I favor stricter rules, no outright ban on handguns.  I don't think it would have made any difference at VT if there had been handguns allowed on campus, because I don't think that many people would carry a gun.  In theory, if there had been someone with a gun there, it *could* have made a difference, but the chances of that are slim in my opinion.

I'm inclined to be in favor of allowing guns on campus to those with carry permits and I'm also inclined to think we should allow teachers to get training and carry a weapon if they so choose, regardless if it would make a difference or not.

I might be inclined to agree with you.

There have been hundreds of permit holders who have lost their permits since Virginia became a "shall issue" vs. a "may issue" state. We are not allowed to know why these people lost their permits. Did they become physically incapacitated in some way? Did they commit a crime? Who knows? These records are destroyed.

Right now, gun activists groups in Virginia are pushing legislation to destroy the list with the names of everyone with a CCW permit. That means--if they get their way--we won't even be allowed to know who has been issued a permit.

Their definition of "infringement" becomes wider and broader every year. How can a citizen's militia be "well-regulated" is its members are secret?

...fallacy in that question is the presumption that all gun owners are a member of a militia.  The national Guard is regulated.  Private citizens are also "regulated" through a variety of state and federal laws governing gun ownership and use and well as all the laws related to import-export, range control, ammo, clips, modifications...in short, tons of paperwork at state and local level.  The infringement piece, as I understand it, is the same infringement argument used in the Patriot Act debate or in the abortion issue about where we belive the government has a right to collect information about our personal lives to possibly be used against us in the future.

much more in the way of registration and tracking of firearms. 

Often the phrase "Gun Laws" gets the NRA and like minded people all fired up (ha) that the laws will simply seek to outlaw firearms in some manner.  While some gun control advocates do want an outright ban, I believe the vast majority would prefer to see the laws focus on proper management and oversight of all aspects of firearms.  Meaning much more detailed registration/tracking and certain limitations on the sale and transfer of firearms and ammunition. 

Yes, this would mean additional burdens and costs for gun owners.  But as far as I recall, the Constitution didn't specify that citizens had the right to bear arms in the least expensive or burdensome manner possible. 

There is no way handguns are ever going to be banned in this country, so it's time to devise practical laws for their possession and use.  We should acknowledge first that guns are dangerous instrumentalities, just as cars are and just as anything with the capacity for harming people through misuse or neglect is also a dangerous instrumentality.

No one would seriously suggest allowing people to simply start driving cars without some effort to make them conversant with safe operation. 

I do not understand why we refuse to require registration of firearms in this state in order to curtail the current practice of straw-man purchases with the weapons then flipped to those who have no right to own them.  I do not understand why we do not require those who would own handguns demonstrate minimal proficiency in their use and safe operation.  I do not understand why we do not revisit gun ownership every few years to verify that the persons among us who own such dangerous instrumentalities have not in the meantime become feeble-minded, committed felonies, developed serious mental disorders, or become incapacitated to the extent that they can no longer safely own a gun.  I do not understand why we do not require those who would transfer ownership of a handgun to another to file a notice of some sort noting the transfer. 

Before the gun owners out there get on my case - I just want to affirm that I am not against private citizens owning guns.  I don't happen to own one because I think having a handgun in my urban environment is more likely to cause a problem than not, but many members of my family are responsible gun owners and I have often gone out shooting with them. 

The 2007 Virginia General Assembly passed up the opportunity to improve it's gun control laws this year (SB827, Firearms; civil immunity for sellers, and requires criminal records check on transfers) and didn't.  I'd think at least we should close the gunshow loophole in Virginia if nothing else!

According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:
http://www.bradycamp...

A report by the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ("ATF"), summarizes the problem:

Gun shows provide a large market where criminals can shop for firearms anonymously. Unlicensed sellers have no way of knowing whether they are selling to a violent felon or someone who intends to illegally traffic guns on the streets to juveniles or gangs. Further, unscrupulous gun dealers can use these free-flowing markets to hide their off-the-book sales. While most gun show sellers are honest and law-abiding, it only takes a few to transfer large numbers of firearms into dangerous hands.

The Brady Campaign believes that "no gun should be sold at a gun show without a background check and appropriate documentation. Regulating all gun sales at gun shows will help to stop the flow of guns into criminals' hands. Cracking down on the illegal gun trafficking market is critical to reducing gun deaths."

Does Virginia require everyone who purchases a gun in Virginia to get training in gun operation and safety and then have to pass a test, you know like the type that's required when you want to operate a car in Virginia?

The gun show loophole has got to go.  There's no excuse to allow guns to be sold to anyone for the asking.  And as far as I know there is no requirement for knowledge of gun laws and safety rules to be shown for gun ownership; only when there's an application for a carry permit.

as I've stated before, Cho himself would have been eligible for a CCW permit.

I've pointed out the same thing due to the incredibly high threshold for involuntary commitment in Virginia. 

it's not just the gun show loophole that needs to be addressed.

Serious consideration should be given to regulating any sale.  I've heard discussion of this idea whereby any sale (e.g. you'd like to sell your firearm to your neighbor) must be conducted via a licensed party who can run the proper gun checks and record the transaction.  For many people that would mean bringing their firearm, and the buyer, to a licensed dealer who would process the transaction... and probably take a small fee for their efforts.

As for the complaints regarding the extra effort and cost - see my previous comment.

...and we agree on all of this.  I'm a little concerned with the 32% who think that stricter laws would have done "a lot" to actually "prevent" the shooting (as in make it not happen) because, other than your very good point about a marginally tougher background check (now being supported by the NRA) I'm not sure what their basis is for believing this in this number.  It just looks out of whack given the realities of what law can and can't do.  Could it be a factor of the way the question was asked? 

That "16:1" ratio changes once you start talking specifics and that's why it's not as clean as a general feeling might be.  There's a lot of "devil in the details" aspects to this and varies from state to state which is why every politician is going to be smart enough to run like crazy from it over the next 15 months.  They'll all quickly vote for some bandaid approach (i.e, introducing mental health data in the national database) then check the "done" block.  I'm not certain even that, however, is going to make it through all the privacy and mental health rights lawyers in a few months so they better move quickly.

you write

I'm not certain even that, however, is going to make it through all the privacy and mental health rights lawyers

  They're not the ones obstructing this legislation.  It's the NRA and always has been. 

...and here's an article to show how contentious this is:

http://www.usatoday....

As the article indicates, I think the NRA has supported this as a concept for some time and has recently backed this proposal.
  http://hosted.ap.org...

But they shouldn't be confused with a different group that takes a harder line and that's the Gun Owners of America who feel a little less inclined to compromise on anything and take an absolutist approach to gun ownership.

But before we start handing out laurels to the guys at the NRA, let's remember that they fought tooth and nail against Brady for years--and that they STIll rail against. The fought against the database. They got all gun purchase records destroyed--even when we were trying to find out how many suspected terrorists had bought guns. They have been instrumental in dis-empowering the ATF and getting their budget slashed--referring to federal law enforcement as nazi storm troppers, btw. They lobbied in favor of cop-killer bullets. I could go on and on, but I think you get my point.

The NRA is in damage control right now. This is a small concession for them--and if they are involved in writing this law, you can rest assured they will make it as weak and toothless as possible.

...isn't it that even the extrmes within organizations can adapt to the more moderate trends and compromise that ensures their survival.  These proposed changes are really a no brainer but the real fear is where do they stop?

Substitue Handguns for Abortion

The numbers are very similar

Gotta love the middle majority :-p

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't concealed handguns with a permit allowed in Virginia? So...couldn't someone technically have had a gun? I think that's proof-positive that allowing concealed handguns has NO effect on shootings like this.

but as I understand it, the university has banned handguns on campus and anyone found with one can be expelled. 

...all state university campuses are a free fire zone posing absolutely no threat to any bad guy or kook wishing to shoot on them.  Cho was probably a little passed the point about worrying about being expelled...ya think?

I consider myself a Second-Amendment Democrat.  I have always advocated closing that loophole, and I admit that recent events have encouraged me to push for stronger background checks.  But that's about as far as I'll go with Gun Control.

about a gun registery or some other means of tracking them?  If so, I'd love to hear what those concerns are. 

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with that concept (hell, we have it for automobiles) but I know that a number of gun advocates do and I like to better understand their concerns.

Having more people with more guns does not mean people are going to be safer.  In fact, quite the opposite.  Consider the frontier west... everybody had a gun, and people died for some very stupid reasons (lost at cards). 

Allowing people in the college age category access to firearms during a very stressful time in their lives is a bad idea.  Throw in alcohol (something you will find on every campus) and matters grow even more dire.

I am of the opinion that the shooter (I cannot write or say his name), would have been stymied had the laws been in place to prevent a mental patient from buying a firearm. Some will say he would have just bought one illegally.  Maybe so, but then he might have been caught, or it might have taken him long enough he could never have done the horrible thing he did at my Alma Mater.

I believe that guns are a part of life.  In this day and age, rifles are used for hunting game and for protection.  Handguns are meant to kill people.

Ut Prosim

...were no gun laws in the "frontier" and there are more guns out there now than ever before (as we just heard from Richardson) I'm losing the relevance of the wild west analogy.

Handguns aren't used for protection?