistically the person most likely to kill you is someone you know, normally your spouse. Firearms have been postively correlated to increased risk of homicide in regards to incidents of domestic violence. So getting rid of guns might not prevent criminals from having guns; but then criminals are the only people who have them. Change in our society happens when enough people will it to, when enough people are willing to see the world as it could be rather than accepting it as it is now.

Canada's homicide rate would be even lower if gun-running organized criminals were deprived marijuana revenues and NARCs converted to fighting violent crimes....

Why is it that we focus on the method of the attack instead of the cause? It is clear that this was a troubled individual with the intent to injure innocents. If he did not have access to a firearm, what would have stopped him from manufacturing a pipe bomb? The cause of this incident is Cho Seung-Hui, not gun control laws.

Some of the comments crack me up.

First off we have the 2nd ammendment. This gives us the right to have a gun.

I have 5 guns. Three are handguns (a .22 and 2 9mm's) and 2 rifles. I have thousands of rounds of ammunition and have never killed anyone. In my large family we all have guns. We have many of the cousins with advanced degrees and most have excellent and well paying jobs.

None of them are in prison for any crimes and none have criminal records.

Everyone focuses on the highly publicized incidents.

Why don't you talk about the drunk drivers who kill far more people than firearms? Or let's discuss doctors who kill more people (9000 times) with medical mistakes.

You have your facts wrong and it is obvious that you know nothing about guns.

You say "In fact, restrictions on certain weapons have actually been relaxed."

This is true. But none of the weapons that laws were relaxed on were used in the Virgina Tech massacre.

You say "Then in 2004, the assault weapons ban enacted by the Bill Clinton administration expired. That expiration included the ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines, which allow as many as 33 cartridges to be loaded at a time to allow more rapid fire. The pistols used in Norris Hall had those high-capacity clips, which greatly increased Cho Seung-Hui's firepower."

High capacity mags have always been around. The Clinton ban did nothing to stop them. While they couldn't be imported or manufactured there were millions of them already out there. Clinton actually increased the number of weapons out there as many people thought that their right to buy weapons was coming to an end. He is responsible for the largest increase in firearm ownership in US history.

The so called assault weapons ban Clinton passed was the cause of the Democrats defeat the following election as the Republicans swept Congress from the Democrats. It was the voters who made that decision not Congress. Since Congress (the opposite of Progress) has some responsibility to the voters they have learned that the people don't want them to mess with guns.

Currently many of the elected Democrats were elected on a pro gun platform. If it wasn't for that stand they would not have regained the Congress (the opposite of Progress). Democrat leaders have been told by these pro gun Senators and Representatives to stay away from gun control unless they want a split in the party.

As anyone with any common sense will tell you that gun control laws only affect those that respect laws. Criminals ignore laws which is the definition of a criminal.

Do you think that Klebold and Harris would have changed their minds if there was a law prohibiting guns on school grounds? These guys were going to kill people so a minor law prohibiting guns on a campus would not even slow them down.

Since Bush has been in office he has pressed the issue enforcing the 1400+ federal gun laws on the books already. As a Paramedic I have seen a significant decrease in shootings while I have seen a significant increase in stabbings. Police friends have been telling me that if they catch someone with an illegal firearm they turn it over to the feds. Criminals know this and avoid firearms in favor of knives.

FBI statistics for last year show one of the lowest intentional firearm death in decades. It follows a downward trend that has been going on for a decade.

This one incident, while tragic, is not about gun control. It is about a lunatic that should have been treated in a mental institution.

I have never see a gun kill anyone. Usually it is attached to a human who makes a decision to use the gun for legal or illegal purposes.

God did not make men equal, Samuel Colt did. Socialism seeks to control it's subjects through any means necessary. Including making them sheep.

"Adam Peters, how foolish. How many Dawson College incidents have we had in Canada? Not very many!"

Have you looked at the timeline? on the front page? Ecole Polytechnique, St. Pius?

Now multiply that by ten given the fact they have a population ten times the size of ours. Get off your high horse. We have no right to cast the first stone.

"So because it happens on very rare occasions we should all arm ourselves?"

If someone has completed numerous background checks and training, sure. Police carry guns and are qualified. I have no objection to qualified people carrying firearms.

"Handguns serve one purpose, to hunt humans."

Or IPSC and Competition shooting, or target shooting or wildlife guide protection....but sure.

"Hunting humans is called murder and it is also illegal."

Let's ban handguns, because the ban on killing people isn't working!

"It makes no sense to me, but neither are a lot of things Americans do."

GO back to your hole. The blatant Anti-Americanism is making me gag.

Adam Peters, how foolish. How many Dawson College incidents have we had in Canada? Not very many!
So because it happens on very rare occasions we should all arm ourselves?
That seems to be the philosophy that most Americans have, and look at the state they are in.
Handguns serve one purpose, to hunt humans. Hunting humans is called murder and it is also illegal. Therefore, handguns should be illegal.
The US has developed a 'Gun Culture' so this probably won't happen anytime soon. They are shocked and saddened by events like the one at Virginia-Tech, but if losing their handguns will prevent those types of massacres, they'd prefer to deal with the massacres.
It makes no sense to me, but neither are a lot of things Americans do.

Ban all guns? Anyone who believes that will ever happen is dreaming, because criminals and nutjobs will be the only ones armed. The only people who obey gun laws are the harmless law abiding types, the rest will ALWAYS have or be able to get weapons.
One person with the proper training and a concealed carry permit could have saved a lot of lives by dropping that freak with one well placed shot.Thanks to the stupid university rule about no guns on campus the only one armed was this wacko.

Ahh, I see the pompous, self righteous Canadians are out in full force.

History has taught us that gun bans only flourish the illegal arms market.

Buying a gun is a suspicious sign? I buy and sell guns on a regular basis as per legal requirements. I even take them to the range every now and then. Real suspicious activities I tell you! You should come out of your hole more often and explore things outside of your narrow viewpoints.

Yes, a registry would have prevented this mess just like it prevented Gill from marching into Dawson College.

It's only human nature to question why such an atrocity like this could occur primarily due to the fact we're backed with a false sense of security that there's always a system in place to prevent these things.

Take March , 1990 for example at the Happy Land social Club. One man, one gallon of gasoline and one match. Eighty seven poor sould dead. Mass murder can be achieved with more than just guns.

The bias in this article has me disgruntled in a way as I'm getting vibes it's no more than a cheap attempt to score cheap political points giving our current registry undeserved merit.

While I'm certainly not opposed to a moderate amount of gun control, you cannot legislate insanity.

We can blame guns, police response and people for not noticing his erratic behaviors and taking action sooner or we could come to accept that there will always be those who slip through the cracks and commit these atrocities.

Canadian law requires gun owners to go through a rigorous licensing and registration process, but that did nothing to prevent the shooting at Dawson College. What has proven effective is allowing armed citizens to protect themselves, such as when the principal in Pearl, MS drew a pistol and halted a gunman at his school ten years ago. It's time for universities in this state to stop banning weapons on campus and let people protect themselves.

How profoundly naive.

I used to think that banning guns was the answer, but that is difficult to enforce. This recent tragedy convinced me that the easiest approach is to make the manufacture and selling of guns illegal. We have to get the guns off the street and out of people's hands. Is this so difficult to understand?

I think what we need to think about is less about gun laws and more about the culture behind all this. What I mean is this, lets look at the reason people feel the need to own guns. The thing is why do we need guns for protection. Against a wild animal? OK, I agree 100% there, the world is not tame and you can't teach all animals to not harm humans, that would be a silly thought. BUT, when you say you need a gun to protect yourself from other humans, thats where we have a problem. I am speaking solely to the average human being living in a generally peaceful area. Why do you need a gun? The issue we need to look at is not how to arm ourselves for protection, but change our culture so that we don't need to protect ourselves. The debate about whether or not you should be able to carry a gun in public, concealed, should not even occur. I think just saying "oh well guns are out there, so I should be able to have mine for protection" is a cynical way of looking at it.

I think we need to devote more energy towards changing the way people think than trying to just protect ourselves. Its the difference between being responsive and proactive. Yes you can carry a gun and take out a bad guy before he hurts too many people, but thats still just responsive. If we can instead learn how to address these issues and get people to see that violent crimes need not be commited, thats proactive.

In my mind there should be no firearm debate. firearms should be there for whatever good purpose they serve, but it is not even questioned about when turned on people. We need to change our thinking, not our laws.

This horrible event will hopefully promote a more negative view of guns in the US, particularly hand guns. My question is why the debate over gun control in the US is not approached in steps, focusing on handguns first? If the US government can't push through laws to ban handguns, then couldn't they impose a 50kg minimum weight for all guns for 'safety' reasons?

Thank you for the column, Henry. Now pack your stuff and come on home. You are reporting from the Land of Lunatics, and it isn't getting any better. There is some kind of huge hole in the American mind when it comes to guns and violence. The rest of the world, except for some unmentioned zanies in the Middle East, just don't see the need for everybody having this huge firepower. Guns DO kill people...that's what they're for. Mass murder is very difficult if the aggressor only has a knife, a spear, or a pointed stick. We are watching a once-great nation commit hari-kiri.

These shootings, and all others are tragic.

Tighter restrictions on guns might help, but aren't the solution. How about we focus on helping the troubled people, and also focus on not letting lunatics get their hands on weapons.

You can pass all the laws you want for gun control and it's not going to prevent the nutbags from still getting their hands on a firearm. Canada spends billions on gun control and you can still get a gun on any local corner in downtown Toronto. Virgina Tech is a gun free zone, and it's just this attitude that attracts the nutbags to come and kill as many as they can without any fear that they will be killed before completing their deadly deed. If just one (qualified) person in the area had been carrying a concealed weapon (that they had a permit for) then I doubt very much we'd be sitting here talking about 33 innocent Americans being slaughtered.

"We won't sell a gun if we have any idea at all that a purchase is suspicious." That quote just stopped me. I cannot imagine living in a culture where the purchase of a handgun (in this case a Glock 19 with 50 rounds of ammunition) is not, in itself, suspicious. What a strange and scary reality these people live in, and perpetuate. The bizarre, self-righteous dependency the States have on weaponry is so sad and deluded. I can't see how they will ever acknowledge or end it. My heart goes out to the victims of this national crime - they are living in a nightmare.

gun control?

What are our police forces gonna do, frisk all would-be crminals on the street?

What do they look like?