America Needs to Get Its Shit Together on Gun Control


Pardon this commercial break. Here's the way we see it. Those who like to tout "people kill people, not guns" are idiotic morons. While they might think they're mildly correct in some twisted fashion, no one can argue the fact that if it were illegal for citizens to carry guns, gun-related deaths in America would plummet. Those who think the Constitution gives Americans the "right to bear arms" are imbeciles stuck in the 1700's. Yes, we needed guns then. No, we don't need them now. It's as simple as that.

The rest of the world thinks we Americans have our screws completely loose on this one and they are right. Columbine. Virginia Tech. Neither would ever have happened had there been stricter gun control laws in place. Fuck the NRA and all their bullshit. Fuck the idiots that let the ban on semi-automatic weapons lapse.

It's really very simple. Fewer guns. Fewer shootings. Fewer deaths. Why is this so hard for people to grasp? Why would anyone support laws that are based on insuring the potential for death? Why do politicians put up with pro-gun lobbyist bullshit? Why is this country so retarded on this issue? Just about every other civilized country in this world has it figured out. Why is it so hard for us to do so?

Please, do tell. We can't wait to hear from you gun-toting, right to bear arms lunatics. Wait until your kid gets shot by some student in a bad mood with a gun. See how you feel then.

Written by Steve Hall    Comments (141)     File: Opinion     Apr-17-07  
Advertising Jobs

Enjoy what you've read? Subscribe to Adrants Daily and receive the daily contents of this site each day along with free whitepapers.

ad:tech Conference Headlines


You're an idiot. The solution here is not less guns but more guns. If the teacher in the first room Cho had walked into had been armed and trained on a weapon, there would have been three deaths, not 33.

Posted by: Steve K. on April 17, 2007 11:54 AM

That still has nothing to do with black market guns, like this guy was using. There will always be that sector of it.

Posted by: Ryan on April 17, 2007 12:00 PM

That still has nothing to do with black market guns, like this guy was using. There will always be that sector of it.

Posted by: Ryan on April 17, 2007 12:01 PM

Steve, Your response to this incredible horror is understandable. It is not that different than my own. I'm not sure refering to anyone whose views on gun control might be slightly to the right of your own as lunatics and imbeciles is the way to sway them to your point of view, however. We do need to do something to stop this cycle of tragedy and much stricter gun control seems to be essential to any solution. But accusing anyone who doesn't advocate the immediate and complete seizure of all guns of being a lunatic and wishing for their children to face a similar terrible and evil event will not advance the issue at all.

Posted by: dhanson on April 17, 2007 12:04 PM

I'm not wishing anything like this on anyone, dhanson. Just pointing out the possibilities. And Steve K, that is some seriously twisted logic. This being America, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Posted by: Steve Hall on April 17, 2007 12:08 PM

Well, well look who can't find a way to express him/herself with a little dignity? Always the whining liberals who retort to unprofessional posture. Quick are they to forget how the Bosnian Muslim who had intended harm in a Salt Lake City Mall but was stopped by a man wearing a concealed weapon. Good men fail to act when they are forced to be indifferent, not the other way around. I for one hope I never find myself hiding in a corner when I otherwise had the means to do something! Bad people will always find a way to do harm when they intend too. Good people will only act when they have the proper means at their disposal!

Posted by: Joel on April 17, 2007 12:17 PM

nra dudes watch way too many movies - i would love to see the images they have in their mind of a society armed to the teeth, constantly saving each other's lives and protecting the commonwealth with their double shotguns. I bet they all imagine themselves shirtless as well, with rippling pectorals. The whole lot of them should be put on bonkers patrol.

Posted by: scott on April 17, 2007 12:18 PM

anyone over 21 with a drivers license may purchase firearms in the state of Virginia at 'gun show' without a background check and Va leads the nation in reselling of handguns and is the number one sourcefor illegal guns in NYC. My friends in UK just don't get it. What do you think?
Will this incident beget change or will it be forgotten in a few weeks?

Posted by: arthur on April 17, 2007 12:20 PM

Unfortunately your emotions are overtaking your logic. The fact of the matter is Virginia Tech was a "gun-free zone" and guns are illegal on campus. And yet this tragedy occurred.

How the heck does that happen if they are illegal?!?

I don't own a gun, but with so many looney tunes out there now, it makes me think that it may not be a bad idea to buy one and be properly trained.

Just a differing opinion from an open-minded independent...

Posted by: other_guy on April 17, 2007 12:20 PM

right on steve. it's an insanity peculiar to this country. good luck getting your hands on a gun in ANY other civilized nation. mr. cho would have thought twice about attacking his fellow students with an axe.

Posted by: veedub on April 17, 2007 12:21 PM

I totally agree here.

The situation warrants being pissed off and emotional, so I'm not going to slap you for that.

I feel like this country is a disgrace on many levels. I don't care WHERE the shooter was born - there is no denying that kind of thing is part of American culture now.

Posted by: SqueakyWheel on April 17, 2007 12:26 PM

Please take notes:
An ARMED society is a polite society.
In ref: to Steve K., There probably would not have been an incident, however crazy people will do anything with what ever they have available as a weapon.
For Steve Hall (author of the original comment): I know you must have grown up in a more prosperous family or neighborhood than average, you sound like an educated person, but you have not learned that strict gun control harms our society MORE than the criminals, but you are advocating making criminals of our citizens by passing MORE laws taking away our personal freedoms and the best lifestyle in the world. Steve, do you smoke, drink alcoholic beverages, drive an automobile or motorcycle? Do you go fishing or hunting for food? Wake up and smell the stink of too many regulations. Have you (are you old enough) to have read, seen, or been told about "BIG BROTHER"? Wake up it's here and we MUST fight to maintain our freedom and personal liberties.
Sorry for the long tirade, but you have to wake up and take resopnsibility for what you say.
It is a pity that the deaths of so many wonderful new lives have been taken at VT. It is even harder to belive that someone would blame a gun or any weapon for those deaths. IT WAS A PERSON (albeit a crazy low life piece of trash) that killed thse people.
Waiting for responses.

Posted by: Jerry on April 17, 2007 12:29 PM

"Yes, we needed guns then. No, we don't need them now. It's as simple as that."

One person with a concealed firearm could have ended this sooner. Thomas Jefferson knew what he was talking about:

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." ~Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: David on April 17, 2007 01:03 PM

Personal liberties? Where is the connection between personal liberties and semi-automatic weapons? In what REALISTIC instance is carrying an Uzi necessary? And the whole bullshit argument about concealed weapons preventing violence are just that...bullshit. There's no way for you to skew the numbers to support that concealed weapons have prevented enough crimes to justify the violence they've caused. In the face of such tragedy, and the everyday tragedies we see on a daily basis, this whole issue sickens me.

Posted by: Dan on April 17, 2007 01:16 PM

it makes me laugh when the gun nuts resort to invoking the 18th century and talk about the government taking away "freedom" . and their muskets presumably.

it's the 21st century dudes. the brits are long gone and we have an exemplary democratic system here now. we have had for quite some time. it's going pretty good. and not out of fear of an armed citizenry. we all just like it. just like you do. so you can chill on the "big brother" fear-mongering stuff.

we need to have regulations for guns just like we do for other potentially dangerous things like cars and food processors. for the greater good of modern society. because it just makes bloody sense. that's why.

Posted by: veedub on April 17, 2007 01:17 PM

It would be a never-ending battle to remove every gun off of every person here in the U.S. (and let's not get into international relations) to say we don't need firearms. In an ideal perfect world that would seem like the perfect solution but guess what? It ain't happening.

Posted by: Tray on April 17, 2007 01:18 PM

Okay, so it'd be hard to institute bans or more regulation. So we shouldn't even try? Brilliant.

Posted by: Dan on April 17, 2007 01:22 PM

What about some middle ground on gun control? Seriously, why on God's green Earth does anyone need a semi-automatic handgun with reloadable clip?

Had this kid only been able to get a "I know what your thinking. Did he fire 5 shots or 6?" handgun, yes he probably would have still shot someone yesterday. He wouldn't have been able to murder 32 people.

Posted by: Melissa on April 17, 2007 01:22 PM

This is the first big thing that I have disagreed with on this blog.

I woke up this morning to shouts of "Gun Control" again - nevermind the first Brady Bill had little to no effect on enderage idiots at Columbine or Tilghman getting their hands on those illegal guns.

I'm sorry, but taking away guns from law abiding citizens removes their abilty to protect their fundamental property and civil laws in a very large way. What happens when someone comes to hurt my family? What happens when some group assaults my town? What happens... if? I deserve and demand that I be able to decide to protect myself and my property by any means provided under law.

How dare you tell me that as a law abiding citizen I can't have a gun, but a common criminal or a crazed lunatic can get one off the black market?

I'm going to get my concealed carry permit now - not because of VT or because I believe it will happen to me, but because I have the oppurtunity and the right.

Posted by: Lee Coursey on April 17, 2007 01:36 PM

Instead of beating our heads for or against gun-control which is a no-win issue, lets work towards earlier/better detection and treatment of mental illness.

Posted by: Kirk on April 17, 2007 01:47 PM

Don't even start with personal liberty defenses on this.

Three weeks ago, I was shot when I interrupted an assault on my neighbor. It was a random, awful act facilitated by the availability of guns in the stores and on the streets.

There needs to be a cultural shift in attitudes. And to anyone who suggests I could have shot back if I'd been carrying a gun, I say this: I hope you never have to feel what it's like to carry a .44 slug in your shoulder or wonder what might have happened if that bullet had hit your child.

Posted by: paco on April 17, 2007 01:50 PM

Lotta rage over the shootings for sure. This country was founded on guns though. That's not changing anytime soon.

Anyone bent on killing or violence already crossed that right vs. wrong line the rest of us were born with, and they did it a long time ago. No gun control law stops that. The deaths are still tragic nomatter how they happened.

I'm taking my anger out more on a school system that STILL does not know how to deal with situations like this and treat them more seriously soon enough. Why was there so much time allowed to pass before a campus lockdown was declared? They thought the the guy left? How would they know? There was a faster reaction in Boston after finding a ATHF fake bomb.

In the coming weeks, we'll find out about this whack job. How he was "always a nice, quiet guy." His school grades. Work with charities. How he lost his dog when he was five. And we'll be no closer to figuring out why he did this, as usual.

Posted by: makethelogobigger on April 17, 2007 01:54 PM

I own a gun myself, but am far from any sort of obsessive gun-nut or right wing wacko. But, if someone is going to go to all of the trouble of CHAINING DOORS SHUT so people can't get out, they're going to find a way to kill a lot of people with or without guns.

Guns aren't going anywhere. Even if they were illegal tomorrow, we still have plenty to go around. I don't think this has as much to do with the right to bear firearms as it does our mental health services, as a previous commenter noted.

Posted by: Mike on April 17, 2007 02:14 PM

Strict gun control works well. Just look at England. They outlaw guns and have one of the highest crime rates in the world.

Posted by: Robert on April 17, 2007 02:20 PM

This nut would have used whatever he could have gotten his hands on to do the dirty deed. Rants from people like you should scare the Hell out of all of us. You take the guns from the law abiding citizens you give the criminals a free reign. Just ask the people of New Orleans. The government did (is) doing one heck of a job protecting them from the criminals.

Posted by: Charlton Heston on April 17, 2007 02:21 PM

In the instance someone else in the classroom did have a gun and could have stopped this kid, good for them. This random sort of shooting doesn't happen every day, luckily (yet).

Guns become dangerous when someone cuts you off in traffic, and instead of giving you the finger, gives you a shot to the head. An armed society is NOT a polite society. It's a society living in fear due to the unknowns weilding power incorrectly.

Posted by: LB on April 17, 2007 02:26 PM

Banning the manufacturing of hand guns does not violate the Constitution. It's called "well regulated".You "macho" gun freaks can have all the non-automatic rifles you want. The only purpose of a hand gun is to shoot people.
You don't go hunting with one.
And if your into target practice, get a bow and arrow.If we stop making hand guns, the Saturday Night Special would be too expensive for the punks who buy guns on our street corners.

Posted by: Tom Egly on April 17, 2007 02:28 PM

So why is it that we have the highest number of gun deaths in the world per capita? Britain has a ban on most guns (including a lot of their police) and most incidents they've had have involved a knife attack.

Posted by: Some guy on April 17, 2007 02:35 PM

Why not give it a try, banning arms sales? It's worth it, surely.
And I really hope Democrats Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will be forced by the media to take a position on this issue, especially now opinions are so divided (as this blog shows). We'd really get to know them. I sincerely hope they have the courage to say: STOP.

Posted by: MichaelJ on April 17, 2007 02:37 PM

i understand your response--but as someone mentioned in the coverage of this tragedy: "America has an anger management problem." what needs to be addressed here is what caused the assailant to reach the point where he would even consider much less act upon such a violent urge. what makes these situations an American phenomenon? could it possibly be how much violence we allow to permeate out culture--part of that may indeed be counteracted with gun control--but let's go to the root of the problem.

Posted by: kate on April 17, 2007 02:37 PM

Congratulations, you've just lost a reader. It matters none whether or not I agree with what you've written, rather you should be concerned with how I feel about you damning and condemning others' views. If you're familiar with Seth Godin, you'll get this: your opinion writing just rendered your work BROKEN. Next time you feel like writing something so vile, remember who pays your electric bill.

Was it worth it?

Posted by: Brendon Swanson on April 17, 2007 02:42 PM

Japan is another good example. They have a relatively low crime rate. Sure, the mayor of Nagasaki was just shot and they had the subway gas attack but overall, it's pretty safe.

Posted by: Some guy on April 17, 2007 02:44 PM

It's simple. Less guns = less deaths.

U.S. Leads Richest Nations In Gun Deaths
Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05.

Posted by: Ted Re on April 17, 2007 02:45 PM

Thanks, Ted.

Sorry, Steve, you lost Brendon. But I will take his place and read AdRants everyday now.

Posted by: someguy on April 17, 2007 02:52 PM

Guns don’t kill the number of Steve’s subscribers–vile posts do.

Posted by: makethelogobigger on April 17, 2007 03:00 PM

Amen to that Kate, and others who mentioned mental health. As always happens in American dialogue, we polarize to the extreme fringes of the issue. Everybody needs to get a grip. Gun people always think they're going to save the day in a gunfight.
Ask any cop about gunfights. They're trained to do it and they can't guarantee their own safety.

Just last summer, a guy walked into a police station near my house, in Loudoun Cty Virginia, shooting cops left and right. The guy was eventually shot down, but not before he killed some well-armed, trained police.

There should be mental health screening for people who want firearms. There should be a waiting period before a license and a firearm is sold to anybody who wants one. Why is this so hard for the NRA to acknowlege? HAND GUNS DO NOT EQUAL FREEDOM.

Posted by: Gerry on April 17, 2007 03:13 PM

Re: Ted Re -
yes, let's look at deliberately skewed statistics. OR we can look at unbiased ones:

Per 1,000 people, the US comes after South Africa, Columbia, Thailand, Zimbabwe, Mexico, Belarus, and Costa Rica. Throwing in "richest" skews the numbers.

Speaking of your numbers, way to seperate Northern Ireland, England/Wales, and Scotland. Combining those results (as it *should be* in 7.58 making your model country #6.

But thank you for pointing out Switzerland's number as being in the middle of the "worlds richest". Odd, considering that literally every man between 18 and 30 who isn't disabled *must* keep an assault rifle and/or semiautomatic handgun by law.

Awful lot of guns for a country with lower gun crime rate than the UK, no? So much for less guns = less crime.

Posted by: anyonymous on April 17, 2007 03:14 PM

I admire your passion and chutzpah for speaking your mind, Steve... also, the thoughtful comments and input of so many here. As someone who was recently told by his own father that he should consider how many guns his old man has before disagreeing with him (!), I have had to realize that -- while I represent a totally different mindset and approach from those of my father and so many other Americans -- to make progress on important issues, I must use all my powers at diplomacy. I strongly feel we have to bring along those who disagree with us in ways that are respectful and high-minded, as much as possible. Of course, this type of discourse doesn't make a very good 'adrant'... but if they'll notch as many of us along as possible in a productive way, at least there'll be a chance that tomorrow we'll be better off than we are today. With all this said, I admire you for speaking the truth you felt so strongly today... and all these others for voicing theirs. United we stand....

Posted by: Roger Darnell on April 17, 2007 03:15 PM

I like how bleeding heart liberals like to call anyone that disagrees with them "idiots" or "morons".

Way to encourage dialogue that could come up with a solution that makes everyone happy!

Posted by: Bubb Rhubb on April 17, 2007 03:17 PM

I like the blanket phrase "bleeding heart liberals" for anyone that questions U.S. gun control.

Posted by: Dan on April 17, 2007 03:22 PM

All you brainwashed, fear mongering fools who would give up their liberty's in return for security disgust me. You people are pathetic and are playing right into the hands of the REAL terrorist. Wake up and realize that gun control is not the answer. In fact, if concealed handguns were permitted, or if the professors at the school were allowed to keep firearms within a safe of some sort, the students/professors could of taken out the maniac instead of cowering like a bunch of serfs. Whatever though, you fools will probably rally for more gun control and will beg for this once free nation to be transformed into a oppressive banana republic; wait though, its already happening; welcome to AMERIKA, home of the cowards, land of the slaves...

Posted by: fed up on April 17, 2007 03:22 PM

Let's please not justify the last comment with follow-up...

Posted by: Dan on April 17, 2007 03:25 PM

Ahh come on fellow marketers, no one has figured this out yet?

Keep guns legal, but increase the price of ammuntion to $1000 per round.

Posted by: Glock 27 on April 17, 2007 03:30 PM

Yeah, just watch tv and go to sleep...

Posted by: DanTHeSlave on April 17, 2007 03:30 PM

I'm with Glock (who's paraphrasing Chris Rock).

We don't need gun control, we need bullet control!

Posted by: Bubb Rhubb on April 17, 2007 03:35 PM

Arm yourselves people. Martial law is around the corner and the dollar is about to collapse not to mention the economy... Stock up on food, water, guns, and ammunition. I'm getting a couple of AK's and a 1000 rounds of ammunition. You will never take away my freedoms; I would rather die FREE than live as a SLAVE!!!!!!

Posted by: realAMERICAN on April 17, 2007 03:36 PM

First of all, I agree with others that your overwhelming condemnation of anyone who doesn't share your point of view is inappropriate. Your readers are entitled to an apology for being subjected to hateful, angry speech -- "Fuck the NRA and all their bullshit. Fuck the idiots that let the ban on semi-automatic weapons lapse."

Not something that anyone should have to read in what has been, up to this point, an excellent newsletter.

Second of all, our founding fathers understood that freedom is a compromise. When the KKK is allowed to congregate and spread hate and ignorance, we allow it because the greater good is not served by outlawing this activity even though baning the KKK would serve all of us.

The right to bear arms is identical to the first amendment in that it gives everyone in these United States the ability to use force, thus preventing our government from having a monopoly on violence and taking our rights away. To those who say "that's not going to happen", I can only point to numerous examples in history of modern cultures succumbing to the will of a tyrant.

I agree that handguns only have one purpose, and I think the people should explore eliminating these weapons. The people will still be able to resist their government with rifles and shotguns if it ever were to become necessary. But don't kid yourselves, as long as there are guns we're going to have gun violence. We must choose to accept gun violence as a consequence of freedom.

I'll go one more -- we could have prevented 9/11. It would have been simple. Simply ban all travel outside of major metro areas without government sanctioned traveling papers. No terrorists would ever have been able to move about in the US, and we would have been safe. But we also would have been living in something resembling the former Soviet Union. Think of the argument behind eliminating all guns with this example in mind and you'll see how ridiculous it really is.

Posted by: Jason Lancaster on April 17, 2007 03:38 PM


Posted by: INFOWARRIOR on April 17, 2007 03:46 PM

Jason is 100% correct.

Posted by: Bubb Rhubb on April 17, 2007 04:04 PM

Every time something happens in this country, they use it as an excuse to take away more of our rights. Some idiot tries to bring a shoe bomb onto a plane, now we have to take off our shoes when we go to the airport. No more liquids, god forbid there's a lip balm bomb. Janet Jackson's boob is exposed, and network TV gets locked down. Imus calls the Rutgers girls (rightfully so, except for the hot white girl) nappy headed ho's, and freedom of speech be damned, he loses his job in no time flash.

Now you've got the VT massacre, and anti-gun fanatics use it as a platform for gun reform. Outlawing something doesn't make it go away. Just look at how well that's worked in the past - Prohibition, the war on drugs, etc.

A tragedy to be sure, but don't blame gun control for one person's mental instability!

Posted by: Trent on April 17, 2007 04:10 PM

Jason puts it very well. Thanks for the thoughtful comment.

We need to be careful about giving up our freedoms for so-called "security".

Patriot Act anybody?

Posted by: Joe Everybody on April 17, 2007 04:13 PM

Yes, I will admit my wording was harsh. Yes, I will admit I was heated when I wrote it. Yes, it was a rant that may have offended some people. Yes, it was extremist and there are a million shades of gray surrounding each side of this issue. No, the solution will not be absolute. No, I am not right about everything I say but I am entitled to get mad and to express it.

I'm just as much a moronic idiot in the eyes of many readers here for things I have written in the past and have been called far worse for it. I could have written a nice, polite article along the lines of "Now let's be calm everyone. This is a heated issue and we need to be respectful of all opinions surrounding this issue. This was a terrible tragedy but there is never just one answer to this issue" but that would have garnered maybe 2 comments.

There's a reason this place is called Adrants and not Adbore. Yes. I meant to incite but at the same time I was expressing my rage at the insanity of this situation. As long as man walks this earth, there will never be a final answer or end to this debate. Nor should there be. Otherwise, we'd just be a bunch or robots inhabiting space.

We started with clubs. Now we have nuclear weapons. It's just the way of things with us humans I guess.

ANyway, I got mad. I got angry and I used my platform to express it. And I offer this platform to anyone that wants to call me a moronic idiot for doing so. It's really the whole point of a medium like this. Aside from the fact we're supposed to be talking about advertising here. But, then again, I started it so it's my fault.

Posted by: Steve Hall on April 17, 2007 04:14 PM

As a Virgina registered gun owner, I offer that anyone with questions or comments about Virginia regs might want to visit the following: or

Other than some extended waiting period, I'd be interested to learn how other state regs differ from Virginia.

Posted by: Chuck Gardner on April 17, 2007 04:15 PM

I agree that more wepons in the hands of the population make for peace and security. Just look at Iraq. Great argument.

Steve, keep up the good work.

Posted by: Disco Stew on April 17, 2007 04:20 PM

Why can't we all just get along?

Posted by: Bubb Rhubb on April 17, 2007 04:20 PM

You are so far off the mark here that you sound like a MA Politian. First off, the guy was a psycho and normal rules of society don't apply. More importantly though, if there was armed security or more people who were allowed to carry this incident would never have progressed to the extreme it did. There is absolutely no way to magically remove all guns and turn this country into Disneyland. We need a well armed populous to quell the uprising of both governments and nutjobs.

Posted by: Glen H on April 17, 2007 04:25 PM

Gun control doesn't stop murders. If someone wants to kill, they will find a way. Look at the murder rates in the U.S. vs. Belgium: Murder and manslaughter in the U.S.: 16,137 cases in 2004 (5.5 per 100,000 inhabitants). Murder and manslaughter in Belgium: 959 cases in 2004 (9.1 per 100,000 inhabitants). AdRants response was typical liberalism --- childish lashing out using such sophisticated name-calling as 'idiotic morons' and 'imbeciles'.

Posted by: Brian on April 17, 2007 04:50 PM

my oh americans are a funny bunch. seriously. i think you are stuck in a pattern of constant fear of the others, fear of yourself: the government, the immigrants, the chinese economy, the terrorists, the guns, irak, vietnam, etc...and no dialogue. just shouting matches. and this is the greatest civilization on earth? and you wonder why the rest of the world shakes their heads...WE NEED YOU GUYS TO LEAD BY EXAMPLE. not the other way around.
good luck. sincerely

Posted by: pycito on April 17, 2007 04:59 PM

I'm not a fan of people running around with guns either, but I just don't believe that banning guns would have a bit of impact on these types of events. The genie is out of the bottle, guns are here, easy to make and easy to get. We can't rid the world of every device that can be used for harm (propane tanks, gunpowder, drugs....) even if everyone agreed it was a good idea. Besides I don't know that living in a "nerf" world would solve any problems. And while I am not a gun owner, I just don't get a warm and fuzzy feeling when I think about governments being the only who have the right to own a gun.

Posted by: JJaffy on April 17, 2007 05:04 PM

Steve K, YOU, my friend, are the idiot. Arming people you deem *sane* so they can shoot back at people that seem to be *insane* is not the solution. This is not the OK Corral. What of instead of 33 deaths there were MORE because your armed teacher panicked, shot back, and killed someone besides the shooter (it's happened to trained police officers so why not amateurs)? Spend as much time at the shooting range and in gun safety classes as you want, you never ever know how you will react in an extreme situation. What if the shooter grabbed the gun from the teacher? Then you have a nut with TWO guns and double the bullets! I’m tired of you GUN NUTS trying to put a gun in everyone’s hands out of fear rather than doing the real work and facing down the psychological issues and responsibilities of the society at large

Posted by: Rachel L on April 17, 2007 05:16 PM

Are we really that afraid of our own government that we need guns to protect ourselves? Do we have such little faith in our beliefs? Our way of governing has been tested over the years and although not perfect, it's pretty darn good.

This what I believe our founding fathers meant by the second amendment. Back in their day there was no formal paid army. They therefore relied on local militia to protect our land. So at any given moment, we could have an armed army. They wanted to make sure that the right of a well regulated militia the right to bear arms. Fast forward to todays world. The courts have decided that in today's world the militia and common citizens are one and the same. I have no bones about that. But our fore fathers had the insight to say "well regulated". So when we want to regulate our ownership of guns by registration, kinds of guns, etc...,this is being well regulated.Just like in the first amendment on freedom of speech. We can say what we like. BUT no one has the right to say,"FIRE" in a crowded theater or "I have a bomb"
on an airplane. So let's do away with hand guns and keep the hunting rifles.Hand guns are just too handy. They serve no purpose. And let's not go back to the days of the wild west. We're much too sophisticated to repeat the era.

Posted by: Tom Egly on April 17, 2007 05:26 PM

When will you get it thru your head that the definition of criminal in (one who DISOBEYS the law). The only people affected by Gun Control Laws are law abiding people who you would have
become more victimized by your misguided comments.
Criminals will always have guns and you would make it impossible for law abiding citizens to protect themselves from being victimized. If one of these crazies started in a Mall and came upon a responsible law abiding citizen with a permit to carry a gun many deaths might be prevented.

Posted by: Joe Stasnek on April 17, 2007 05:32 PM

When will you get it thru your head that the definition of criminal in (one who DISOBEYS the law). The only people affected by Gun Control Laws are law abiding people who you would have
become more victimized by your misguided comments.
Criminals will always have guns and you would make it impossible for law abiding citizens to protect themselves from being victimized. If one of these crazies started in a Mall and came upon a responsible law abiding citizen with a permit to carry a gun many deaths might be prevented.

Posted by: Joe Stasnek on April 17, 2007 05:33 PM

Rachel L: the nut HAD two guns to start with. Inform yourself before making comments and calling people names.

Posted by: anonymous on April 17, 2007 05:57 PM

I'll go on the record as disagreeing with Steve on this. I'm not a liberal, a conservative, Democrat or Republican. They're all equally full of shit.

The "prevention" argument is pretty weak in my opinion. I don't see regular citizens shooting down a crazed gunman. Those citizens are probably pissing their pants just like everyone else around them, and that doesn't make for lucid thinking. The times when an armed citizen has stopped a tragedy in the making I think it's been someone with training, like off duty or retired cop.

The "only law-abiding citizens will be disarmed" argument feels more solid to me. It is simply too late to ban guns in this country. They're out there and we can't put them back in a box. Because of that I think it's best to allow legal gun sales to continue.

One more thing: I have no idea what use a regular citizen might have for a fully automatic rifle. I think we should be able to ban full-auto weapons but maintain our right to everything else.

Wait, one more thing. I have kids, and guns. I keep the guns safe, and once the kids are old enough they will learn how to deal with them properly. And god help anyone entering my house without permission. I will only need one shot, but he or she is likely to get all 6 in the cylinder.

Posted by: pat smith on April 17, 2007 06:03 PM

Steve, why stop there?? If we're going to do something, let's get serious -- it's time to ban the wheel. It fits perfectly with your logic. Fewer wheels. Fewer accidents. Fewer drunk driving deaths. Fewer hit and runs. Fewer deaths! C'mon, people, Steve may be on to something here...

Posted by: law on April 17, 2007 06:05 PM

have any of you guys read the tipping point by malcolm gladwell. Even though eliminating guns will not completely stop crime it will significantly reduce the chances of tragedies like this taking place. Crazy people are going to hurt people, its a part of life. But the fact that 33 people were killed by one man before anthing could be done is atrocious. No one needs to have an Uzi or any type of high power semiautomatic weapon. Any one who can sit here and rant and rave about their right to carry a gun, while 33 college students are now dead, has to seriously think about their priorities.

Posted by: bucman8799 on April 17, 2007 06:09 PM

OK, ha, ha, Law. I see your point. Yes, my rant was anger-fueled and over the top but my stance remains the same. Fewer guns (however that may be accomplished), fewer deaths. To be sure, it's an opinion, not a fact. And what do they say about opinions and assholes? Well, I have an asshole so I guess I can have an opinion:-)

And seriously, I'm glad everyone here does too. An opinion, that is.

Posted by: Steve Hall on April 17, 2007 06:21 PM

Uh, back in their day, their was a formal paid army. It was called the British. The amendment was designed to prevent a tyranical government, in that case the British, from preventing the citizenry, in that case the colonists, from owning arms (which would enable them to rebel).

Fast forward to today, yes we have a stable government with checks and balances and life is good, but at any moment, a nutcase, say from Texas, could become President and start taking away our freedoms.

Posted by: Bubb Rhubb on April 17, 2007 06:34 PM

i see goodby won hyundai

Posted by: veedub on April 17, 2007 06:34 PM

And no, no one "needs" an Uzi or high powered weapon. But no one "needs" super fast sports cars, which may or may not cause more highway deaths. No one is arguing we ban those either. It's a matter of personal freedom to do what makes us happy so long it does not interfere with the happiness of others. My ownership of a gun (I don't, by the way) in no way interferes with anyone so long as I obey the laws of the land. Why should you be able to impose restrictions on my free will just so you can feel safer?

I'm sure you have things you don't "need" that I'm not forcing you to give up...

Posted by: Bubb Rhubb on April 17, 2007 06:39 PM

I'm fairly new to this group but I believe that this most controversial subject has gone way past the sorrow an horror of the murdering of the students at VT.
Just take the this subject and make a new topic on gun control if you would.

I know from experience that the things I said in my earlier comment are true and the issues reaised have no bearing on race, religion, or political affiliation. It does however require that the approaching such a serious topic have sufficent education and experience in weapons, self-defense, and law enforcement. Example: If you are not a brain surgeon, why would you tell a brain surgeon how to operate?

One last comment before beginning an entirely new section on this -
Perhaps some of us are living in the past concerning freedom and personal rights afforded us by being an American citizen.. but consider..
before 1900 there were around 100 prisions in the United States. As the population grew and GUN CONTROL and some lawyers and self seeking judges OWNED BY THE CRIMINAL began to control and basically remove our ability to protect ourselves, HOW MANY PRISONS ARE IN YOUR STATE? Most states have more prisons today than the entire US had before 1900 and the increase in population does not justify them.
Those of you who seem to abhore guns and other weapons for self-protection (I mean any weapon from a stick to a fully automatic machine gun, you are the first to call for help so you do not have to deal with the problem.
I repeat>>> An ARMED society is a polite society and a lawful one too!

Posted by: Jerry on April 17, 2007 06:40 PM

By the way, I think the whole self-defense argument is B.S. but I don't think anyone should infringe on my right to pursue happiness. If I find happiness in lawfully owning a gun, then so be it. Perhaps I enjoy going to the range or I like the look or the feel or whatever.

Posted by: Bubb Rhubb on April 17, 2007 06:56 PM

You know how many guns the 9/11 hijackers used? Zero. This is not about guns, it's about a society that breeds wackos who take advantage of our system and our freedom.

America has to do some soul searching.

Posted by: Liberal but not Crazy on April 17, 2007 07:14 PM

Here is an example of how mounting public opinion can change and prevent something like this from ever occurring.

In 1996, an identical tragedy to VT occurred in a place called Port Arthur, Tasmania, Australia. 35 people were murder by a sole gunmen.

The Australian Government followed through on the overwhelming public request to heavily restrict the legal ownership and use of self-loading rifles, self-loading shotguns and pump-action shotguns, together with a considerable tightening of other gun laws.

Since 1996, there has been no repeat of such tragedy at this level in Australia(Unlike Columbine, then Pennsylvania and now Virginia)

Surely this is proof that a united public voice can change the mindset of a nation into making a country's environment safer.

As distant as it may be - its really up to you guys to see the light.

Read more about this here - particularly the section titled "Reaction":

Posted by: An Australian on April 17, 2007 07:40 PM

With all due respect, Steve, what the hell were you thinking? Our industry shows indifference and hostility to diversity. There’s old school politics, Big Brother scheming and sordid scandal with incidents like the Wal-Mart fiasco. Folks recite the First Amendment to defend outdated jackasses like Don Imus. Plus, you’ve got a base audience that primarily visits to spy the latest titties post. Surely you weren’t expecting deliberate and reasoned debate on the topic of gun control…

Posted by: HighJive on April 17, 2007 09:16 PM

The answer is so simple. It’s staring you in the face.

Read through the postings above and what do you see? Difference of opinion, difference of culture, education, religion, belief and understanding. The one word that stands out? Difference.

The problem is not the gun, it is you. The human race. And as long as the human race exists these types of events will continue. We’ve had 30,000 years of informal and formal education. We have built our entire history, culture, religion and education on what has come before. Grandparents passed on stories, events, habits. These grew into cultures, religions. Formal education grew out of the informal. And yet in all this time we haven’t found a solution for war; for hunger; for poverty; for criminals; for mental health. They all play a part in this particular issue. They play a part in every miserable human event.

‘Experts’ search for answers to the many conflicts that have developed in this complex world that we have created. Humans kill each other because of religion. We invade countries because we feel threatened, or we feel that they should follow our way of life. We place black people on a lower scale. We argue over borders and territories. We fight for our religion, and our opinions. These are all things that we have created and passed on to our children – religion; borders; opinions; beliefs. These grew out of our culture. They have become a part of our education. We create more weapons, we train more people to become policeman, we expand our armies. We’re always trying to defeat the evil within our society. What is that evil? Humans. We are the problem, and we are the solution. And that in itself is the problem.

Until we as adults can accept that education both formal and informal is the ultimate solution, we will not resolve basic conflicts that face our societies. I am talking about education of culture, of responsibility, of tolerance, of understanding, as well as mathematics, languages, and science. As you create cultures of understanding, the world will take on that same shape.

You can not march into a country, hold a gun against thousands of years of Arab history and expect that nation to dance to your tune. It is impossible. Education is a process. It requires investment. Those that teach should be held highest in our society. We should train and pay those teachers on a scale that is equivalent to their responsibility. If we are not educating children correctly at home and at school how the hell is this world supposed to progress?

We are a world of idiots and our life is a journey of learning in an attempt to diminish, a little at a time, that level of idiocy. 30,000 years so far, so the emphasis is obviously on little.

There will always be individuals born into this world with certain characteristics. There is no such thing as perfection. Characteristics can be molded, educated, they can be changed. That’s what education is about. Until every country, ever leader, every human being in the world realizes the importance of education and invests in the future through education (not just at school, but at home) there will not be a significant change. Father to son, son to son. What you learn is what you live by. All the money spent on wars, weapons, and destruction should be invested in our future.

I believe that to provide a future we must teach decency and respect, and tolerance of difference. And by making that a part of every culture, we have defined, after 30,000 years, what should be passed on. It needs to become a part of who we are. So that rather than turn in never-ending circles, we will have begun a new circle. Humans will never be perfect, there will always be arguments and differences. Learning to understand, respect and tolerate those differences: That, to me, is education. That, to me, should be the revolution. That, is the solution.


Posted by: UK in Brazil on April 17, 2007 09:18 PM

UK from Brazil brings up a good point. Until we get the human whacko gene under control, things aren’t changing.

As for differences, damn, Hall's taking a lot of shit. Let him have his say. Think about his last question whether you’re tree-hugging lib or Chuck Heston t-shirt wearing NRA member, because NOBODY answered it:

If it was one of your kids at VT who was killed, would you think any differently than you do now?

Posted by: makethelogobigger on April 17, 2007 09:30 PM

No, my opinion would not change.

Here's another question: if your kid was killed by a teenage drunk driver, would you advocate raising the minimum age to get a driver's license to 25? Or outlaw car driving at night? Or on weekends? Those actions would most certainly decrease the number of driving related deaths in this country.

Posted by: Bubb Rhubb on April 17, 2007 09:47 PM

I just love the way the gun nuts describe anyone in favor of gun control as a “Liberal.” Just as a letter in my local paper today described Al Gore as a communist because he advocates some form of climate control. These are also the people who insist we have to fight the terrorists in Iraq, otherwise we’ll have to fight them on the streets of America. Fucking right, hordes of jihadi’s running around the meat packing district shooting up Pastis. Just how the fuck would they get here. One dipshit writer claimed that he needed a gun in case his community was attacked by a mob. He’s obviously been watching too many Zombie flicks. Anyway, guns don’t work on Zombies. I’m with Steve here on his first post. As I said yesterday on AdScam, fuck the NRA. Fuck all the gun nuts. Just ‘cos it is the second amendment doesn’t mean it has to be set in stone. When it was written, slavery was still legal. Oh, I forgot, most of you gun nuts probably think it still should be… What a bunch of Wankers!!!

Posted by: George Parker on April 17, 2007 09:54 PM

And I love how people who advocate the curtailment of freedoms call those who defend our rights "nuts".

Posted by: Bubb Rhubb on April 17, 2007 10:07 PM

To any and all who argue that having a gun makes society safer, I would ask whether they have ever been shot. And whether they know how they would react after being hit... Life isn't like the movies.

I am an experienced shot, and there is no way anyone can convince me that I'd be able to shoot back once the punk turned on me. The confusion. The pain, when it sets in. The shock, when it begins to take you down. That's the real thing, not some gung-ho idiocy. Even the cops who dealt with my case understood that.

No, the only argument I will buy now is this: there are too many handguns in this country. We have created the problem; now we need to solve it.

Posted by: paco on April 17, 2007 10:15 PM

george is right.

america's got to chill out on various fronts. it's not THAT bad.

(PS: george, i just got madscam from amazon)

Posted by: veedub on April 17, 2007 10:57 PM

You are a fucking Prince! Now, what about one for your Mum? Just kidding. Let me know what you think. Hey, you can even do a review on Amazon. If it's good, I'll put in a word with Howard. I hear he's looking for people who like to be on top at Draft/FCB... Kmart baby, you could be doing some award winning shit on that!

Posted by: George Parker on April 17, 2007 11:03 PM

Geez George, don’t mention Prince AND gun control in this same thread, Steve’s server will explode.

"Here's another question: if your kid was killed by a teenage drunk driver, ...driving related deaths in this country."

Another issue for another thread. Why is that framed from the POV of the victim though?

I'll answer it though. I'd support life in (minimum security) prison for any DUI involving manslaughter.

There is no excuse for people to drive drunk anymore. The minute you get behind the wheel drunk, you assume responsibility for ANYTHING that might happen. Anything. Even if you argue that the addiction of any drug is too strong to overcome--which I would agree with--a penalty must be paid for the act of killing someone.

As it is now, five to seven years in prison for someone‘s life is not enough, let alone any sort of justice.

Posted by: makethelogobigger on April 17, 2007 11:32 PM

Nothing bad with gun sell bans. The guns are banned in my country, but if you want one, you can have. Just need to be mentally healthy and not an alcoholic. Simple as that. Oh and there's gas guns, leather bullets which you can buy anytime you want ... Oh and we have highest suicide rate in the world , but not gun death's.

Posted by: Lithuanian on April 18, 2007 03:50 AM

To the author: Your emotional response is typical of a person who believes there is some way to provide security and liberty in a single form of government or society. It is a fallacy to believe that security exists or can be improved upon. It is fallacy to blame the instrument used in any death as the fault for that death. Would you outlaw spoons to save the millions who die from heart disease every year in this country? Would you outlaw high school football for the hundreds of deaths of student athletes each year? Would it make you feel better if everyone was gassed, drugged or otherwise murdered by another means? I ask you, is it the gun that bothers you - or the idiots who wield them for the purpose of randomly making headline news? I submit to you that you cannot have liberty and security at the same time. You must choose, but for God's sake (and for the rest of us) STFU already.

Posted by: andthentherewasme on April 18, 2007 04:01 AM

To the author: Your emotional response is typical of a person who believes there is some way to provide security and liberty in a single form of government or society. It is a fallacy to believe that security exists or can be improved upon. It is fallacy to blame the instrument used in any death as the fault for that death. Would you outlaw spoons to save the millions who die from heart disease every year in this country? Would you outlaw high school football for the hundreds of deaths of student athletes each year? Would it make you feel better if everyone was gassed, drugged or otherwise murdered by another means? I ask you, is it the gun that bothers you - or the idiots who wield them for the purpose of randomly making headline news? I submit to you that you cannot have liberty and security at the same time. You must choose, but for God's sake (and for the rest of us) STFU already.

Posted by: andthentherewasme on April 18, 2007 04:02 AM

Can anyone tell me the number of law abiding US citizens (non-police) carrying legally registered guns that each year saves citizens from others that were using either a legally registered or black market gun to shoot and kill innocent people?

Can anyone tell me how many children die each year from finding a legally registered gun in their home, or a friend's home and using it to accidentally kill themselves or another?

Can anyone tell me the number of people that die each year by legally registered guns of law-abiding citizens during domestic disputes?

Can anyone tell me how many legally registered guns are stolen from law-abiding citizens each year, and used to kill others?

And after you look up those stats, come back and tell me about the time you came upon the body of a law abiding US citizen with his brains blown out by his legally registered gun (still in his dead cold hand), his six month old child in his lap also with his brains blown out by his daddy's legally registered gun, and on the floor in front of him was his mom and 5 year old sister all dead from the same legally registered gun. Now where was that US citizen with his legally registered concealed weapon to prevent these deaths?

I left the US because I�m no longer willing to take the needless risk of having one of my children or wife, or myself killed by any type of gun registered or not. And if it gets the same way here I�ll leave the UK also.

My sympathy is with the police. If they come across a crazed killer with a gun (legal or otherwise) they shoot him, they come across gangsters with guns it�s negotiation time, and if need be they shoot them, if they come across a family squabble with a gun, heaven help the police officers.

Go ahead and justify all you want about the need or nobility of YOUR freedom and right to bear arms as you watch the body count go up of law abiding US citizens killed with legally registered guns. Or how proper training is needed for anyone with a gun to prevent legal guns being used wrongly. You can�t even control road rage and you want to give the driver a legally concealed weapon.

Posted by: GW in UK on April 18, 2007 06:15 AM

Spot on, Steve. I'd love to see it happen.

You've got yourself a new reader here...

Posted by: Dave C on April 18, 2007 06:45 AM

1.) It feels a tad early to politicize this, using simple standards of human consideration. I'm still haunted by the report that cell phones were ringing on the bodies.

2.) Where there's a deranged, uncounseled will, there's a way. The ad and entertainment biz have no lock on creativity. Killers, pyschopaths and zealots aren't going to settle for tasers or choose not to be insane because they can't get hold of a gun.

3.) if this made no sense, it's too early for me.

Posted by: everysandwich on April 18, 2007 07:27 AM


actually it's not true that where there's a will there's a way. you don't hear of mass killings like this in other comparative societies because people don't have access to guns. more specifically easy to conceal handguns. yes, there are psychos everywhere. they just can't get guns. and that's the difference. and it really is that simple.

i dearly wish americans would stop acting like this shit is inevitable and they're powerless to do ANYTHING about gun violence. get some sense. give reasonable gun control a chance.

Posted by: veedub on April 18, 2007 09:01 AM

Wow! What a hot button you pushed, Steve. We need a well regulated gun law here. Not a total ban on guns but a limit to what kind of gun a private citizen can own. Hunting rifles are OK. A lot of people still hunt for their food in this country. But hand guns and assault weapons have no purpose but to kill or threaten people. Hand guns make it too easy to maim and kill people. And here's message to all you law abiding citizens that own hand guns:

Posted by: Tom Egly on April 18, 2007 09:15 AM

I'm with Steve. Having lived in a neighborhood of Los Angeles, one of the murder capitals of the US, I've witnessed first hand what guns do. They kill. It's what they were designed to do. Whether that be other humans or animals, guns were designed to do exactly what they are intended to do. And the people who use them, kill. Period. There's really no grey area. It's not fucking rocket science. Hand guns, hunting guns, assault weapons and more. All intended and made to KILL.

And there's way too much access, legally or not to guns in this society.

Most of the kids in my community can buy guns easier than weed. I'd rather they smoked pot than packed any weaponry.

More guns does not necessarily make a polite society. It makes a scared society. This does not mean people are nicer, better mannered because the asshole next door is armed with automatic weapons and dangerous. It means they are silenced out of fear. I repeat, is not good manners. And it's naive and arrogant to think it's anything else.

Live in a community overrun with gang members who out arm the police with automatic weapons, hand guns, hunting rifles and more, and you'll see what I mean. It's a big and very real issue here in LA.

Roll out of bed on to the floor, late at night, at least once or twice a week because you hear the drive by and you don't want to be at window level. Wake up the next morning and pray it's not the neighbor's kid who got accidentally shot. Wait, is that a bee buzzing by my ear? Don't fucking move, it may not be.

Watch in horror as you are watering the flowers as suddenly the late model gold monte carlo pulls in front of the public elementary school and opens fire upon the house next door to the play ground. What do you think about when the cops say that your call was the only 911 call besides the school?

That silence you hear in the neighborhood? It's not polite society. It's fear of retaliation. A very real phenomena here in the land of murder. We can't get accurate crime stats here because of UNREPORTED crimes. Why aren't they reported? Fear of retaliation. Not good manners.

33 dead on Monday was appalling. Horrifying. Stopped me in my tracks. Painful for all the families concerned. I won't mention the lapses in security on the campus. Or what that idiot in the (p)Resident's office said.. the assine comment about his "shock and awe... but we all have a right to bear arms." Yeah, the mentally ill should always have the right to bear arms.

And just as appalling is the hundreds murdered every day in Iraq. Just like that mayor in Japan yesterday. Just like Afghanistan. And other places where guns are sold, made and used. As they were intended. To kill.

In one sense it is the perfect product. Isn't it? It does exactly what it's supposed to do. It's idiot proof in one sense.

Oh and FYI the neighborhood I'm speaking of is in a very trendy and hip district of LA. No, it's not Beverly Hills. It's just like every other urban distric in the basin of Los Angeles. The homes have a median value of $600,000. And yet, this shit happens everyday.

And access to guns, legally or not, hand guns, hunting guns, assualt weapons, all of them, are part the problem.

As far as I'm concerned, guns are for killing. Period. So fuck that NRA attitude of trying to rationalize good gun use versus bad gun use. Killing is killing is killing. And guns were designed perfectly for just that. Killing.

Posted by: Refuse to State on April 18, 2007 09:50 AM

This shouldn't be about arming or disarming citizens. It's about what drove this kid to the point that he wanted to hurt people. Teachers and students voiced their concerns to the school only to be told that there was nothing they could do!!
If it hadn't been a gun it would have been a bomb -- think about how many people would have died then.

Posted by: Cheryl on April 18, 2007 09:53 AM

it' s not that simple.

How many of you still laugh at killer kitty weapons. Do you feel guilty about that? Should we get rid of those videos on YouTube. I don't think so.

It's not just that simple. Haven't you ever felt the psyche of the city or place where people live? I do all the time. And many time it's not pleasant. I didn't read much about this incident, but I did glance at a profile of a victim from a foreign country whose parents were concerned about how she was getting along on campus. And let's face it, folks, Campuses today (high school or college) are a bit unsettling. There is a lot of disparity or diversity, which ever direction you are looking from. Other countries universities are much more homoginized in that people have to work and sweat their brains to get in there. In America, money wil buy you a place. It might be defeating to some people who come here and expect the best and have a chance to get it, but are surrounded by less than they could have ever imagined.

And then how many of you remember the riots in France a while back? Okay, it was group action because I think the isolation is felt more in groups than it is individual isolation. Either way, there was tragedy. It's a combination of efforts. Guns maybe part of the problem, but having been in different places, and yes, I know different times, i will tel you I never get the feeling of isolation of people running through their veins as I do in certain places in America. well, maybe downtown London, but that was solved by going to a park around the corner. It's a bit haunting, but it realy does have to do with many factors that come together at one place and one time.

The psyche of the place
the availabilty of weapons
the means by which individual problems are treated
the disparities

and other factors, which if I went into might entail, just too much and more people questioning "what the hell she is thinking." Better left unsaid.

If you work on just taking care of one part of the problem, getting rid of guns, it will make a temporary dent, but people will get around it.

Posted by: nancy on April 18, 2007 10:17 AM

yes, and i didn't proofread to make a point, typing, grammar, and spelling Afficianodos.

Posted by: nancy on April 18, 2007 10:26 AM

Let us try and understand just what is going on here in America and get a little personal..

To paco:
I have been shot (several times-8 times to be exact), stabbed, hit with clubs, chains, and several time trying to defend people like you and I feel your pain at taking a bullet trying to protect or defend a neighbor. However, lets go further were you defending or just happened to be there? What should happen to your assailants now..IF THEY ARE EVER CAUGHT? What if you had shot back? would you now be in prison because you defended yourself? Think about that!

To resuse to state:
Killing is not just killing. Murder is murder is murder. To me, killing in defense of yourself, your family, other people unable to defend themselves is justified. Defending your property (house, vehicles, animals, food, water, etc) may also be justification for killing some sorry low life piece of garbage. I would like to see public hangings return to our justice system.

Basically, if a person needs help, I will do my best to help them. Give them a job or help them find work, even give them some money if I can ... BUT steal from me or harm me, a member of my family or friends, there is no place on this earth that person(s)can hide from me except in prison.. and those person(s) should pray that they never get out. Murder someone in my family or friends and I will see you dead. Period!
Live and let live. Everyone has an opinion and I respect that.
Sound like somthing from our past, you betcha!

One last comment before I leave this post (and a lot of you will think I've really gone over the hill)
1) I believe that only citizens of the United States should be allowed to purchase any weapon with the exception of tools.

2) To become a citizen of the United States with the power to vote or hold any political office you must serve at least 6 years in service to the government of the United States. (does not require military service but political or community service is not acceptable)
2a) Service to your country would be entirely voluntary and could start at any age over 18 with no age limit after that. After completion of required service you would be granted the privledge to vote or hold public office.

3) For persons not born in the United States, and in the United States legally, a minimum of 10 years in the United States and completion of specific educational courses (including English language)is required before being allowed to begin service to the country.


I have a lot more but let's see how THIS POST stirs the pot.

next we can seak on civil rights, equality, diversity, and racism or at least those of you who are over 18 will know how to understand these things.


Posted by: Jerry on April 18, 2007 11:39 AM

Gun control = booming black market.

Open arms for all = paranoid, potentially trigger-happy society.

This kind of thing is the result of a perceived miscommunication between an individual and his society. And while ours is uniquely paranoid and potentially alienating, it's certainly not the only one with ills.

There's really nothing left to say about it.

Posted by: Angela on April 18, 2007 12:39 PM

As usual after a terrible shooting tragedy such as this the anti-gun rants begin anew. Look at the facts.The College Authorities had prior knowledge that this "nut case" had set fire to a Dorm and stalked two women. What was he doing still on campus? He should have been kicked out on the spot!The same failure happened at Columbine.The school authorities allowed those two punks to dress like "nazis" and rant about how much they loved Adolph Hitler. The warning signs were there in both shootings.The leaders in charge in both cases failed in their jobs and should be dismissed. Also in the news videos the local Virginia Police can be seen running around in complete confusion and hiding behind trees outside the dorm.If those officers had charged the shooter,yes putting themselves in harms way, they might have saved half or more of the victims.Running along the outside wall of the dorm while people inside are being shot does not serve or protect innocent citizens. So before you jump on the ban the gun bandwagon. Consider the real facts behind these shootings.

Posted by: guitarking on April 18, 2007 12:54 PM

Interesting how the bill of rights addresses individual rights but when it comes to gun rights all of a sudden the founders were idiots and we are stuck in the 1700's. Plummet? not only are you an idiot your a dangerous idiot. The criminals much like the sack of crap at VT violated the "gun free" zone on campus so that little piece of feel good gun control was a lot of good. Criminals who want weapons will get them and use them. To disarm Americans will not solve gun crime. Locking up known wierdos like this jack-tard is. They knew he was an issue they knew he was a threat but they did nothing. The reality here is blame the shooter.

Posted by: solorunner on April 18, 2007 02:00 PM

ANyway, I got mad. I got angry and I used my platform to express it.

You not only used your platform - you used it and you used thousands of people's grief to make your political point.

I don't care what your position is on gun control, I abhor the fact that you stooped low enough only a day after this horror to use that graphic of mourning to push some agenda and to refer to the situation with a flippant "some student in a bad mood with a gun."

Don't worry, you're not alone - I dislike the media for doing it too.

Like you, I guess I'm entitled to my opinion.

Posted by: Kymber on April 18, 2007 02:46 PM

I agree with you Steve. We need to do something. A sick individual walks into a pawn shop and buys a gun. What is wrong with that picture? I think we should have a referendun and put it to a vote and let the majority decide: should we have stricter gun control? yes or no.

Posted by: Joe on April 18, 2007 02:57 PM

To comment about what Jerry says:

Killing is not just killing.

Yes it is. Taking a life, no matter whose life, is killing.

Murder is murder is murder.

Still Killing.

To me, killing in defense of yourself, your family, other people unable to defend themselves is justified. Defending your property (house, vehicles, animals, food, water, etc) may also be justification for killing some sorry low life piece of garbage. I would like to see public hangings return to our justice system.

Still killing. No matter how you cut it. What don't you get about this?

Basically, if a person needs help, I will do my best to help them.
Give them a job or help them find work, even give them some money if I can ... BUT steal from me or harm me, a member of my family or friends, there is no place on this earth that person(s)can hide from me except in prison.. and those person(s) should pray that they never get out. Murder someone in my family or friends and I will see you dead. Period!

Still killing, Jerry. And in case your aren't quite clear about what killing is or how it is defined, here's the American Heritage Dictionary definition:

v. killed, kill�ing, kills

v. tr.
To put to death.
To deprive of life: The Black Death was a disease that killed millions.
To destroy a vitally essential quality in: Too much garlic killed the taste of the meat.
To cause to cease operating; turn off: killed the motor.
To tire out completely; exhaust: "The trip to work, and the boredom and nervousness of jobs, kills men" (Jimmy Breslin).
To hit (a ball) with great force.
To hit (a ball) with such force as to make a return impossible, especially in a racquet game.
To put an end to; extinguish: The rain killed our plans for a picnic.
To destroy a vitally essential quality in: Too much garlic killed the taste of the meat.
To cause to cease operating; turn off: killed the motor.
To tire out completely; exhaust: "The trip to work, and the boredom and nervousness of jobs, kills men" (Jimmy Breslin).
To hit (a ball) with great force.
To hit (a ball) with such force as to make a return impossible, especially in a racquet game.
To pass (time) in aimless activity: killed a few hours before the flight by sightseeing.
To consume entirely; finish off: kill a bottle of brandy.
Sports To prevent a hockey team on a power play from scoring during (a penalty).
To cause extreme pain or discomfort to: My shoes are killing me.
To mark for deletion; rule out: killed the story.
To thwart passage of; veto: kill a congressional bill.
Informal To overwhelm with hilarity, pleasure, or admiration: The outstanding finale killed the audience.
To hit (a ball) with great force.
To hit (a ball) with such force as to make a return impossible, especially in a racquet game.

v. intr.
To cause death or extinction; be fatal.
To commit murder.
Informal To make such a strong impression as to overcome: dress to kill.

The act of killing.
An animal killed, especially in hunting.
A person killed or to be killed: "Infantrymen . . . had seen too many kills suddenly get up and run away or shoot at them as they approached" (Nelson DeMille).
An enemy aircraft, vessel, or missile that has been attacked and destroyed.
Sports A kill shot.

Posted by: refuse to State on April 18, 2007 03:14 PM

I could not disagree more. By that logic we should take people's car's away. Last year there were apporximately 42,643 deaths by automobile and approximately 10,000 murders by handguns. Looks pretty logical to me! We just need to take away people's cars and we could save so many more lives!

Posted by: David on April 18, 2007 04:46 PM

Enough of the apples to oranges comparisons.
If you want stats go here if you dare:

Posted by: Tom Egly on April 18, 2007 04:57 PM

Some of the respondents here have seen too many episodes of "24", too many "They are out to get YOU" kinda tales, and a lot of other bad, bad shit. Jeez guys, this is all too FUBAR for words. Civil liberties eroding? Lost readers? (Goodbye!, good riddance), fans of Jefferson? (er, he's, like, been dead for 181 YEARS), and patriots urging us to hunker in a bunker, cos the boogey man's comin' ta gettcha!(WTF?) People, get some fucking therapy! Chill out, guys. Smoke a little weed, have a drink, RE-FUCKING-LAX.

Steve, ya the man for stepping up to this. Armed and dangerous AmeriKANS? Lean, mean, and armed like machines? KNOCK IT OFF, guys. Let's see deer with automatic weapons in the woods, that'ad put the SPORT into shooting Bambi, n'est pas? My brother carries a legal, concealead hand gun: people, be fucking afraid, cos the government hands out permits to A.N.Y.O.N.E. The last thing the country ... shit, any fucking country needs, is hot-headed red-neck nut-jobs with axes to grind tooled up with AK ANYTHINGS, carrying heat with serial numbers filed off and shit. More guns needed? NON-FUCKING-SENSE! WTF? Next thing you know we'll be arming 10 year olds, then recess ain't gonna be no milk break. Lighten the fuck up. Disarm, and hug a terrorist. Remember people, 200 years ago or so George Washington was a terorist, wanted for crimes against the Crown. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Attention all Americans claiming the "right" (right my ass) to bear arms; remember where you came from, all those years ago, THEN, shout loudly about "freedom".

Posted by: popgoestheweasel on April 18, 2007 07:11 PM

I'm with "popgoestheweasel" here. I moved from New York to Idaho ten years ago... 90% of the people here think it's there God given right to carry a concealed Bazooka to church. 'Cos you never know, the preacher may go postal one Sunday and try to drown everyone in the font. Fuck... As an Australian pointed out in a comment on AdScam, 15 years ago a guy shot 45 people in an hour in Tasmania. The country freaked and passed the strongest gun laws in the fucking world. It is now impossible for a civilian to own a hand gun... Not that they need one. The re hasn't been a mass shooting since, and no zombies have overrun any towns in the outback. As another comment also reminds us, when the second amendment was created, it took twenty fucking seconds to load your gun, then you got to fire one bullet. Why don't you NRA fuckers take your Uzi's and shove 'em up your ass... Oh, then pull the trigger. It'll be self-defense.

Posted by: George Parker on April 18, 2007 07:25 PM

I'm moderately confused by this issue, being a Brit.
I keep hearing the argument that if so-and-so had a gun, then the latest nut with a Rambo complex would have been shot down early on in a rampage, thus reducing the overall death count.
But I don't ever remember reading that a victim DID have a gun to protect him/herself, thus averting a massacre.
Therefore it seems logical to argue for legislation making it compulsory for EVERYONE to carry a gun, just in case.
...which is madness.

Posted by: FishNChimps on April 19, 2007 06:24 AM

Being a Brit who's lived over here for years, I have to agree with FishNChimps. What he doesn't realize is that it is the NRA's aim to make sure there will be legislation requiring all Americans to have at least two or more guns. One of these will be an automatic weapon capable of putting twenty bullets into anyone who looks at you in a strange way. After all, he might be a communist. or even worse someone wanting to take away my second ammendment rights to carry the anti-tank weapon I will need to defend myself if the Democrats force us to defeat in Iraq and the terrorist invasion fleet lands at Coney Island.

Posted by: George Parker on April 19, 2007 09:35 AM

rsponse to refuse to State:

1) MURDER of a person is a criminal offense.

2) Killing a person in commission of a crime is defined as MURDER.

3) Killing a person of wether for the sake of killing is MURDER.

4) Killing a person in self defense is NOT MURDER!
and that's the difference. And yes dead is dead regardless, however the distinction between MURDER and killing in self defense is different. Don't you agree?

To: Steve Hall::

PLEASE make a new thread/post whatever for this topic.

It is a shame to disgrace the memories of ou beautiful children killed in this tragic incident at VT.
While each us us seem to have strong opinions about gun control, I feel that you are right in bringing attention to this tragedy but I feel that you should have immediately started another
discussion group on gun control and left the original for honoring those MURDERED by a sorry piece of garbage that does not/should not get attention past the fact that he killed himself - That was definately a Justified Homicide.

Waiting for the NEW discussion Group.

Posted by: Jerry on April 19, 2007 10:26 AM

Re: George Parker's response, I feel that it's only fair to tourists that they have the right to carry guns too. Holidaying families should be made to pick up a 9mm automatic with their Hertz rental car.
Ridiculous I know, but so's the idea of making these wretched objects so easy to buy.

Posted by: FishNChimps on April 19, 2007 10:56 AM

Guns are not a fantasy solution. Along with better psychological screening, guns are part of the solution to school shootings.

Remember the Pearl High School shootings in Pearl Mississippi, 1997:

After killing his mother, student Woodham drove his mother's car to his high school. When he entered the school, he shot Lydia Dew and former girlfriend Christina Menefee. Both girls died. He went on to wound 7 others.

Joel Myrick, the assistant principal, retrieved a .45 pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham while he was trying to drive off campus.


Ed Hill, Atlanta

Posted by: Ed Hill on April 19, 2007 02:34 PM

Guns are not a fantasy solution. Along with better psychological screening, guns are part of the solution to school shootings.

Remember the Pearl High School shootings in Pearl Mississippi, 1997:

After killing his mother, student Woodham drove his mother's car to his high school. When he entered the school, he shot Lydia Dew and former girlfriend Christina Menefee. Both girls died. He went on to wound 7 others.

Joel Myrick, the assistant principal, retrieved a .45 pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham while he was trying to drive off campus.

The vice principal stopped Woodham from going on to the nearby Jr. High School and killing more. The gun is a vital tool for stopping violence.


Ed Hill, Atlanta

Posted by: Ed Hill on April 19, 2007 02:36 PM

Wow! Do you think if Joel had all that time to run to his truck, he might have had time to call the police? Again, this is an isolated case against the many cases where guns do harm. Accidental deaths alone out weigh the times that guns are used in self-defence or stopping a crime. Why is this so hard to understand? Even a caveman knows this.

Posted by: Tom Egly on April 19, 2007 03:41 PM

The issue here is:
Guns kill people who shoot them.
Whether your good or evil, if you own a gun and you carry a gun and you shoot it, chances are your more likely to be killed or injured by a gun. Hasn't anyone seen The Departed??
I'm pretty sure most of you have!

The bigger problem that is facing America is its addiction to speed and violence. Today we are living through a constantly accelerating pace of culture. A culture that is fueled by images and information that can be delivered through many different channels of varying speeds and levels of clarity and communication. The key to solving problems like what has happened most recently at Virginia Tech is putting a greater emphasis on social responsibility in our day to day consumption of entertainment media and advertising. Violent outbursts like V.T. have been ongoing during the last 40 years or so at a steadily increasing rate in highschools, college campuses, office buildings and on street corners both in the suburbs and big cities. Most of the readers of this blog are connected with the ad/marketing/media industries so why not ask yourselves, is there a better more human way to create and distribute effective non-violent messages to people? Why are we so enamered with violence today? Most people I know aren't genuinely angry, they just choose to buy into violence and extreme Points of View as a way to distract themselves from what they are really feeling. I believe most people are genuinely passive, loving, caring and nurturing human beings who have been persuaded away from their natural insincts of behavior for one reason or another. Its time to embrace a change and a new direction for American culture. No more senseless war, famine and destruction! More Hope, Opportunity and Education that will break down stereotypes, fears and the insecurities that we all share as we live through our lives today! So put away your guns, your bullets, your bombs and go hug someone you love or wish you could love because that is what didn't happen to Cho Seung-Hui. He chose to embrace violence in place of love and humility.

Posted by: coyote on April 19, 2007 03:45 PM

did anyone else notice the weirdness of having rifle- toting ROTC people at a ceremony to memorialize youngsters who had just been cruelly shot dead not 24 hours before?

couldn't they at least have had the sensitivity to hold, oh i don't know, FUCKING SABRES? anything but fucking GUNS!!!

apparently that was too much forethought to ask. and no-one gave it a second thought. or questioned it. and therein lies the problem really.

Posted by: veedub on April 19, 2007 09:46 PM

I admire Professor Librescu for holding the door against the Virginia Tech killer. He must have really cared for his students. Having seen what Nazi's did to his family, Librescu knew that he had to act to save his students.

Here's how Wikipedia describes it:
Liviu Librescu was ... Professor of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Tech. The 76-year-old Holocaust survivor was shot and killed in the Virginia Tech massacre while holding off the gunman at his lecture hall entrance so his students could escape through the windows.

This was a brave 76 year old man who gave his life to successfully save his students.

Would Librescu have shot and killed Cho if he had a gun?

If you were armed during the attack, would you give up and die?

If armed, would you stand there and do nothing to help the others and stop Cho?

Posted by: Ed Hill on April 20, 2007 09:47 AM

ok folks lets move on. of course there are those sheep... baaaa .... like veedub (do you also have to wear DYPERS if someone says boo and carries a walking cane), Tom Egly (do you really belive that someone else will protect you), and several others that believe in laws that are pro-criminal and anti-gun. I say again .... BAAAAA. You will become slaves of the criminal element.

Posted by: Jerry on April 20, 2007 11:11 AM

Jerry: I and our ancestors have been protected for the past 231 years. Do you mean to tell that you haven't been protected? Are you a gun owner? If so, how many times have you had to use your gun to protect yourself from the criminal element. Most gun owners have not. Yet, the guns being stolen by once law abiding citizens are staggering. Throw in accidental deaths and your off the chart. It's simply not worth having or manufacturing hand guns.
Most of us have moved on from the days of the old west, perhaps so should you.

Posted by: Tom Egly on April 20, 2007 11:40 AM

At this rate, I wonder who’ll hit 756 first–Bonds or the comments on this post.

Posted by: makethelogobigger on April 20, 2007 11:45 AM


Yes Tom, I have been protected by people like me who protect and serve others. I really do wish and hope that members of our society will wake up and return to the idea that people must be responsible for their own actions and that there are consequences for commiting criminal acts, AND that each citizen has not only the right but the duty to protect themselves and others. The criminal must learn and know from the outset that their acts may lead to their death and/or punishment from their intended victim(s).

Yes Tom I am a gun owner. I do not belong to the NRA.

I have had to protect myself and others by using weapons of various types, including firearms (Hand gun, Rifle, Shotgun, Motor vehicle (car, truck, motorcycle, and bicycle), Night stick (baton), Flashlight, Mace, and bare hands.

I have had to protect my self and others that could not or would not protect themselves literally every day from the criminal element. I live in a city that has a crime rate that is very high. Shootings, stabbings, beatings, robberies, car jackings, happen here virtually every day. AND the crime rate in my hometown is less that several other major cities. In addition to these "published" crimes against the public, a large number of crimes in my city and other cities are never reported. Ask anyone in law enforcement, loss prevention, security, fire departments, etc.

***** NEWS FLASH *****

BIG BROTHER is HERE. I just heard today that our wonderful city officials have, agreed - behind closed doors - with no public vote or any referendum, taken a page from BIG BROTHER and are raising taxes to put cameras with sound on each street corner and on every street in the city. They are also trying to place cameras in restaurants, bars, and outside many homes in selected communities. (Seems they got this idea from something that NY City does.)

Talk about personal freedoms and rights violated and my/our paranoia about it. Bullshit!! Wait until you have a camera in your house/bathroom/kitchen/bedroom with sound and time tracking each minute of you life.

Didn't think it would happen in my lifetime. I sure feel sorry for those that did not wake up in time and will not do anything to stop this CRAP!

Wake up folks ...

Steve - Time to start a new blog

Posted by: Jerry on April 20, 2007 06:37 PM

Now then, Tom and Jerry. Cat and mouse. Cat crap and mouse poo morelike. Protected for 231 years? From what? By whom? September 11 comes along and suddenly, there's a war on terror, when the REST OF THE FUCKING WORLD has been fighting a war on terror for decades. And big brother is here, whoa run, it's the fucking boogey man. Halfwits! The average American going about their day at work, in traffic, at the grocery store, and in every public place is filmed, framed, and photographed hundreds of times a day. No erosion of civil liberties. It's illegal for the USA to spy on its own people, so it gets its neighbours to spy on its citizens on its behalf. Search Wikipedia for ECHELON, then you might have something to bitch about. Disarm. Love. Peace Here's mud in your eye!

Posted by: popgoestheweasel on April 20, 2007 07:17 PM


based on your childish attempts at joining the discussion i'll bet i make a hell of a lot more money than you do or ever will. and i've won waaay more awards than you have. this is an advertising blog.

toddle off now jerry! you're seriously out of your league here.

Posted by: veedub on April 20, 2007 10:38 PM


Awards? you mean that you get awards for someone else changing your dipers? What awards, I doubt journalism, certainly not athletics or any competetive event except perhaps crosswords.

I admit you may now make more money than I do now since I am retired (at 58) But since you brought it up, without revealing anything that I seriously doubt that you are in MY LEAGUE. If you are so hung up on money, I owned a my publishing company for several years and was a mojor stock holder in at five others. Ever hear of Forbes Publishing. Malcom before he passed away was a very close friend. Ever hear of Texas instruments? how about Heath or Hatteras or Cris Craft or eneral Dynamics to name a few? Not just names but organizations in which I had a great deal of management interest.
Now youth, go forth into the world and listen to and heed the words of those that have suffered and strived to make you a world in which you have been allowed to exist.

Yep, I'll "toddle off" now and I wish you the best of luck as you enjoy your slavery.
And a final note, everything I have said during this entire blog has been the truth wether you wish to see it or not.
Again... Wake up ... or suffer what you may create.

Posted by: Jerry on April 21, 2007 06:51 PM


advertising awards. it may have escaped your attention but this is an advertising blog, not a gun-nut blog. so advertising awards would have been the logical deduction there wouldn't it?

re: you career. if what you say is truly the case then all i can say is that there's hope for all of us if someone as clearly nuts as you can make it in this wonderful country of ours. and, apparently, without firing a single shot.

go polish your luger jerry!

Posted by: veedub on April 21, 2007 09:28 PM

Jerry, you wrote:
"I have had to protect myself and others by using weapons of various types, including firearms (Hand gun, Rifle, Shotgun, Motor vehicle (car, truck, motorcycle, and bicycle), Night stick (baton), Flashlight, Mace, and bare hands.

I have had to protect my self and others that could not or would not protect themselves literally every day from the criminal element. I live in a city that has a crime rate that is very high. Shootings, stabbings, beatings, robberies, car jackings, happen here virtually every day. AND the crime rate in my hometown is less that several other major cities. In addition to these "published" crimes against the public, a large number of crimes in my city and other cities are never reported. Ask anyone in law enforcement, loss prevention, security, fire departments, etc."

Wow, you sound like Superman! It appears you have fought off and protected so many people. Bare hands? Motor vehicles? Are you sure your not really Jack Bauer or Rambo? I lived for 17 years in a city that was named "the murder capital of World" with one murder per 1000 citizens. And in tough neighborhoods. And not once was I mugged or had my house broken in to. It's called street sense.

If you had to protect yourself and others as many ways that you have stated, I'd move. But what concerns me is that you sound like a successful business man with many high-end contacts and yet it sounds like your in constant danger and fear.
I'm not a kid,55,and I'm just tired of seeing punks with $25 handguns playing the macho role just as you appear to be doing. If we did away with handguns, the punks couldn't afford the high-priced black market ones and not be able to buy them at any street corner. You would then be able to hang up your "badge".

Posted by: Tom Egly on April 23, 2007 09:39 AM

Jan. 16, 2002, Peter Odighizuwa, a 43-year-old student from Nigeria, walked into the Appalachian School of Law offices of Dean Anthony Sutin, 42, a former acting assistant U.S. attorney, and professor Thomas Blackwell, 41, and opened fire with a .380 ACP semi-automatic handgun – shooting them at close range. Denise Dales, 33 was also killed.

Two students acting independently of one another, Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross, ran to their vehicles to retrieve firearms. Gross, an off-duty police officer in his home state of North Carolina, got his 9mm pistol and body armor. Bridges got out his .357 Magnum.

Bridges and Gross went back to the building where the shots were heard and as Odighizuwa exited, they approached from different angles. Bridges yelled for him to drop his weapon and the shooter was subdued by several unarmed students.

Gross went back to his car and got handcuffs to detain the shooter until police arrived.

Most news reports of the incident failed to mention the presence of two armed students and their role in subduing the shooter, saying only that he was tackled by bystanders.

Odighizuwa was tried for the murders and sentenced to multiple life terms in prison.

Regarding the VT shootings last week, I believe that any armed student or professor would have had at least a 50/50 chance of stopping killer Cho.
As unarmed students, the VT victims had NO chance of survival.

The unarmed Prof Librescu and unarmed VT students who blocked the doors of separate classrooms, took the only effective action they could. Still 33 people died. The 2002 event and the Pearl Mississippi armed vice principle shows that armed students or faculty can be effective in stopping campus shooters.


Posted by: Ed Hill on April 23, 2007 10:00 AM

Regarding the earlier comment that V principal Myrick had ample time to call the police rather than retrieve the pistol he used to stop the shooter:

In Tampa FL, 1993, a woman in my neighborhood called the Tampa police 911 reporting that her ex-husband was beating her. Police arrived 45 minutes later. She was dead.

1993, I called Tampa police to report a burglary in progress in the house next door. Police arrived 3 hours later.

Many police depts are understaffed and respond slowly.

Posted by: Ed Hill on April 23, 2007 10:14 AM

thanks for stopping by to push the NRA side of things ED HILL. it's important that minority views get represented. however extreme they may be.

more guns for everyone all the time is so clearly the solution to rampant random spontaneous gun violence. i feel like shooting my stupid self just for not thinking of that one earlier!

bet you don't live in the south bronx Ed!

Posted by: veedub on April 23, 2007 09:31 PM

One of my relatives has a handgun, 'for protection'. They are convinced that in the middle of the night, a burglar will break into their home, and they'll have to protect themselves.
When I questioned the safety of having a gun in their home at all, especially when children go to visit, they just said 'Oh, don't worry: I keep the gun in the back of the upstairs closet, and the bullets in the garage, separate.'
'Protection' isn't a good enough excuse.
There need to be stricter gun control laws.

I agree with you, Steve.

Posted by: Lark on April 25, 2007 12:06 AM

Lark, I'm glad that you agree with Steve and the rest of us. I have heard similar stories about how people who have a gun in their house keep the gun and bullets in separate locations. BUT... let's take your relative as an example. It's 2am and he hears a robber breaking into his house. How is he going to get the ammo for the gun that's downstairs in the garage to protect his family? Is he going to hold the robber at bay with an empty gun while he goes to his garage and arms his gun? Chances are the robber is armed too. Is he willing to bluff the robber with an empty gun? I think not. In the meantime, as his kids grow up, they will know where mom or dad keep the gun and ammo.One day they will show it to their friends because they will think it's "cool". That's when an accidental shooting will happen. This happen even when the guns are locked up. The kids will know where the keys are located. The odds are in favor of an accidental shootings than someone breaking into your house. I for one don't like those odds.

Posted by: Tom Egly on April 25, 2007 09:16 AM

As a largely urban & suburban society, most of us don't have much familiarity with guns, gun safety or the proper use of a gun. Many of the comments here reflect this lack of training.

I took gun safety and marksmanship training at a local gun range in north Atlanta, then started competing in IDPA(International Defensive Pistol Assoc.) and Glock sponsored competitive shooting events. Others get training in the military or from friends.

I strongly recommend that you get training from a local gun range if decide to take on the serious responsibility of armed self defense.

"In The Gravest Extreme" Mas Ayoob's book covers the legality and practical issues of self defense.

NRA gun training resources:

or call a local gun range and ask about training.

Posted by: Ed Hill on April 25, 2007 09:48 AM

Will they train you on how to load your handgun when the gun and ammo are 100 feet away from each other with an intruder in between you?

Add up the number of households that have guns and the number of times that those households have been robbed while someone is home and have stopped the intruder. Now add up the number of accidental shootings or the number of times guns have been stolen from said households. It's not worth it.
Why do you ignore these statistics? Think for God's sake! Show me the reasoning that an armed household is a safer household. Come on, show me!

Posted by: Tom Egly on April 25, 2007 10:38 AM

Your question shows a lack of understanding on proper usage of guns for self defense. The configuration you suggest is not practical.
If you live in the Atlanta area, e-mail me and I will be happyy to put you in touch with a trainer.
Even a litle study of the literature will reveal why your question is off target.

Note that the Pearl MS and Appalachian School of Law shootings cited above show that gun self defense works.

If you oppose gun self defense, please explain how you would convince the armed students or armed vice principal why they should not have used their guns?

I think the armed defenders in these cases did the right thing. Can you convince me that they did wrong? I doubt it.

Posted by: Ed Hill on April 25, 2007 02:02 PM

Taking the law into your own hands is never the right thing. In the two incidents that you mentioned, they were very lucky nothing went wrong. And in the one case, an off-duty police officer was involved. As any one knows a police officer is never “off-duty”. In fact, they are required to carry their gun at all times. It seems odd that it was the civilian that yelled at the killer to drop his weapon. Why didn’t the cop take command? What if the killer panic and started shooting all over the place? Stray bullets kill too.

Yes, training does help. But, too many gun owners don’t follow the training they are taught. As of 1994, Americans owned an estimated 192 million firearms. One out of three are kept loaded and unlocked. So, we have 128 million “safe” guns. But that leaves 64 million guns that are not. 64 million! That amount is staggering when you relate it to these facts:

1.For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related shootings.
2.The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home
3.The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.
4.When a gun owner is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than 2% of home invasion crimes.

These stats just out way the right to carry a handgun or have one in your house. It’s not my “lack of understanding”, it’s 33% of gun owners who aren’t responsible. That’s the scary part. Like, I mentioned before, I have no bone to pick with non-assault rifles. It’s the handgun that serves no purpose. One case of stopping a criminal against 22 cases of harm to our society just doesn’t justify it for me.

Posted by: Tom Egly on April 25, 2007 03:54 PM


Your wildly inaccurate statistics fail to address the real issue here.

To address the issue of stopping school shootings:
I presented two instances where hand guns saved lives by preventing further shooting by the student killers.

Your only response was to propose unfounded what-if scenarios. Your suppositions about stray bulets never happend in reality. May I suggest that we stick to the facts. We have two real life instances where hand guns proved helpful.

In the two instances cited, hand guns saved lives by stopping active school shooters. Please have the courtesy to acknowledge these facts.

Let's break it down to basic logic:
1) Why do people call the police when a school shooter is killing people?

2) The police are called because they carry hand guns and rifles. Thus they are equipped to use deadly force to stop the shooter.

3) If an armed student or armed off duty police officer is already at the school, let's save time and save lives, by allowing the armed person to kill the school shooter.

4) I argue that students or teachers should be allowed to keep their weapons on campus. I believe that armed students should shoot any school shooter who is killing people.

5) You seem to be saying that the armed students in the two examples I cite, should not have threatened the killers. I reject your advice as unrealistic nonsense.

Your cold dogmatic argument offers no help to the victims of school shooters. You are telling people who are attacked to just give up and die.

Posted by: Ed Hill on April 26, 2007 02:45 PM

Ed, Ed, Ed, what are going to do with you? I suggest you read the following articles and books if you think my stats are wildly inaccurate:

“Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home”- The Journal of Trauma 1998; 45:263-267

“Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home”- New England Journal of Medicine, 1993; 329:1084-1091

“Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership”- New England Journal of Medicine, 1992; 327: 467-472

“Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms” Cook and Ludwig

“Weapon Involvement in Home Invasion Crimes” – Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol.273,No.22, June 14, 1995

Now to address you second comment. Yes you presented TWO instances that saved lives.
In 2002, 30,242 people were killed by guns in America- 83 a day- including 17,108 suicides; 11,829 homicides; and 762 unintentional shootings. And you mean to tell me that your TWO instances justify the previous statement. BS. Guns are just too convenient and too impersonal for any reason.

As for your third comment. You have never heard of any instance where someone was killed or hurt by a stray bullet? Get your head out of that dark place. Here, in DC, a half a dozen kids have been killed in the past years by stray bullets. If we all had guns and tempers flared, there would be more blood shed, even between law-abiding citizens.

Your fourth comment. Yes, call the professionals. They have been more trained than any citizen would have been. Even cops use deadly force as a last result. If a shooter is confronted with a SWAT team, he is more than likely to surrender. But if he sees a student with a gun, he’ll more than likely shoot it out with them. Put your self inside the shooters head.

Your world where every student should be armed is such unrealistic nonsense. It would produce more gun violence than stopping violence. I am afraid to give you more stats because you might make me cite my references as I did at the beginning of this retort.

But here goes anyway. By having more guns on the streets these following figures would go through the roof. In 2004, 2,852 young people (19 and under) were killed by firearms in the US. Firearms are the second-leading cause of death (after motor vehicle accidents) for young people 19 and under in the US.

Your world where everyone has a six-gun on his or her hip is so non-forward thinking that it scares me. Lets evolve not dissolve.

Posted by: Tom Egly on April 26, 2007 03:47 PM

A total gun ban will only keep the honest man honest. Meaning that all the honest civilians in their homes will surrender their weapons. The other civilians will see this as an opportunity to invade every home since there are no defenses. I have heard about, but have not confirmed, of a moderately sized town where it is law that every home have a weapon, that town has a VERY low burglary and homoside rate. As for an example about V Tech, all teachers in Israel are required to carry a sidearm, there is no violence in those schools. If that can happen in a warzone that has been going on for 1000 plus years, it can happen in the American schools and public areas. Disarming the HONEST man is ridiculous.

Posted by: Dustin Adams on May 10, 2007 12:00 AM

Let's test your theory Steve: Care to take a stroll through the barrios of Mexico City - where gun ownership is illegal - in the middle of the night?

And let's test your logic: If guns kill people, rather than the sick folks who shoot them, it stands to reason that cars kill people, rather than drunk and reckless drivers. By your reasoning we should make car ownership a crime and let those convicted of DUI and Vehicular Homicide out of jail. Make sense?

Posted by: Bill W on May 14, 2007 06:31 AM

If you were in Miami during the two weeks after a hurricane that there was no electricity, no streetlights and no police responding to 911 calls; or in NawLeens after Katrina; or in Central LA when the police withdrew and retreated from the neighborhood, or prevented three violent crimes by displaying your handgun, or arrested a fourth (Marielito) engaged in raping and choking a girl in the street, you wouldn't be so eager to give up your right to self defense.

A man with experience always trumps a man with a theory. All you have is a theory.

The study has been done by John Lott: The more guns that exist in a county in the US, the less violent crime exists in that county.

Just as the liberals can't fathom how lower taxes brings in more revenue, they are too simple-minded to realize that more guns prevent crime than commit it.

Posted by: OldFox on August 29, 2007 12:59 PM

Post a comment