Finding ways to protect people from guns

Anna Neil
Published: May 23, 2008

In that article, “Are we able to stop campus killers?” (April 13), Lt. Gen. Bruce M. Lawlor said “two things have to be focused on:  One is communication and the second is behavior.” 

Although these are important, I also think that amidst all the questions that have been raised after the Virginia Tech massacre, the most puzzling and chilling of all concerns Cho Seung-Hui’s history of mental illness. Why was a young man who was labeled as presenting “an imminent danger to himself or others as a result of mental illness” by a Virginia judge in December 2005 still allowed to legally purchase two handguns?

And this happened in the two-month span before he took the lives of 32 people? The answer, at least in a legal sense, is a disconnect between federal and Virginia law, a loophole that Cho was able to exploit. 

While the federal government would have banned Cho from purchasing the two handguns given his documented mental health history, Virginia only enforces such limitations if a person is involuntarily committed to a mental institute. 

Cho was spared such a sentence and his illness did not show up on background checks conducted by gun deals.

Eight years removed from the shootings at Columbine High School, the debate on gun control and violence in American appears to have come full circle. 

The presence of advance weaponry guns whose primary purpose is to kill as rapidly and as lethally as possible is extremely troubling. After all, does anyone really need a machine gun or automatic pistol to hunt or protect themselves? 

Changing the accessibility of such weapons, as well as implementing common-sense safety features like child locks and investing in other safety technology, would represent more important steps in protecting the people of this country.

ANNA NEIL

Manassas