Opponents of gun control might react to this situation this way: firearms are illegal on the VT campus. Therefore none of the students had arms and were defenseless. Proponents of gun control will say that the gun culture in the US is a contributing factor to the maniacal acts committed at VT. So to answer your question, I doubt it will move anyone with a position on gun control in either direction. I think Americans are pretty evenly divided on this topic, although I can't find any stats to back that up - just basing it on people I've listened to.

It seems that it's not that important to Americans right now. Here's an April 2007 link showing moderate poll results for support for the National Rifle Association and gun control: http://tinyurl.com/yothne On the one hand, we Americans love our freedom because we're always told to do so. On the other, we are frightened of crime. You may have heard that Texas passed a law saying that citizens now have the right to "shoot to kill" intruders. As much as the media would have us believe that we are a liberal society, we are frequently shown that we hate criminals, whether it's by supporting the death penalty or by dazzling us with the latest story about the store clerk who fired upon a fleeing thief. By exaggerating crime reports and keeping the horror stories on air, the media scares us into believing that violence is everywhere. Therefore our fear breeds consumerism, which is the American Way. So to me the problem is not taking away our guns, but taking away our right to buy them. [edit: I answered this question before I heard about the news; I seriously underestimated the "mass" part of steelhamster's question. Nevertheless, I still hold to the assertion that Americans will want to keep their guns. More polls will surely be conducted soon, and they will probably reflect our disillusioned state. But in a few years it will come to rest again.]

A crazy mad man did the shooting not everyone else

This was taken from a post on craigslist/Dallas, I think it says it very well. A VA Tech official praised the fact that a proposed bill in 2005 was defeated that would have allowed those with concealed hand-gun permits to carry on campus. If it had passed, I think things would have been different. He may have killed a few, but not as many. Virginia House Bill 1572 was proposed in 2005 by Shenandoah County, Va., Republican Del. Todd Gilbert after a VA Tech student with a state-issued concealed handgun permit was arrested and charged only with "unlawfully" carrying a handgun on campus. The bill would have prohibited state universities in Virginia from enacting "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun." After the proposal died in the state's House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety, The Roanoke Times quoted VA Tech spokesman Larry Hincker as celebrating the defeat of the bill. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions," Hincker said on Jan. 31, 2006, "because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." Following Monday's multiple-victim shooting at VA Tech, Erich Pratt with Virginia-based Gun Owners of America called that philosophy "idiocy." "I think gun control advocates will say, 'See, we need more gun control,' even though this is exactly the product of gun control," Pratt said. Currently, only Utah has a statute specifically authorizing law-abiding individuals with concealed handgun permits to possess their firearms on state university property. Most other states have explicit or implied prohibitions. "Every school campus [other than those in Utah] in this nation is a 'gun free zone,' supposedly," Pratt bemoaned. "But, isn't it amazing that criminals, bad guys never obey those laws." Regarding Utah, Pratt adds, "Isn't it interesting that that's the one state where we haven't heard of any school shootings." At least two school shootings have been stopped by armed civilians before police arrived: · January 9, 2002, Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va. - 43 year old Peter Odighizuwa, who had flunked out of the small law school earlier in the week killed three people and wounded three others. Two law students - Tracy Bridges and Ted Besen - retreived a handgun from Bridges' vehicle and held Odighizuwa at gun point for several minutes before police arrived. (Bridges was a reserve deputy sheriff, but was not on duty at the time of the incident.) · October 1, 1997, Pearl High School, Pearl, Ms. - 16 year old Luke Woodham carried a rifle onto the school campus, killed his ex-girlfriend and one of her friends and wounded seven other people. Assisstant Principal Joel Myrick retreived a handgun from his truck and held Woodham for police. It was later learned that the teeneager had beaten and stabbed his own mother to death before the attack at the school. Pratt is not optimistic, however, that lawmakers will allow public university students and faculty members to protect themselves from mass murderers like the one who struck VA Tech Monday. "The only schools and universities where these tragedies have been stopped abruptly were the places where law-abiding citizens had a gun that was accessible to them and they were able to stop the shooter," Pratt noted. "The schools and universities that had to wait for the police to arrive, those are the ones that find these high death tolls. "It's just a real shame," he concluded, "that these guys never get it."

Just one thought: you can take any weapon, gun, knife, etc., and sit it on a table for 100 years. this weapon will not harm a soul. it will lay there until it rusts. Its not the weapon that kills people, its people that kill people. Access to a weapon may be a contributing factor, but the bottom line is the individual persons state of mind. It takes a brain and a human finger to fire a weapon.

The sad truth is that even if there where stricter gun control laws, its really not going to stop gun crimes. There is always going to be access to guns, one way or another. In Canada, we have pretty good gun control laws. I'm not saying they are perfect, but some complain its hard to get a gun for legitimate purposes such as hunting, etc. There are a couple of rifles in my house, which my dad has for farm use (however rarely used) But its not going to be a gun control law that stops me from picking up a gun and causing a massacre. People that use guns for evil, as it could be called, are the problem.

No gun control because the NRA is too powerful and just doesn't care. If it were up to them we would all be armed with as many weapons as we could pack onto our persons. There will be other mass killings, the ante will be raised, but the NRA will cooly play its hand--"the constitution protects my right to own a gun."

Why did the Sheriff in the old west often confiscate the guns of the men until they left town. Why did the saloon operators make everyone "check" their guns at the door? Did they know something that we have forgotten?

It is too easy to acquire a gun in the USA. There should be strict federal laws. People should be required to wait at least 1 month before being allowed to purchase a gun. Intense background checks should be made. Anyone with a history of mental illness should never be allowed to own a gun. Anyone with a history of any violent behaviour should not be allowed to own a gun. In the end, if someone wants a gun in the USA, they will find a way to obtain one.

Gun control or people control. When will we learn that it is people who kill, not guns? The gun is only the tool.

Gun control is a nice concept, but you can only control the guns of people willing to abide by the law. Who does that leave? Guns are out there and if a person wants one, they will get it.

Gun control is not only not a dirty word it is actually all over the USA. What you are calling for is the ban of all guns. This is forbidden by the constitution and more specifically the second amendment to the Bill of Rights ++“The conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”++ (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html) Gun control should consist of things such as not allowing the sale of guns and bullets at the same time. This is something I personally have witnessed at Wal-Mart and in Florida is illegal. Not selling guns after dark. Which I think is already a law in Florida. Then we need to register guns and I think that is already a law too. These are things that will keep people from committing a lot of crimes with guns. If your gun is registered and you know the cops can find you then you are considerably less likely to fire off the traceable bullets into something or someone you shouldn’t. Another way which would be in the complete opposite direction, would be to require all people over a certain age to own a gun. I would say require all men but I’m not sure if that would be sexist or not. This would only be useful if adequate training is also included. You can in no way hand a gun to someone and just expect them to know how to handle it properly. These things should really be taught by parents at young ages and also told about the wrong things to do with a gun. There are tons of things that could be taken care of with good parenting and some good quality education. Education on guns and knives and violence in general is the true answer to violence in any location. I have read things about immediate decline violent crimes in Washington DC at the onset of strict gun control. My computer decided to shut down internet explorer and I haven’t yet been able to find the page again. I do still have a reply for that. At any time if something is made illegal or harder to get the use of it will be decreased immediately. Everybody should remember that it takes time to establish black market trading. It would be interesting to me to see the statistics 20 years down the road not 1 or 2 years afterward. I also found a few statistics for Florida to support my arguments. * Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred: Florida| United States homicide rate -36% -0.4% firearm homicide rate -37% +15% handgun homicide rate -41% +24% We need to focus on long term fixes to problems. Its taken a long time to get to where we are today. School shootings becoming so frequent that it takes one on a college campus with an outrageous number of deaths before we get it on the news. My cousin attends that school and I understand fully that he could have been one of the victims. I’m not going to be one of the people who changes his opinion on an important matter every time I see something on the news. The fact is that if one of those people, just one, had had a gun on them he would have been dead or severely injured before more than 10 people had been killed. Maybe even after the first 2. If a group of unarmed people can muster the courage to take down a couple assholes with box cutters then just think of how well they could do on the ground with a gun in their hands against some poor bastard who couldn’t make any friends and couldn’t just settle with killing himself he had to ruin the lives of 32 other people first and he doesn’t even give us the satisfaction of sending him to jail. He was a coward with a very brave tool in his hand and had there been one of those brave tools in the hands of the heroes who died there trying to hold doors closed and whatever else they tried to do but couldn’t succeed. I don’t think anybody can truthfully say that getting rid of guns wouldn’t reduce crime. I think everybody knows that getting rid of guns would reduce crime. Sometimes though the solution is worse than the problem. If they can take away something that is written in our laws that you cant take it away, what else can they change. The first one. The third one. The Bill of Rights has a list of the 8 most important fundamental rights of American citizens and the ninth and tenth explain that there are way more than 8 and not to think that the ones not listed are worth less because of the 8 that were. Without the Bill of Rights the Constitution wouldn’t have been ratified. But it was. It is the basis for our entire system of government. If they can change that even against the direct words of the document itself than they can change anything. Without guns to protect us nothing would stop them. Words don’t mean anything without actions to back them up. A government is a slave to the people it governs and it should never be the other way around. If the government and the police force has guns and the people don’t then it is the other way around. I wouldn’t be affected by it. Take away my guns and my right to protect myself. I’ll still have my other rights. My children and their children will be the ones who suffer. So go for it. The first thing you do to your enemy is disarm him. The next thing you do to your enemy is imprison and use him for slave labor or you kill him. One last point before I leave. I can make a gun. I didn’t do any research I simply attended classes and listened especially in physics and chemistry and with a little creativity and thought I could put what I know to use making guns. You could too probably. I’m not saying I could do it first try, but humans have an innate ability to figure things out. The chart came from this site and it has tons and tons of statistics that have been compiled by someone who at least seems to be trying for an objective view at the debate. http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

Its not the control of guns that caused virginia tech massacre. its the 2nd amendment mindframe.

define non-partisan proof. Reasoned, Balanced and Badly Needed. The second amendment is the most hotly debated and controversial right in the Constitution. In light of the recent surge of school shootings and other gun-related crimes, gun policy has become one of our leading national concerns, affecting politicians, gun manufacturers, sport shooters, and ordinary citizens alike. Showcasing viewpoints from all sides of the gun control debate, Gun Control and Gun Rights, presents the first balanced gun policy textbook for use by undergraduates, graduate students, law students and the general public. This comprehensive anthology includes selections from legal cases, hunting stories, public policy briefs and journalistic accounts. Anyone looking for a fair, even-handed account of the gun issue will find it in this book. For the most part, the gun-policy debate in the United States could be well summed up by Yeats' words: The best lack all conviction while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity. Truly honest scholarship, in the sense of a dispassionate exploration of the issues underlying the debate, has been sorely lacking. Even the best, scientifically-based work has taken the form of attempts to prove something about the social benefits or social costs of private gun ownership. No one, it seems, has come forward to frame the questions that the debate ought to be seeking to answer. Andrew McClurg, David Kopel and Brannon Denning have done just that. While holding very different personal views - McClurg is an advocate of increased gun control while Kopel and Denning are in favor of broader gun rights - these three have built a framework within which a meaningful debate can begin. Anyone who truly cares about finding a workable resolution to our country's disagreements over gun ownership - anyone, that is, who will make the effort to get beyond simply demanding that things be settled their way - will benefit from reading this book. I want to stress how very important it is that we, as informed, thinking citizens, take control of this debate. Politicians work to extend and ensure their tenures by polarizing constituencies around divisive issues. They have, in all too many instances, no genuine desire to find solutions that meet and respect the vital interests of all. If lasting resolutions are to be achieved, if answers are to be found that we can all live with, they will have to be built from the ground up in the minds of individuals who have taken responsibility for their own beliefs.

I live in Virginia, have friends who went to Tech, went to school myself a few hours away, have family and friends who are current students, some of whom were on campus that day. It was a tragedy that is very very close to all Virginian's hearts. It was often said after that day that "We are all Va Tech" and we surely all mourned with Tech. HOWEVER the 2nd Ammendment is part of our Bill of rights, and should be held sacrosanct. It is our liberties that make us Americans. you can't pick and choose your ammendments. There are way too many people out there who scream and whine about the right to free speech, press, and religion (1st) and the right against unjustified search and seizure (4th), and how as Americans we have rights, damnit, but want to do away with the 2nd ammendment. You can't pick and choose,folks. This is one of the cornerstones of our country. If we lose this right, what's next? With the price of freedom comes great responsibility. As for the shooting at Tech, there are laws in place that could have prevented what happened. But this guy,Seung-Hui Cho, slipped through the cracks because these days the gov't has to be very careful not to offend anyone, in case the ACLU comes out screaming discrimination. This guy had a history of Mental illness: he had been accused of stalking two female students and was declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice. At least one professor had asked him to seek counseling. In high School Cho was diagnosed with multitude of problems, however school officials did not report his problems and special education status when he applied and was admitted to Virginia Tech because of federal privacy laws which prohibit such disclosure unless a student requests special accommodation. The Virginia Tech review panel detailed numerous incidents of disturbing behavior beginning in Cho's junior year at Tech that should have served as warning signals of his deteriorating mental condition. Several former professors of Cho reported that his writing as well as his classroom behavior was disturbing, and he was encouraged to seek counseling.He was also investigated by the university for stalking and harassing two female students. What does this have to do with gun control? Well, it all comes down to the fact that : A) as Americans we all have the right to bear arms B) but there should be laws in place to prevent people who are deemed a threat from purchasing guns or ammunition. C) However, because civil liberties groups are outraged at the notion of preventing certain groups of people anything, these laws become near impossible to enforce or even pass. There will be gun ownership in America. It is our right. There just shouldn't be gun ownership for EVERYBODY. Consider this: you have to be deemed responsible and capable enough to drive a car, but anyone can own a gun. Blind people shouldn't drive and crazy people shouldn't own guns. BUT THE RIGHT TO OWN FIREARMS FOR THE AVERAGE AMERICAN CITIZEN MUST NOT BE DENIED.

As they say, "The road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions." Well, I don't think most people who advocate strict gun laws have any good intentions at all; they play on prejudices and stereotypes, rather than the actual real world consequences of their actions. However, they love to portray themselves as "we just want to reduce violence--aren't we wonderful people?" Sadly, critical thinking skills are a lost talent in America, so the same people who constantly scream about their freedom of speech are often the same ones advocating gun control, without even realizing that all those guns in private hands are what protects their right to spout off 4th grade Michael Moore logic.

Even though I support the 2nd Amendment for protection and hunting, I do agree with some common-sense regulation. Possibly the DUMBEST thing I have ever heard, is that guns should be allowed in schools. How do those people expect to avoid school shootings if they allow people to bring guns into schools, just because they "look normal." Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, other than breaking into a van once, had no criminal record before the Columbine massacre. Seung-Hui Cho had even less criminal activity. But even though we need SOME regulation (not a ban), you have to realize that there would still be school violence, even if guns were taken away. You may or may not know that the Columbine massacres involved propane bombs, in addition to firearms. My point is that we don't have school shootings or violence JUST because there's a gun store nearby. Only a couple feet from MY college is a gun store. I could easily buy something there if I wanted to, but I choose not to. All of my classmates also choose not to. In order to actually SOLVE this problem, we need to know where the problem comes from. This problem isn't caused by guns. It's cause by the DESIRE to buy them and use them to harm people. If people didn't have the DESIRE to shoot their classmates, we wouldn't have school shootings. But I guess it's easier to tell people to get rid of guns, or to give people more guns, than it is to tell everyone to start being nice to each other, huh?

I look at guns the way I look at drugs or alcohol. Banning them doesn't keep them out of the hands of those who are determined to get them. It may not be what you want to see, but that is reality. I for one, would like a gun to be able to use against those who feel they need to shoot me, for whatever reason.

If someone is determined to kill, they don't need a gun. I think Tim McVeigh proved that nicely. How many people did he kill with fertilizer and diesel fuel? The problem isn't the guns. The problems is that we need to rebuild the mental health system that was dismantled by Reagan. Sane people don't randomly shoot strangers. The VA Tech shooter let the cat out of the bag. There are kids with serious mental illness in every school in the country. They are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). No one reads those laws unless they have a kid with a disability. Those laws lump kids with mental illness under the heading Emotional Behavioral Disorders (EBD) which covers everything from Asbergers and ADD/ADHD to juvenile onset paranoid schizophrenia with psychosis. It lists them in an alphabet soup jumble of acronyms to make it unreadable and it forbids teachers to talk about the kids under penalty of Federal prosecution. So when the various school shooters committed their crimes, their teachers couldn't tell you that they had a diagnosis and a 3 inch thick file in the counselors office. They just had to leave you to wonder what was happening with kids today. However, as those kids leave public school and head off to college, they no longer have those Federal protections. The VA tech shooter was the first to commit such a crime in a private setting where the press could find out about his long history and thus we know that he had a serious mental illness. I know that the popular theory, and the one that lead to the dismantling of the mental health system, is that we now have effective drugs and people with mental illness can live safely in the community. However, many of them refuse to take their medication because of side effects. And if they don't take their medications, this can be the result.

Now more than ever. VaTech had and absolutley zero-tolerance for guns on campus, and it was absolutely against Virginia state law. Virginia has very stringent laws for purchasing guns as well. Look how much good they did. The facts are: 1) gun-contol laws do not and can not keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies. 2) the police and other "authorities" do not and can not protect all citizens from all armed criminals and crazies at all times. 3) the only thing that has been consistently proven to substantially reduce shootings by violent criminals and crazies is armed citizens at or very near the scene when it first starts. 4) Gun Control laws INCREASE shooting deaths, and the more stringent and more prohibitive they are, the more shooting deaths increase.

Yes. One of too many tragedies in a "Gun Free Zone" where a bad guy knows law abiding citizens will be unable to defend themselves.

Since when has Prohibition of any sort worked?

Remember those guns were legally registered to a person with mental health issues....if that isn't an argument for MORE gun control, I don't know what is.

we have gun control in the US. Pardon us if crazy people break or circumvent the law. I understand that the rest of the world doesn't have crime. It's just us.

As a gun-owning liberal, I believe that we should be tackling the source of societal ills that cause violence, instead of the tools misused to commit the act.

Heck no! I fully support gun control. I am always in complete control of any gun I'm carrying!