BLACKSBURG, VA – Seventy-five guns sit in a weapons storage facility at the Virginia Tech police station. The guns are secured inside storage compartments in a locked room slightly larger than a walk-in closet. University policy requires students and employees, other than police, to check their guns there. If they want to take them off campus, they have to sign them out, and a university police officer must retrieve them. Regardless of whatever permits they may have, those students and employees are not allowed to possess guns on campus.

In what already is the nation’s worst campus shooting, a man identified as a young American male killed at least 32 people and wounded 15 at Virginia Tech today.

Jan 26, 2006

The issue of guns on campus received attention at Virginia Tech in 2005 when a student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit.

The intent of Virginia HB 1572 was to allow students with concealed weapons permits to be able to carry their gun with them on campus just like they can anywhere else in the state. But officials at colleges throughout the state argued that school isn’t just another place, and guns are anathema to a learning environment that should be free of fear or intimidation.

“We do believe (HB 1572) has grave implications,” he said. “Why would the General Assembly wish to legislate to make campuses unsafe (with guns)?”

April 16, 2007

Junior David Jenkins told Fox News he heard screaming in his dorm inside West Ambler Johnston residence hall Monday morning, but didn’t know what it was.

“From what I heard, he chained up some of the doors so people couldn’t get in and he basically was just going to every classroom trying to get in, and just started shooting inside classrooms,” Jenkins said.

Virginia Tech President Charles Steger said, “Today the university was struck with a tragedy that we consider of monumental proportions. The university is shocked and horrified that this would befall our campus. I cannot begin to convey my own personal sense of loss over this senseless of such an incomprehensible and heinous act.”

It wasn’t clear whether President Steger was referring to the senseless, incomprehensible, or heinous acts of the gunman who slaughtered and maimed dozens of students or those, including himself, who provided the environment for gunman to do so. Had armed students been in those classrooms, the gunman would have been taken down much earlier and America would be hailing the heroes who stopped him.

It isn’t the gangs, criminals, or deranged gunmen we must fear, but rather the Democrats who accommodate such individuals. And I’m not sure what the big deal is anyway: Gun control policies result in inner-city mayhem hundreds of times each day, so why should we cry about students who attend universities that invite this terror?

Students should get extra credit for surviving this lesson on our Second Amendment, and the forces that eroded it.

Today, a lone gunman killed more than 30 young men and women. The wrath of millions of Americans should be directed upon the political party, legislature, and university administrators that made it possible. Hundreds more will die tomorrow at the hands of armed gunmen who prey on disarmed Americans.

1. [...] Original post by reenforce and software by Elliott Back [...]

   Pingback by Another Gun Control Tragedy at Conservative Times--Republican GOP news source. — April 16, 2007 @ 3:29 pm

2. Deadly Shooting Rampage At Virginia Tech…

   Shootings at a dorm and classroom on the Virginia Tech campus left at least one person dead and one …

   Trackback by Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator — April 16, 2007 @ 5:27 pm

1. Over four years ago, a white man killed Laci Peterson.

   How many people would support laws controlling white men, such as requiring them to live in barbed-wire enclosed hostels, forbidding them to leave unsupervised or without permission, and supervising all visits with outsiders?

   If such laws were in place in November of 2002, Laci Peterson would be alive today.

   A lot of people who call for stricter gun control laws would support laws similar to the one I described above - except that it would be enforced against people who fail the paperbag test.

   Comment by Michael Ejercito — April 16, 2007 @ 7:33 pm

2. With all due respect I find debating the gun issue from either side so soon after the trafedy to be in very bad taste

   Comment by Tom — April 16, 2007 @ 8:44 pm

3. Au contraire; we should require everyone to carry guns. Even little children… I mean, if you knew the room was packed with pistol-totin’ third graders, you’d think about before barging in and opening a book, let alone firing a gun! Imagine the savings on education, healthcare and social services if we just had more people killing each other, more often.

   Coursework could include: shoot first and ask questions later; how to buy a gun without so much as a drivers’ license; and my favorite, Vigils in the Making: What to Wear, What to Say and How to Act.

   And just to add icing to the cake, the NRA is holding its annual meeting! What timing!

   Comment by Zachary — April 16, 2007 @ 10:14 pm

4. So do I Tom, but standby, we both know its coming.

   Comment by T. A. Gray — April 16, 2007 @ 11:50 pm

5. Using a gun tragedy for political point scoring. Shame on you

   Comment by simon — April 17, 2007 @ 2:16 am

6. So, what’s an appropriate time of mourning before the subject is breeched? A week? A month? Until another wacko takes up arms at Notre Dame in June after failing his classes?

   The subject is being discussed now specifically because of the event, but people like Lars Larson bring it up frequently and no one seems to care then.

   So, right now it’s not the proper time, and when things calm down who cares? If the only time people will discuss the issue is after a tragedy, then after the tragedy is the proper time…

   Comment by Carlos — April 17, 2007 @ 7:42 am

7. Scoring political points? Thirty kids are shot needlessly and all you can think about is political points? This is not football, but thank you for identifying yourselves as part of the problem.

   As a cop who spent years in LA’s bloody alleys and housing projects, I’ve seen the terrible effects of gun control first hand. I’ve held kids as they died in my arms. My essay is not about “scoring political points.” Virginia Tech proves that gun control cannot prevent violent acts, while lawfully concealed guns have prevented hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of violent acts.

   Remember the Salt Lake City shooting a few months ago? One armed off-duty cop prevented dozens of killings, holding off the gunman until police arrived. America has millions of military active, reserve, and veterans, who are trained to carry weapons. Millions more were trained privately. One armed student or teacher could have prevented this bloodbath, and Democrats made it illegal for them to do so.

   Virginia Tech’s gunman killed dozens of unarmed students, but the blood is written exclusively with Democrat hands. This is not politics - this is reality.

   What is it about reality that Democrats don’t get?

   Comment by reenforce — April 17, 2007 @ 9:18 am

8. Most of it “reenforce”.

   Comment by T. A. Gray — April 17, 2007 @ 2:39 pm

9. A gun is a gun.
   A man is a man.
   So where were the men while this little freak systematically executed people.
   Our society is raising bizare unisex children wherein the warrior mentallity is sanctioned. Richard Poe wrote an perfect Epilogue, “The End of Manhood” in the book The Seven Myths of Gun Control, which directly adresses the antimale agenda in America that is shredding our social fabric beyond repair.

   Who, among men, would stand by and let a murderous rampage of any kind continue?

   I know a lot bout firearms and ballistics.
   A .22 and 9mm are nothing when lives are on the line.

   The men ran away and left others to die.
   The men did not fight.

   This is not a gun issue.
   It is literally an issue of Manhood.
   I say that with no reservation,
   for I know myself to be a rare male
   who would have violently confronted the
   threat.

   Mike Gruber

   Comment by Mike Gruber — April 18, 2007 @ 12:20 am

10. Of course this is political. From the first tag (”Liberals”) to “the wrath of millions should be directed upon the political party…” this shrill piece reeks of the worst kind of political hackery. And who among us didn’t know this was minutes, if not seconds, away from the major blogging point of the day week?

    Nevertheless, our culture gets what it deserves. When we allow anyone to have a gun, you’ll end up with everyone having guns. And then we’re back to the Stone Age, only killing each other with greater speed, precision and frequency than was available when the only tools were sticks and stones. Does it not bother anyone else that this kid bought a Glock on the internet and had it delivered to a pawn shop across the street?

    The NRA has won, and we’re all the losers. You can look forward to this story repeating itself, ad infinitum, for the foreseeable future.

    Comment by Zachary — April 18, 2007 @ 11:12 pm

11. Zach,
    Wow.
    So let me get this straight.
    After we won our Independence from England we should have thrown all the guns into the sea.
    After WWI we should have thrown all our guns into the tar pits.
    After saving the modern world in WWII we should have melted our guns into jewelry.
    I can’t even imagine the fantacy world you think is even possible.

    The NRA has not won…it has surrvived!
    The Gun, and it’s role in history, has created the very democracy you live in.
    Look around you Zach. Your day-in and day-out freedoms are exist because we are a “Superpower”, with a massive arsenal at the ready to protect it.
    Go get a Latte’ and call it a day.

    Comment by Mike Gruber — April 19, 2007 @ 1:01 am

12. Zach… Had one licensed Virginia Tech student or teacher possessed one firearm during the shooting, thirty unarmed students would not have been slaughtered. Having investigated manslaughter many times, it’s clear that someone who intends to kill will kill regardless of whether he can acquire a gun, a car, or a shovel. Murderers murder because of INTENT, not because they can buy a gun. Note that this event did not occur at Virginia Tech until AFTER gun control was imposed on students. Had students not been forced to turn in their seventy-five legally-possessed handguns to campus police, they might have prevented the massacre.

    John Lott has written extensively on the stupidity of gun control. Career cops like me who investigate violent crime know how valuable a firearm can be in the protection of life. You’ll also find examples of how firearms regularly protect life at THIS SITE. The media clearly sides with the anti-gun crowd, which is why the gore and mayhem from shootings reaches page one, while the millions of lives saved are almost never mentioned. From Iraq to Compton, the media celebrates violence and ignores peace.

    Personally, guns bore me. I got tired of shooting and cleaning them while in the Marine Corps. But I also saw personally how guns save lives and prevent crime. Gun control should prevent felons, crazies, and incompetents from carrying or possessing firearms, but it should not prevent good citizens from carrying them if they choose to. And as it has been throughout US history, those of us who carry firearms will continue to make our country safe for those who choose not to carry.

    And since liberals think that mothers have the right to choose death for their babies, I don’t know why they would oppose mothers who choose to carry firearms.

    Comment by reenforce — April 19, 2007 @ 9:40 am

13. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Where, in the Second Amendment, does it say ANYTHING about letting the mentally incompetent obtain handguns?

    Where does it say ANYTHING about buying a handgun on the Internet and having it shipped to a pawn shop, where ANYONE can stop by and pick it up?

    Where does it say that gun shows are exempt from background checks, even, in the case of Virginia, exempt from providing picture ID?

    Finally, where does it say that guns should be taken away from the military?

    The NRA has won because it has made it so easy to obtain semi-automatic guns — that means these guns can fire up to 100 rounds per second — by anyone, almost anywhere.

    The NRA has won because it has convinced the American people that it has the right to own handguns and automatic rifles.

    The NRA has won because it has twisted and perverted the Second Amendment, as though the language did not include the phrase “A well regulated Militia…” which has, over the years, been misinterpreted to mean that anyone, anywhere and for any reason, the right to own a gun. In fact, using the arguement that the NRA supposes, you’d think that there was no military, no police, or no law enforcement of any kind.

    The NRA has won becuase middle American would rather sacrifice their children than face up to an obvious fact: guns meant to kill people enable the people who want to kill to in fact kill as fast as they can, potentially, up to 100 people per second.

    I’m not talking about the Military, nor hunters, having to give up their guns. With a long family history of military service, for anyone to lecture me about the role that guns have played in our history is, frankly, insulting. I can say with a great deal of confidence that my great Uncles who were killed in France and the South Pacific during WWII did not die so that Cho Seung-Hui could buy a .22 and a .9mm handgun and kill 32 classmates and teachers.

    In fact, based on stories that my grandmother told me as a little boy, I would suspect that my Uncles would have told you this arguement was and is utter nonsense.

    So, keep supporting the Cho Seung-Hui’s in this world, and keep donating to the NRA, and keep spewing this offensive line of reasoning. But remember, as I said, we get what we deserve, and you and your children are out there in this society, as vulnerable as 32 Virginians were on Monday morning.

    Comment by Zachary — April 19, 2007 @ 3:57 pm

14. Ease up on the Koolaid, Zach:

    You can rail against reason and history all you want, but the fact is that had one of the victims been trained and armed, the gunman would’ve had a tougher time killing so many. Had the suspect been shot, his injuries might have saved his life.

    Get a grip on reality. Did you read any of the entries I posted earlier? Doesn’t my experience and expertise in this area merit your curiosity?

    I’m not a member of NRA and as I posted earlier, I personally don’t like guns. But reality is hard to avoid: Had V-Tech not disarmed students who are qualified to carry concealed weapons, the bloodbath might have been averted. The reality is that V-Tech’s gun control guaranteed that their students were defenseless.

    Show me any city where gun control exists and I’ll show you a town where crime and violence are out of control. Show me a town that allows trained citizens to carry concealed weapons and I’ll show you a city where crime are comparatively rare.

    These are facts. Instead of railing against the NRA, you might travel a little. Read John Lott’s book, “Bias Against Guns and More Guns, Less Crime” before you respond next time. Or maybe imagine that you yourself are a student in a third-floor classroom and someone is coming to the room to shoot you. Wouldn’t you like to have a firearm to improve your chances of survival?

    Comment by reenforce — April 19, 2007 @ 7:35 pm

15. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED…
    That is step one.
    Step two takes place when a threat arises and then from THE PEOPLE, with their right to keep and bear arms, a well regulated militia is formed.
    You have the cart in front of the horse.

    Semi-automatic firamrs, in the hands of any human being on earth, are NOT capable of firing 100 rounds a second. A small point but I don’t think you know that much about firarms. However, you are correct in noting that the 2′nd Amendment does not say about the internet, mental incapcity, or background checks. Nor was there any reason to mention any limitations to the right to possess firearms. If you used a gun in a criminal manner back then you would be hunted down and shot like a rabid dog. These checks and balances have all but disappeared today and instead of doing away with these evils within…we “rehabilitate” them.
    OK. Whatever. I don’t see how any of that has anything to do with taking away my right to defend my life, the lives of my family, and in the case of VA Tech, the lives of my fellow citizens from death and/or great bodily harm.
    You keep saying “we get what we deserve”.
    You sound like the perfect victim…life just happens to you…you are not able to see any responsibility for your own safety.
    Just dial 911 curl up in a fetal ball till the police show up with the paperwork detail.
    Zack, I am 100% less vulnerable than those who choose to not possess firarms. But hey, I’m not one to piss in the wind…good luck.

    Comment by Mike Gruber — April 19, 2007 @ 8:02 pm

16. I cannot help but cringe when these ignorant leftists come on here and proclaim how the NRA has “won”, and they are the reason that these people were gunned down. They instantly cite this as proof that guns are not the way, and the world would be better off if guns were not in the hands of civilians.

    The sad truth is that only a handful of the NRA’s agenda is ever in practice in our country, and it is because of this that crimes like are still occurring on a regular basis. If the NRA had really “won”, then other students and faculty would have been able to intervene and/or defend themselves before dozens of people were senselessly slain.

    There is undoubtedly an imbalance of firearms in this county, but the Leftist Fantasy Land where guns don’t exist and everyone is mentally stable is not only unreasonable, but to parade the idea around in order to promote their own agenda is irresponsible and downright dangerous to the well-being of our citizens.

    Most people will find that those who do choose to carry firearms-myself included-do not try to force their views on others. But damned be the person who tries to tell me that my life will be better protected by making me give up my gun and place my faith in not only a police force who is increasing scared to take action against violent criminals, but to also believe in earnest that criminals will be standing in line behind me to forfeit their arms along with me. Disarming our citizens and stripping them of the ability to defend themselves and others is a tragedy all its own

    My prayers are with all of those affected by these tragedies, directly or otherwise.

    Comment by Jason Douglas — April 19, 2007 @ 9:25 pm

17. WND reports on the town of Kennesaw, where crime and violence plummeted after residents were REQUIRED to maintain firearms in their homes. The 28,000 residents have enjoyed a murder-free lifestyle for 25 years now.

    This is not news – it is typical. And when decent law-abiding tax-paying citizens are allowed to carry firearms, even unarmed moonbats enjoy enhanced safety. When moonbats impose gun control on good citizens, only criminals are safe.

    Comment by reenforce — April 19, 2007 @ 9:52 pm

18. Nor does the “collective rights” theory of the 9th District carry any water Zach.
    Look at the Bill of Rights, every amendment in there protects the rights of the individual. Except the second???

    The words are: “a well regulated militia being necesssary . . . the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed”, not the right of the militia, not the right of the state, it is a specific right of the people, and it would an aberration highly unlike James Madison and the other lawyers present to make such an exception without clearly stating so since the right to bear arms for food and self defense was a pre existing right well before 1789.

    And who were the militia? The people themsleves were the militia, because in 1789 anything beyond the fall line was still the wild and woolly west, the country was beset by English spies, French spies, renegades, Indians, river pirates, highwaymen, all sorts of stuff. A situation not unlike the days afer Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans where organzed law enforcement cease to exist, and shop owmers who were not armed were looted by the ghouls and the pathetic helpless who only knew how to steal and cry for the government to come “do something”.

    How clearer a connection do you need to see?
    No, the NRA doesn’t win anything, THE PEOPLE win. And the enemies of democracy, and freedom and the left wing moonbats who want to see your country ripped apart loose, Zachery. Wake up and start thinking like an American.

    Comment by T. A. Gray — April 19, 2007 @ 11:19 pm

19. T.A. Gray & Reenforce,

    I was a pleasure reading your sound responses. It is a black and white issue to me, and given the CHOICE, I’ll go on living the life of a lion, not a lamb.

    These tragic events are nothing short of a call to arms. But the media has a different agenda and the entire disaster is diced and sliced to appeal to the widest audience to make a profit. Folks see it everywhere so “it must be true”. It must be comfortable to have others do your thinking for you when you can’t think for yourself. There is less conflict in your life when you just throw in the towel and float down river.
    These disasters should make folks see how vulnerable they are and one would think…cause them to step up to the plate and take personal responsibility for their safety.

    Comment by Mike Gruber — April 20, 2007 @ 12:18 am