This is not good news. Trust me, a well-intentioned effort to keep crazy people away from guns will only result in another datebase that forever curses anyone who ever sought help for mental problems.

People who needed a little chemical help for a few or several months to deal with a bad spot in life (death of a loved one, loss of a job, serious illness, whatever) will be lumped in the same database with unmanageable schizophrenics and who knows who else.

And, no, the database won't only be used to block gun sales (hell, I'd be happy in nobody could buy guns). Somehow or other, sooner or later, the information will get around and it will be used to block sales of insurance, keep people from flying, deny employment to job applicants, lower credit scores, and who knows how else.

Yes, if America must have guns everywhere, then we need more careful background checks and, perhaps, periodic relicensing (if you have to renew your driving license every few years, why not require people to periodically prove they may have a handgun?). But we DO NOT need another hurriedly tossed together database.

You're to the right of the NRA, I take it?

reactions are of course expected.  Doesn't make them right, or helpful.

Cho was himself a time bomb.  The method he used to kill people was incidental.  Could have used gasoline or something worse, and burned the dorm down while everyone was sleeping.

The latest knee jerk over reaction is to make mental health professionals "report to the State/FED Gov." the current status of people in their care.  People have enough difficulty getting treatment for psychological disorders, without the added permanent stigma of a state/public database.  Everyone has "friends" in the LEO community who will be able to search and report on how many of your neighbors are in counseling.

In almost every Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney movie, to solve a problem, the answer was "let put on a show".  These days the answer to every thing is "let's make a database".

For the gun banners, if you ban guns only criminals will have guns - so how would banning guns to the law obiding have prevented Cho from obtaining gun(s) and commiting this crime?  It wouldn't have.  Guns, like abortion, automobiles, crooked politicians, and taxes exist whether we like it or not.

Some tragedies cannot be prevented, and have no solution.

"Some tragedies cannot be prevented, and have no solution."

and admit that you are more than willing to put up with these tragedies as long as it doesn't inconvenience you or interfere in any way with your "freedom."

When you see something wrong, you should try to do something about it. That is a duty given us by God and by our own human race. It is one of the things that separate us from the animals. We don't HAVE TO shrug our shoulders and give up. If we took your philosophy as the way to conduct our lives, we would still be living in caves, scratching in the mud and grunting at each other.

I wonder, what number would make you change your mind? 300? 3,000? 26,000?

And why is it, whenever someone suggests various measures to restrict access to guns, you guys immediately say, "gun grabbers! ban guns!" Is there any chance we can put forth ideas and discuss them in an adult and reasonable fashion without people having hysterics? Let's put all the ideas--yes, even the ones that involve guns--out on the table and try to find a solution that helps prevent needless deaths?

And may I point out that Cho was NOT a criminal before this heinous act? He bought his gun from a federally-licensed dealer. He even obeyed the one-a-month law. Yes, he could have found an unlicensed dealer, but he didn't. He could have bought his gun "off the street" but I'm guessing he wouldn't have had a clue how to do such a thing. I hear people say that guns shouldn't fall into the "wrong hands." But then these same people aren't willing to legislate to PREVENT guns from falling into the "wrong hands."

I'm not 100% positive that this tragedy could have been prevented. I am 100% positive that we should have tried. We should have made it just a little bit harder for this unfortunate young man to commit these murders.
 

and I hear the hysterics from both sides.  When something as tragic as this happens people need to have something or someone to blame.  People have to be able to put a face or an object up as an example of the evil that caused such and such to happen.  As an example while Cho was killing 32 people, 233 Iraqi civilians died the same day.  Who is to blame for that?  Darfur, anyone?  Who is to blame and or accountable for the 1000's of animals dying due to adulterated pet food?

Cho was mentally ill.  Diseased in the brain. Way back when, when the earth was just beginning to cool, Ronald Reagan pushed through legislation that forbid the warehousing of mentally ill people, or at least funding those hospitals that cost federal tax dollars.  Those people who we then called mental patients we now call the homeless.  We step over them every day.  Ronald Reagan was confident that society at large would step up and find a way to absorb and treat them.  As you can see it was a major success.  We let these people die a slow death every day, with no treatment for bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia.

So while people on the left and right, including our very own idiots of the MSM, search for the hook that we can hang the evil from, treatment for the mentally ill where the root of this massacre lies, slides off the page as a footnote.

Now if we want to debate a root cause and possible solutions, I'd say mental health issues would be a good place to start. Unfortunately there is no knee jerk histrionics included in that, as it is an issue that actually requires thought.

Who has the right to involuntarily commit a person for psychiatric evaluation?  Who has the right to view a patients records, and when?  How long after a release will the record be maintained?  Will employers and law enforcement have on demand access to these records?  What limits do we place on the mentally ill or those being treated for mental illness?  Can they vote, drive, have children, work in hospitals or with children?

As you can see there is nothing glamorous or pop culture smash about the above questions.  So lets continue with the guns good - guns bad debate, as it is as useful a waste of time as anything else.

Why don't we discuss ALL of it?

Like I said, let's put it ALL out there. Mental health care, family involvement, school involvement, warning signs, security at Universities, etc. etc. and yes, GUNS.

All the questions you ask are good ones. I'm not looking for superficial band-aids. We have a real problem and we have to try to do something about it. And we can't do that if every time we mention guns we get told to shut up, people kill people, and guns are holy and untouchable.

I do not believe informing schools of every students gun ownership will be useful or practical; however, students living on campus should be required to disclose any gun ownership to campus authorities in order to ensure proper procedures (i.e. kept in the custody of campus authorities) are followed or that the gun will be kept off campus at a permanent residence. Requiring gun sellers to establish a students' campus residency status and ensuring disclosure for on campus students is common since.  Maybe requiring safety/general knowledge tests to acquire a gun license because no matter how old 18, 25, 30, or 50 if you do not understand the proper use of a gun then you should not own one. 100% behind renewing the ban. Bring gun safety/hunters ed classes back to high schools to teach kids who are likely to one day own/use a gun to understand its safe and proper use, as well as instill a healthy fear of its misuse.

Also, who decided non-citizens could buy a gun in the U.S. ??? That is one of the dumbest things I have heard in a while. Everyone I've talked to thought it was illegal?? seems like the epitome of common since to anyone with more than one brain cell..

...would never permit "discriminating" against a non-citizen and distinguishing their safety from ours.  The immigration debate is full of examples where we bend and distort the "common sense" you spoke of beyond recognition.  States steal scholarship money from US citizens to give t illegal aliens.  States extort tax dollars from Americans to pay for health, education and housing for people who are here illegally.  We give a driver's license as a reward for breaking into the country.  I don't want this to be an immigration issue but you can see where I'm going.  If you can think of anything that defies "common sense" and is bad for the country, I'd bet there's a lawyer behind it somewhere.

I'm not debating illegal immigration. Or even legal immigration for that matter. I have no problem with a naturalized citizen owning a gun. However, legal, illegal, resident aliens or anyone else who is not a citizen of this country should not be able to buy a gun in the U.S. period? we do not fully know their intent no matter what the stated reason for being here is.

As far as illegal immigration goes, I do not know the answer for it any more than those in D.C. do. However, I do feel that ? Ragan's policy opened the door for illegal immigrants and now that that they are here it is our obligation to deal with the consequences of our own policy. The things you list are matters of economics; edu, medi, housing. It is a lot more expensive to have homeless uneducated, starving people clogging er's and unable to pay. Allowing minimal services ultimately reduces the financial and logistical burden on us all. I donno the answer, maybe a more open legal immigration process and a complete overhaul of border security; but, the burden is on us to deal with those already here because we opened the door in the first place. 

And this is not an argument for/against amnesty. I just feel we are responsible for our mistaken policy and now we need to deal with the consequences. 

I know you're not dealing with immigration and said as much.  I agree, as you do, non-citizens should not be allowed gun rights.  But the same principles, forces, lawyers, mindset, call it whatever you want, that drapes illegals with allsorts and types of other non-earned rights will most certainly be the reason they will never be barred from gun rights either.  Non-citizens voting next?

When Reagan rolled over with amnesty, it was to grant a paltry 3 million illegals citizenship and was accompanied with regulations for tightening things up so it would never happen again.  Well, it's 12-15 million now and, mathematically, will be 30-35 million in under ten years...or less.  Hope you "hablo" better than I do.  Kinda pointless to simply "deal" with what's here without shutting the border.  Remind anyone else of bailing water without plugging the hole in the boat?

Point 1 Yes

No to everything in the grey box except for the assualt weapons ban

In Congressional hearings, the NRA said how awful it was the Lee Harvey Oswald was able to buy his gun through the mail, and promised to push for gun control.

Then they found out with scare tactics and Charleston Heston-like soundbites they could get hundreds of thousands of scared little people who get false courage from guns to send in their $25 and $50 to the NRA. Like Televangelists taking advantge of old people, they found their pot of gold.

For Rifles and Shotguns--

Do you need a permit to purchase rifles and shotguns in Virginia?  No.
Is registration of rifles and shotguns required in Virginia?  No.
Is there licensing of owners of rifles and shotguns in Virginia? No.
Do you need a permit to carry rifles and shotguns in Virginia? No.

For Handguns--

Do you need a permit to purchase handgun in Virginia? No.
Is registration of handguns required in Virginia? No.
Is there licensing of owners of handguns in Virginia? No.
Do you need a permit to carry handguns? Yes, a permit is required if concealed.

Other Requirements

Is there a State waiting period for buying a rifle, shotgun or handgun in Virginia? No.

Need I or anyone say more?

Virginia is a "shall issue" state. It is very easy in this state to obtain a CCW permit. You do not need any special training. You are not required to submit to any sort of test. Pretty much anyone can get one if they pay the fee. Cho, if he had chosen, could have obtained one.

Please remind people of this whenever you hear the suggestion that the solution is to allow CCW permit holders, be they students, teachers, or amdministration, to carry their weapons with them on campus.

E.J.'s not this naive and can look at election results like anyone else.  Taking on the gun lobby has been political suicide and most will stomp their feet and wag their fingers now but I guarantee come election time this won't be on anyone's radar.

A little common sense goes a long way:

http://www.latimes.c...

Let's read his last pearls of wisdom again, shall we?

"The main lesson that should emerge from the Virginia Tech killings is that we need to work harder to identify and cope with dangerously unstable personalities.

It is a problem for Europeans as well as Americans, one for which there are no easy solutions - such as passing more gun control laws."

Is this guy a freaking idiot? What does he think gun control is? We are going to spend all this energy, time and money to "identify and cope with dangerous unstable personalities: but not do anything to deny these same people guns? Would it not make sense once we HAD this information to pass it on to the guys who sell guns? Why are we gathering this information if we are not willing to use it to protect society?

This editorial is FULL of misleading statements and lies. Common sense, my Aunt Fanny! I look forward to reading the rebuttal.

 

...lawyers for the "identified" will keep any of this "common sense" from ever seeing daylight.