Arms laws made mass attack easy for shooter
Massacre at Virginia Tech could have been stopped with restrictive legislation
Issue date: 4/24/07 Section: Viewpoints
- Page 1 of 1
|
Now that the tragedy has occurred, we can evaluate the startling evidence and point fingers all we want, but it will not change the damage that has already happened.
For things to be changed, something terrible has to happen to our country. The Sept. 11,2001 attacks had to happen for us to realize that we are not invincible, and just like everyone else, are targets for attack. An angry and deranged student had to go on a killing spree that is officially recorded as the worst gun-related massacre in U.S. history for legislators to stop and think, "Hmm. Maybe we need to pay a little more attention to who we sell deadly weapons to."
According to the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, the number of deaths caused by firearms in the United States is more than in Canada, Japan, Switzerland, Scotland, England and Whales combined. All of these countries have very strict gun laws, and all get along just fine without their citizens having a pistol in their bedside drawer. No one in these countries really needs to worry about having someone hold them at gunpoint, because it hardly ever happens.
In England, the police do not even carry guns - they get by with a nightstick and a heavy flashlight. The guns are just not a necessity.
I understand this may seem a bit extreme to residents of our gun-friendly country. I also realize that the United States is considerably larger than these countries, but regardless, the fact still remains that the people in these countries function just fine without guns.
The fact also remains that if we had stricter laws regarding firearms, Seung-Hui Cho would not have been able to commit the violent crime that cost America the lives of 32 bright and upcoming individuals; people who were somebody's brother, sister, fiancée and best friend.
Who knows what this man may have done differently if he had not had access to a gun. He may still have killed, but the thought of him killing that many people that quickly would have been virtually impossible.
2008 Woodie Awards

Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 10
Matt Nevala
posted 4/24/07 @ 12:46 AM EST
Zero tolerance, huh? Gun-free zones, huh? Try this on for size: Columbine gun-free zone, New York City pizza shop gun-free zone, Luby's Cafeteria gun-free zone, Amish school in Pennsylvania gun-free zone and now Virginia Tech gun-free zone. (Continued…)
AJ
posted 4/24/07 @ 8:30 AM EST
I hate it when people who have never actually touched a firearm believe their thoughts on them are worth hearing. Arms are the mark of free men; Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao, and all the other gun-grabbing tyrants of the 20th Century surely would have agreed with your appeal to emotion to disarm the citizenry. (Continued…)
Amber
posted 4/24/07 @ 9:20 AM EST
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288
Most people thought it would never work, but 25 years without murder in "gun town USA" speaks volumes. (Continued…)
Jarrett Calder
posted 4/24/07 @ 10:16 AM EST
I find it funny that people with supposedly "progressive" beliefs want to do away with the people's last defense against tyranny, both from the state and from other individuals. (Continued…)
Marcia Cross
posted 4/24/07 @ 11:05 AM EST
Actually, you need to remove Switzerland from your list of c=Countries with strict gun laws. Switzerland has more than 2 million guns for a population of about 5 million. (Continued…)
Mary
posted 4/24/07 @ 1:32 PM EST
In situations like these, it's alot easier to look at the "how" instead of the why. However, if you look at the why, there's a common thread. Many of the HS shootings, including and since Columbine, have all come from kids who felt detatched, unliked, and like an outsider. (Continued…)
Bob Jackman
posted 4/24/07 @ 5:26 PM EST
Washington D.C. has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Oh by the way it is also the murder capital of the United States. Do you even do research before you open your bimbo mouth?
Kev
posted 4/24/07 @ 6:07 PM EST
Did you know there is a federal law that should have kept him from buying a gun but since Virgina did not consider him to have behavorial problems he was allowed to purchase the gun. (Continued…)
Steve Beardman
posted 4/24/07 @ 6:28 PM EST
The whole "to gun or not to gun" issue aside, Virginia law in place allowed Cho to buy guns even though his mental problems had been determined by a judge. (Continued…)
Terrence Corcoran
posted 4/24/07 @ 6:42 PM EST
May I suggest a viewing of the movie "Hotel Rwanda"? This is what happens when the civilian population is disarmed by their government--the hooligan factor takes over. (Continued…)
Post a Comment