Brainless in Bristol

Mike Fox, of the Bristol Herald Courier, thinks that we, as Americans, should be "ashamed" that the Virginia Tech murders could happen in the U.S.

A nationwide Associated Press poll conducted the week of the Virginia Tech tragedy found that 52 percent answered "yes" to "Do you feel ashamed that this could happen in this country?"

Only 52 percent? Any percentage less than 100 is disheartening. Have Americans simply accepted such violence and crime as just a part of our society? Has it become normal? Whatever others’ sentiments may be, I refuse to accept senseless mass murder of innocent people as "normal."

OK, Mike, I'll grant that I'm ashamed of the fact that despite a Constitutional guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms, all of Cho's pool of potential victims were disarmed, and effectively rendered helpless, by university policy. Somehow, though, I doubt that's what you were looking for (perhaps it's the title of your editorial that gives me that idea: "After Tech, common-sense gun control laws cannot be ignored").

I'm certainly not ashamed that firearms can be had in this country, and I'm a bit curious as to what countries such a massacre could not have happened in (Israel, perhaps, where Cho may well have been riddled long before pushing the body count out of single digits?). Mass shootings have happened in countries with much more draconian gun laws than ours, and no combination of laws will make such acts utterly impossible. Even the utter abolishment of the Second Amendment would not come anywhere close to doing so. The Fourth Amendment would have to go too, in order to facilitate the enforcement of the outlawing of guns; privacy protections would have to go--we would need to be under detailed surveillance at all times. In short, I would be quite ashamed to live in a country where such measures were taken.

After Tech, after the infinite number of other public mass shootings, I say enough.

"Infinite number" of mass shootings? That seems rather a lot. One would think that an infinite number of even single shootings would mean an infinite number of people shot, which in turn would seem to be all of us. I'm sure I would have noticed that.

After weeks of trying to find the right words . . .

I think you should have kept looking a bit longer.

I refuse to remain silent on what I see as a destructive and embarrassing culture of violence fueled in part by a glorification of guns . . .

And you would replace it with an embarrassing culture of helplessness and thralldom fueled in part by a demonization of guns and the people who own them.

. . . common sense gun control can no longer be ignored.

On that, we agree--the brave men who established this nation certainly wouldn't have done so by ignoring the British--likewise ignoring "gun control" is not going to free us from its loathsome shackles.

Besides revamping the background check system, the federal assault weapons ban needs to be reinstated. No hunter could possibly need an Uzi, AK-47 or AR-15, and they’re gratuitous for home protection. Furthermore, the ban that expired three years ago – a survey at the time showed two-thirds of Americans supported extending it – would limit magazine capacity.

How what a "hunter could possibly need" entered the discussion is a mystery to me, but I'd love to hear your qualifications to make the judgment that the firearms you listed are "gratuitous for home protection." You have also failed utterly to exhaust the list of all the possible reasons peaceable people might wish to own such firearms. Finally, the "ban" that expired three years ago did not ban anything--the guns and magazines were still bought and sold, completely legally. What the law did was freeze the total supply for the civilian market at where it was before the law went into effect, by prohibiting newly manufactured or imported "assault weapons" or "high capacity" magazines from entering the civilian market.

Also, President Bush should sign into law a bill which would allow the U.S. attorney general to deny a gun purchase to anyone on a terror suspect watch list.

Good idea--let's destroy a person's Constitutionally protected human rights without a conviction, without an indictment, without even charging him or her with a crime. Also, since the bill that would do that has (thankfully) passed neither the Senate nor the House, I'm not sure how you expect Bush to sign it, unless your various hacks on the Constitution include a massive expansion of the executive branch of government, to the point of rendering the legislative branch irrelevant. Who needs checks and balances anyway--right, Mike?

Some conservatives mulled that if concealed weapons had been permitted on Tech’s campus, the gunman might’ve been stopped. Yet, that doesn’t mean anyone in Norris Hall would’ve had a concealed weapon or that they would’ve been able to use it to stop the gunman; after all, more than 50 people were killed or wounded in that building.

True, we do not know that any of the people present for Cho's massacre would have availed themselves of the means to stop it early, but we certainly do know the results of not allowing them to do so.

A SURVEYUSA poll conducted in the Lynchburg-Roanoke area the week of the Tech tragedy found that 52 percent think Virginia’s gun laws need to be more restrictive, compared to 38 percent who say it’s about right.

Now that's scientific! So if a bare simple majority of the people support the curtailment of rights of the rest, that's what your idea of "democracy" would have us do, eh? You do realize, I hope, that the minority whose rights you intend to take away tend to be the ones with the guns--that could pose some difficulties for any endeavor to attack their rights.

When asked if fewer or more people would have died at Tech on April 16 had concealed guns been allowed on campus, 44 percent said it would not have made a difference while 31 percent said more people would have died.

Well, that settles it, then. Who am I to question such expertise?

Rep. Rick Boucher, a Democrat whose constituency includes Blacksburg, stressed that even if he tried, there simply isn’t enough support in Congress or the White House to support any sweeping gun control measures. Sadly, this may be true.

And "sadly," the reason the support for such measures does not exist in Congress or the White House is that such support does not exist among the people consenting to be governed by those bodies. That, "sadly," is the reality of Constitutional, representative government.

The good news for you, Mike, is that there are numerous countries not saddled with such a government--perhaps you should go find one.