How can we change gun laws to prevent the Virginia Tech. tradgedy from occuring again?

Question

I'm writing a letter to the Senator and Congressman of the state, and in my letter I want to include solutions to the gun laws in the United states, especially the ones in Virginia and Pennsylvania. If anybody could also include some information about the gun laws in the less strict states, I'll be more grateful. Thanks.

From some answers, I've heard opinions saying that guns are not the problem of the matter, but the American society itself. I would like to argue to this, for people with more accessibility to guns are more inclined to use them as suicide weapons, rather than a knife or through suffication. When they decide to commit such an aact, they do it without thinking, but cannot take back the actions they have committed. If a young student could show up at a pawn shop with a license and buy a weapon that could kill another human being, I'd say that our neighorhood isn't safe at all.

Answer 1

For the record, I don't like guns. I don't own one, and I probably never will.

This is a really sensitive subject. The right to bear arms is one of the fundamental rights we have as Americans. It would be difficult to justify passing any gun laws that would not trample that right while "preventing" an attack like what happened at Virginia Tech.

So, let's chat. Which of the constitutional rights should we do away with? Or which American citizens deserve fewer constitutional rights?

Offhand, the idea of refusing to sell a gun to someone who has emotional, social or behavioral issues sounds like a good idea, but then you have to keep in mind that anyone with those issues, if they are an American citizen, still deserve the same rights. If we put limitations on what rights are available or unavailable for certain groups, we've just gone back 200 years in history. Not to mention, any means of obtaining those kinds of records would most likely infringe on doctor-patient priviledge. Plus, you must keep in mind, the vast majority of people with emotional, mental and social issues don't end up going on shooting sprees. Most of the shootings in the last decade (Jonesboro, Columbine, etc.) weren't even the gun owners.

If anything, I think that a gun safety class should be required to all people who buy and register a gun. In order to drive a car, serve alcohol at a restaurant, practice law or medicine, or even work as a stylist in a salon, you must complete training and pass an exam and/or maintain certification. It stands to reason gun owners would need to take part in and pass a gun safety course.

In addition to certification, I think some VERY serious laws are in order regarding accessibility of guns to minors. Perhaps realizing a hefty fine and a stint in jail awaits them if they don't lock up their weapons and take all reasonable safety precautions will "encourage" legal gun owners to take the responsibility of owning a gun in the company of a minor seriously.

Even with these changes in place, though, you have to understand, most of the school shootings over the past decade would probably have still happened. In Jonesboro, for example, the young shooters weren't registered gun owners, and they forcibly broke into the home of one of the kid's grandparents, and stole from a locked cabinet the guns used to shoot their classmates and teacher.

In addition to changes in gun laws, it could be argued that the tragedy at Virginia Tech could have been much less deadly had there been an appropriate warning system.

After the original shooting in the dormitory, there was a significant period of time before the shootings began in the classroom building. I refuse to believe the school and authorities did everything they could given the circumstances. If a person is is disturbed enough to shoot someone in a dormitory, how does it stand to reason you would just assume the student wouldn't shoot anyone else he or she came into contact with? Since they didn't have the shooter in custody, every person on that campus, even in that area, had a right to know IMMEDIATELY what happened.

The school claimed they didn't have a way to immediately alert staff and students, which is, of course, a load of crap. Half an hour after Anna Nicole Smith died in a hotel room, most of the country knew about it.

It should be standard procedure in those kinds of situations, when the authorities know little so far, to assume the worst and warn those possibly in danger before they are staring into the barrel of a gun.

And while emails are a wonderful way to pass around funny pictures, reminders about registration deadlines and sending in coursework, sending EMAILS to students and faculty is certainly not an appropriate course of action when it comes to sending out bulletins in emergencies.

The school's claims that emails were sent because they didn't have any other more efficient way of getting the message out to the large number of students commuting to classes that day is insane. Using the Emergency Broadcast System would have served as a notice to commuters. In these times, where most people are available 24/7, thanks to cell phones and text messages, a large number of students ON campus could have known and been prepared.

The sad fact is that you can't make gun laws to stop tragedies like this. You can take precautions, but the fault isn't with the government for faulty gun control laws. In almost all instances of mass shootings, looking back, there were warning signs. These shooters are crying out for help long before they break and start pulling the trigger. Having a more thorough understanding of behavioral issues these shooters have leading up to the actual shootings, and knowing how to intervene in a positive way, can possibly help prevent the tragedy of innocents being killed, and can hopefully get the disturbed individual help.

EDIT: In response to your additional information, I totally agree, if people don't have access to a gun, they cannot shoot anyone. Your suggestion, though, would break down the foundation of what our country stands for. By doing away with a right set up in the constitution, even if it's with good intent, that could lead to other established rights being violated. What would be next?

Example: Say a person is anti-gay and they spread stereotypical and outright lies to the public about gay people being a danger to society. Outright lies and hatred for gays are the attitudes behind hate crimes. Does the anti-gay person lose his or her right to free speech because the venom spewed from their mouths are hateful and wrong? No! You cannot have a free country and at the same time be selective about who gets which rights in which situations.

Most of the time, no one wants to give up THEIR rights. They just have "good" reasons why certain rights that they disagree with should be suspended.

Should certain precautions be made to prevent something like this from happening again? Absolutely.

Is doing away with the constitutional right to bear arms, either completely or partially, the way to go about that? No.

Answer 2

With all of the black market guns out there right now new laws would not help anything. Even if the only way to get a gun would be to buy it legally, only law abiding people would obey the law. A nutcase like this guy will get a gun or two no matter what the law is. You could make guns completely illegal and then the only ones that will have them will be the cops and the criminals and 9 times out of 10 a bad guy is not going to shoot a place up if there are cops there. What do you do then? I would rather be able to pull my own gun and protect myself and my family, I don't care whose feelings I hurt.

Answer 3

A number of things

The access to guns need to be restricted and controlled through law enforcement and medical personell. If you want a gun, you should apply for a permit for each weapon purchased. The permit should be issued by the police only after an interview occurs and the individual passes the following tests:
A) The purpose of owning the gun is clearly established. If self-defense is the reason the potential owner must demonstrate they have the necessary training and safe guards to properly store the weapon to prevent it from being stolen or misused, used by a child for instance. If sports or target shooting is the reason then the individual must produce the same demonstration of training and safe guards to properly store the weapon plus demonstrate a hunting license or membership card in a gun club. The clubs should be required to certify safety concepts for gun owners on a annual basis.

B) The individual must produce an affadavit stating he has no police record and is a member of society in good standing with good morals.

C) The individual must produce a letter from a physician stating that he examined the individual and found that person to be of sound mental health. The owner of the weapon should be required to produce a similiar re-certification of mental health on an annual basis in order to maintain ownership of the weapon.

D) The gun must be issued by the plice department. The police should photograph and track all weapons and confiscate weapons from individuals who fail to produce annual certification reports on mental health and safety training.

If you want to own guns, and I do own several, this is not to much trouble to keep them out of the hands on mentally ill or irresponsible people

Answer 4

Many states have a waiting period between the purchase of a gun and the actual delivery of the gun.

In this case though, the basic cause was a severe and violent mental breakdown - something so rare and specific that it cannot be predicted and caught. Thousands of people will present similar symptoms, have breakdowns, get help and move on and never execute such a plan. It is a random and horrible event.
Until a better understanding of the physical causes of mental illness are understood and it becomes treatable, we will have to deal with the outcome of diseased brains.

Answer 5

The problem is not guns, it's the social irresponsibility that breeds people who for whatever reason want to kill a lot of people. Gun control does not eliminate guns!!!! It only limits guns on those who obey the law. Criminals don't give a rip if their gun is registered or not, is legal or not, crud, their in the business of supplying illegal stuff to start with!!!! There are countries around the world with tons of guns, but their social stautes are such that people don't go around blasting each other! But in the good old U.S.ofA. where these guys know theres a good chance some scum sucking liberal lawyer will get them off!!! What have they got to loose!!!! Even Charles Manson, after all he did, is still sitting around living a pretty desent life, on your bill!~!!!!

Answer 6

Imagine if you can get your feeble mind around the concept. That Virginia had a law that required EVERYONE to carry a gun 24/7.

Then ask yourself this question. How many would have died this past week?

I bet the number would have been in the single digits.

Answer 7

There's really not much you can do without turning this country into a total police state. when some one is as disturbed as Cho and they're mind is made up, gun laws will not stop them, Timothy McVeigh didn't use a gun,

Answer 8

It's the 'mentally ill' laws that need to be changed...not the gun laws. Just like a few states are now considering the death penalty for child molesters......more laws are needed to restrict those who have mental problems.

Answer 9

Tonight, somebody will be killed by a drunk drive. I've got a good idea! Let's punish all legal drivers for someone else's crime!! Yeah! That's the way America should work!!! (Ignorant douche bag)
Enforce the gun laws we already have, and keep the nutcases locked away from the public. Do punish me for someone else's crime.

Answer 10

Gun law are not our problem! It is the people! People kill people, not the guns! Stop trying to blame the gun laws!