The bodies from the slaughter at Virginia Tech are yet to be buried and the liberals are already talking about gun control. The left’s leading spokesman (and now that Don Imus is gone, perhaps the most hateful person on television), Rosie O’Donnell, once again made the pitch for gun control. She declared on The View that her “right to live peacefully in America is violated by someone’s right to own a semi-automatic gun.”
Many European papers joined in condemning our “wild west” gun policies. The French daily, “Le Figaro,” wrote:
“It was all too easy for the elected representatives of the United States, from the White House to the Congress, to express their sadness yesterday; America’s problem with fire-arms represents a political issue for which they share responsibility. Here is a country that represents the vanguard of development and democracy while it is legal to carry a gun in 45 of 50 states, as long as the gun is not loaded.”
While it is hard to take a country seriously who has had more flags of occupation fly in Paris than King Henry the Eighth had wives, they do have a point. The Virginia legislature does share responsibility for the killings.
Virginia Tech already had a policy against guns on University property. The Virginia legislature considered a bill the previous year that would have overridden Virginia Tech’s policy and would have allowed those who legally own a conceal carry permit to carry their weapon onto school property. But the legislation died much to the delight of Virginia Tech’s spokesman, Larry Hincker. “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.”
I sincerely doubt any student felt safe before they were shot. A school’s law did not stop a psychopath murderer and it never will; it merely kept guns out of the hands of those who would have used their weapons to end the violence. Those who will murder 30-plus people in cold blood will not stop at the threat of a felony.
If all guns were instantly removed off the face of the earth, Cho might have used dynamite; remove all dynamite and he might have used a knife, or shovel, or a stick.
The Bible says, “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Each one of us is capable of falling into the mire of depression, loneliness, and depravity of a mass-murderer. We all have common passions and troubles. For 99.9999% of us, we deal with depression by seeing the good around us, we stamp out loneliness by making ourselves friendly to others, and we firmly reject evil thoughts and emotions. But there will always be the anomaly; there will always be a Cho.
History has proven that another mass murderer is coming to a city near you. The question is not whether he will come, but how you will stop him. If Rosie and the rest of the liberals have their way, we will share the fate of the dead of Virginia Tech.
- Add your comments (11 so far)
© Copyright 1999-2007 William Stewart. All rights reserved.
Comments
I sincerely doubt that Cho could kill 30 people with a stick or a revolutionary war era musket for that matter.
Man, that is one powerful stick to kill 30 people. All you gun toting americans need to lose the dream. If it was more difficult to purchase the gun then this wouldnt have happened. If the police had the right to consficate the gun when they investigated his stalking allegations then this would have not happened. As a proud Canuck, you all should experience what a gun free culture is like. Ive never heard a gunshot in my city in my life, whereas driving thorugh Cincinnati last summer, I heard six gunshots off the freeway in less than 35 minutes. Figure it out.
Canucks don’t hear guns because the population is near zero and the temps are freezing, so everyone’s inside..
All joking aside, not having a gun doesn’t prevent murder. Never will. There were murders long before guns, and should all guns instantly vanish, there would still be murders. People kill people. Guns are only a means to the end.
My point exactly, Stacey. Jim and M.B., I never said the alternative weapons would have created the same kill total. The point is, if man wants to kill his fellow man, they will find a way. Cain didn’t wait for the semiautomatic to be invented before he killed Abel.
M.B., I wouldn’t paint too rosy of a picture about Canada if I were you. According to Canada’s National Post, “Canada’s overall crime rate is now 50% higher than the crime rate in the United States. Read that again slowly — it seems incredible, but it’s true. It’s true too that you are now more likely to be mugged in Toronto than in New York City.
“America’s crime problem is becoming concentrated in ever fewer places, while Canada’s is spreading out to ever more places.
“The United States is a huge country, and it will always be possible to find a jurisdiction with shocking crime numbers. The overwhelming majority of Americans, however, live in places that are becoming steadily safer. Since the early 1990s, crime rates have dropped in 48 of the 50 states and 80% of American cities. Over that same period, crime rates have risen in six of the 10 Canadian provinces and in seven of Canada’s 10 biggest cities.”
So much for gun control.
Well, taking guns away isn’t the answer. Neither is allowing students to carry concealed weapons. The laws are enough, he just violated them. This was simply a disturbed young adult who had been planning this attack for a while and would have found a way to pull it off no matter what.
I love the blog that you have. I was wondering if you would link my blog to yours and in return I would do the same for your blog. If you want to, my site name is American Legends and the URL is:
www.americanlegends.info
If you want to do this just go to my blog and in one of the comments just write your blog name and the URL and I will add it to my site.
Thanks,
David
I’m pro 2nd-amendment.
My cousin recently offered to me this scenario: everyone in the nation should be required to own a firearm. His rationale for this would be that since everyone was supposed to have a gun, crime rates would plummet due to the universal knowledge that everyone would be capable of defending their property and person.
There is an article on WorldNetDaily.com that supports
this idea.
My question to this forum is: Would the effects of such a law in an area with a high percentage of educated, middle-class people differ from that of an area with an uneducated population where poverty is rampant?
I do not personally own a gun and I do not agree with the concept of everyone on the planet owning a gun. That’s just crazy talk! lol But seriously I’m not against citizens… well… I’m not against LAW ABIDING citizens owning guns. I believe responsible, mature, intelligent adults who are capable of making wise decisions should be allowed to carry firearms.
But then that presents the problem of who makes that determination? Who gets to decide what is responsible and intelligent and mature? So in the end I’m against gun control for one simple reason. The constitution gives us the right to bear arms. It gives us that right to prevent the government from becoming too large and controlling it’s citizens in an autocratic manner.
And Stacey is right, people kill people. If not with guns then with something else.
My last name is Cho.
Why does everyone think its ok to call the guman Cho.
So everyone with last name Cho has to deal with everyone linking Cho with a psycho? Consciously or unconsciously?
Why not call him the gunman? Is that asking too much?
Mr. Cho, I’m sure people don’t think any less of you because of your name, but just be glad your last name isn’t bin Laden-I’m afraid you’d really be trouble if that was the case!
You have a great point.