Spring Break
Gunning For A Repeat
Virginia Tech review panel leaves us questions, not answers
Antonio Ciaccia
Issue date: 9/19/07 Section: Commentary
- Page 1 of 2 next >
|
The review panel, composed of state-appointed officials, spent considerable time in their report highlighting the egregious errors made in the lack of communication between school officials, counselors, and faculty. In fact, it was found that students and faculty were not made aware of the shootings until hours after Cho's first attack. After this, the panel focused their attention to other aspects of the shooting, and their ensuing recommendations leave many scratching their heads.
The panel's findings contained a chapter entitled "Gun Purchase and Campus Policies" discussed Cho's access to the murder weapons, Virginia Tech's gun policies, self-defense issues, and gun regulations - each analysis more perplexing than the next.
At the beginning of the chapter, the panel highlighted how Cho came into possession of his firearms. Cho, who was legally recognized as mentally ill, purchased two handguns. The first, a Walther P22 .22 caliber pistol was purchased over the internet on February 9th. The second was a Glock 19 9mm pistol purchased locally on March 13th. Due to his mental history, federal law should have prohibited him from making those purchases. However, even after his background check, he was still cleared to purchase both weapons. As per President Bill Clinton's Brady Bill, Cho waited 30 days to receive both of his pistols.
Neither the background check nor the 30-day waiting period was effective in prohibiting Cho's premeditated genocide. Furthermore, in the panel's recommendations section, they suggest that loopholes that exist at gun shows, where back ground checks are not strictly enforced, should be closed. While this seems like a somewhat reasonable request, it bears no relevance to the Virginia Tech shooting, where Cho obtained all of his weaponry through conventional channels.
Both guns were semiautomatic weapons, which meant that one bullet could be fired with an automatic reload each time the trigger was pulled. Cho had 15-round magazines for each of the guns. The panel discussed the federal Assault Weapons Act of 1994 that banned clips or magazines with over 10 rounds. They concluded that the larger magazines that Cho used had little to do with the high death toll, and "that 10-round magazines that [used to be] legal would have not made much difference in the incident. Even pistols with rapid loaders could have been about as deadly in this situation"
Be the first to comment on this story