Gunning For A Repeat
Virginia Tech review panel leaves us questions, not answers
Antonio Ciaccia
Issue date: 9/19/07 Section: Commentary
- < prev Page 2 of 2
Yet later in the report, the panel somewhat contradicted itself saying, "Having the ammunition in large capacity magazines facilitated his killing spree." Well, Virginia Tech, which is it?
Next the panel dove into the gun policies at Virginia Tech stating that, "Virginia Tech has one of the tougher policy constraints for possessing guns on campus among schools in Virginia." In fact, with approval from the state Attorney General's Office, Virginia Tech had totally banned guns from campus before and at the time of the shooting. The complete ban of firearms happened years ago, when someone discovered a student carrying a concealed weapon during a first aid drill.
That student, now a Virginia Tech graduate with a master's degree in engineering, stated to the panel that he started carrying a weapon after witnessing several assaults and hearing about other crimes on the Virginia Tech campus. He and other students told the panel that, "they felt it was safer for responsible people to be armed so they could fight back in exactly the type of situation that occurred on April 16. They might have been able to shoot back and protect themselves and others from being injured or killed by Cho."
The panel seemed skeptical that more guns on campus would solve the problem, but the students provided the panel with statistics showing that overall there are fewer killings in environments where people can carry weapons for self-defense. The panel retorted by saying that, "campus police said that the probability would have been high that anyone emerging from a classroom at Norris Hall holding a gun would have been shot." This seems like a trivial point considering anyone emerging from a classroom at Norris Hall on April 16 already had a high probability of being shot.
Perhaps the most glaring error made in the report was the panel's section regarding other school shootings. According to the report, "the panel knows of no case in which a shooter in campus homicides has been shot or scared off by a student or faculty member with a weapon." The panel failed to check perhaps the closest source for one such case - their own report's appendix. In that section, the panel cites the 2002 incident at Appalachian School of Law, where three students, two of which who were armed, confronted and restrained a fellow student who had already murdered three people on campus.
This major contradiction, along with other problems within the panel's report is what leaves many people confused, and rightly so. It is understandable that the panel seemed hesitant to loosen gun regulations on college campuses. Yet, the truth is that all of the gun laws and all of the gun legislation didn't stop Seung-Hui Cho. The concerns over his magazine capacity and Virginia Tech's gun rules seem absurd once he was dead-set on going on a killing spree. Cho waited his 30 days and underwent his background check. Had he hit a roadblock with either of these laws, it can be reasonably assumed that he could have obtained a gun illegally. And when it came time for Cho to do his worst, all of the laws in the books weren't going stopping him. They only stopped those who could have stopped him.
Next the panel dove into the gun policies at Virginia Tech stating that, "Virginia Tech has one of the tougher policy constraints for possessing guns on campus among schools in Virginia." In fact, with approval from the state Attorney General's Office, Virginia Tech had totally banned guns from campus before and at the time of the shooting. The complete ban of firearms happened years ago, when someone discovered a student carrying a concealed weapon during a first aid drill.
That student, now a Virginia Tech graduate with a master's degree in engineering, stated to the panel that he started carrying a weapon after witnessing several assaults and hearing about other crimes on the Virginia Tech campus. He and other students told the panel that, "they felt it was safer for responsible people to be armed so they could fight back in exactly the type of situation that occurred on April 16. They might have been able to shoot back and protect themselves and others from being injured or killed by Cho."
The panel seemed skeptical that more guns on campus would solve the problem, but the students provided the panel with statistics showing that overall there are fewer killings in environments where people can carry weapons for self-defense. The panel retorted by saying that, "campus police said that the probability would have been high that anyone emerging from a classroom at Norris Hall holding a gun would have been shot." This seems like a trivial point considering anyone emerging from a classroom at Norris Hall on April 16 already had a high probability of being shot.
Perhaps the most glaring error made in the report was the panel's section regarding other school shootings. According to the report, "the panel knows of no case in which a shooter in campus homicides has been shot or scared off by a student or faculty member with a weapon." The panel failed to check perhaps the closest source for one such case - their own report's appendix. In that section, the panel cites the 2002 incident at Appalachian School of Law, where three students, two of which who were armed, confronted and restrained a fellow student who had already murdered three people on campus.
This major contradiction, along with other problems within the panel's report is what leaves many people confused, and rightly so. It is understandable that the panel seemed hesitant to loosen gun regulations on college campuses. Yet, the truth is that all of the gun laws and all of the gun legislation didn't stop Seung-Hui Cho. The concerns over his magazine capacity and Virginia Tech's gun rules seem absurd once he was dead-set on going on a killing spree. Cho waited his 30 days and underwent his background check. Had he hit a roadblock with either of these laws, it can be reasonably assumed that he could have obtained a gun illegally. And when it came time for Cho to do his worst, all of the laws in the books weren't going stopping him. They only stopped those who could have stopped him.
Be the first to comment on this story