Finding ways to protect people from guns
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
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
Page 1 of 1
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( robertf864 ) on May 28, 2008 at 10:53 am
I wasn’t aware that Cho had a machine gun, or that a child safety lock would have deterred a college student. The news reports must have overlooked those little factoids. Probably Karl Rove’s fault.
The preferred solution to the so-called gun problem, of course, for Liberals and their soft hearted enablers, is to impose more and more restrictions on people who are not the source of the problem, in this case responsible gun owners. That is because doing something, anything, no matter how useless and ineffective, is relatively easy to do, causes them no personal inconvenience and makes them feel better about themselves. The fact that making it more difficult for me and any other responsible citizen to protect ourselves and our families and property does not deter the sick, maladjusted or antisocial means nothing to them. Most know nothing about firearms, which is why I’ve always been surprised by COL Jacobsen’s anti-gun owner positions, at least for the common people. Surely he knows better, though I’m not sure about Ms Neil. If the debate were really about “common sense measures” to protect lives, we’d be talking about banning ownership of swimming pools, bicycles, red sports cars and kayaks (by civilians, of course). But I have lost interest in the idiotic argument that because some deranged wacko shoots up a school, the response is to impose more restrictions on me. No thanks.
Why don’t the would-be gun controllers suggest we also disarm the FBI, Secret Service, park rangers, city/county/state police forces and all the various and sundry private security officers - why would they need guns, after all, if we have gun control laws?
Report Inappropriate Comment