Targeting Gun Laws

[Lodge2004]

A suprisingly balanced editorial from the Roanoke Times:

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/113557

Targeting gun laws
No one can really know if fewer guns or more guns would have saved or taken more lives.

It didn't take long for both sides in the gun-control debate to use the Virginia Tech massacre as a weapon in their crusade for either stricter gun control or unrestricted arming of all law-abiding citizens. While it would be foolish to ignore that guns shortened the lives of 32 innocent students and instructors and wounded dozens more, it is unproductive to indulge in rounds of "If only...."

That hasn't stopped either side from vowing to press lawmakers for changes to state and federal gun laws -- as if the laws contributed to this mass slaughter and as if a tragedy of this enormity is commonplace and can be legislated away.

Both sides sound convincing in their passionate, anger-fueled arguments.

The Virginia Citizens Defense League has attempted unsuccessfully the past two years to convince lawmakers to lift the restriction that allows Virginia Tech to ban those with concealed gun permits from bringing weapons on campus. Its Web site responded to the Tech tragedy with a we-told-you-so: "If just one of those victims had been armed, this most probably would have turned out very differently."

The theory: Armed students or instructors would have taken out the killer and prevented the bloodshed of so many people.

Perhaps.

Perhaps, too, a shoot-out would have ensued, with the crossfire claiming even more lives. Perhaps, police would have mistakenly shot students who were merely defending themselves. More guns might have created more confusion and danger.

Gun-control advocates are advancing the perennial argument that deadly handguns are too easy to come by, especially in Virginia. Tighter laws might have prevented the killer from purchasing a handgun as police suspect he did last month in Roanoke.

Perhaps.

Perhaps, too, a demented, defective individual hellbent on killing a large number of people would find the means, either through illegal channels or by detonating a bomb, as it is believed the killer also threatened to do.

It cannot be known with any certainty whether Virginia's gun laws contributed at all to this enormous tragedy. It can be known with certainty that when the General Assembly convenes next January, both sides will lobby strenuously for changes.

Lawmakers must not allow themselves to be caught up in the passion or succumb to knee-jerk responses. The victims, their families, the university and the community deserve a reasoned debate and an outcome based solely on facts.

[flintknapper]

A suprisingly balanced editorial from the Roanoke Times:

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/113557

Targeting gun laws
No one can really know if fewer guns or more guns would have saved or taken more lives.

It didn't take long for both sides in the gun-control debate to use the Virginia Tech massacre as a weapon in their crusade for either stricter gun control or unrestricted arming of all law-abiding citizens. While it would be foolish to ignore that guns shortened the lives of 32 innocent students and instructors and wounded dozens more, it is unproductive to indulge in rounds of "If only...."

That hasn't stopped either side from vowing to press lawmakers for changes to state and federal gun laws -- as if the laws contributed to this mass slaughter and as if a tragedy of this enormity is commonplace and can be legislated away.

Both sides sound convincing in their passionate, anger-fueled arguments.

The Virginia Citizens Defense League has attempted unsuccessfully the past two years to convince lawmakers to lift the restriction that allows Virginia Tech to ban those with concealed gun permits from bringing weapons on campus. Its Web site responded to the Tech tragedy with a we-told-you-so: "If just one of those victims had been armed, this most probably would have turned out very differently."

The theory: Armed students or instructors would have taken out the killer and prevented the bloodshed of so many people.

Perhaps.

Perhaps, too, a shoot-out would have ensued, with the crossfire claiming even more lives. Perhaps, police would have mistakenly shot students who were merely defending themselves. More guns might have created more confusion and danger.

Gun-control advocates are advancing the perennial argument that deadly handguns are too easy to come by, especially in Virginia. Tighter laws might have prevented the killer from purchasing a handgun as police suspect he did last month in Roanoke.

Perhaps.

Perhaps, too, a demented, defective individual hellbent on killing a large number of people would find the means, either through illegal channels or by detonating a bomb, as it is believed the killer also threatened to do.

It cannot be known with any certainty whether Virginia's gun laws contributed at all to this enormous tragedy. It can be known with certainty that when the General Assembly convenes next January, both sides will lobby strenuously for changes.

Lawmakers must not allow themselves to be caught up in the passion or succumb to knee-jerk responses. The victims, their families, the university and the community deserve a reasoned debate and an outcome based solely on facts.

I love this:

While it would be foolish to ignore that guns shortened the lives of 32 innocent students

Here they go personifying inanimate objects again! "Guns" didn't kill anyone.




At least they got it right a little later in the article. Here is what really killed all those students:

Perhaps, too, a demented, defective individual hellbent on killing a large number of people