Stealth Blogger wrote on Apr 22, 2007 4:16 AM:If Virginia Tech had not be deemed a gun-free zone last year, students and teachers would have had a fighting chance to legally defend themselves. Designating Virginia Tech a gun-free zone left only the murderer with guns. The results of this one-sided assault were horrifically predictable. The Virginia Legislature bears a significant portion of the blame for this senseless slaughter.

datrout wrote on Apr 22, 2007 7:33 AM:The writer starts by attempting to convince me that she is more educated than the rest of us. After reading her drivel I disagree with her self assertion. How big of this bleeding heart socialist to tell me what the Founding Fathers meant with their clear and concise instructions they left in the Constitution. On one hand the black and white instructions they left do not mean what they say and on the other hand what they say is not what they mean! The writer did not go on to mention that no where does the Constitution make mention of a "right" to an abortion nor did the Founding Fathers ever stipulate a "separation" between Church and State. The writer failed point out her socialist background predicates her need to spread false facts and to take an elitist position as is typical of many in her field.

fish wrote on Apr 22, 2007 7:37 AM:Perhaps if they simply would have prescribed yet more drugs for the shooter in their attempt to medicate him to normalcy then he would have been ok. There were rules and laws against selling weapons to such people as the shooter however those in charge of ensuring that the matter was reported failed to follow through. I believe they were social workers, administrators, child psychology "experts", attorneys and the court system. Don't tell me what the Constitution says lady. I KNOW what it says. The problem is that it DOES NOT say what you want it to say to satisfy your agenda.

Heidi wrote on Apr 22, 2007 8:01 AM:Marsha Sutton's article about the masacre at Virginia Tech expresses the sentiment of every sensible, caring, loving person. Those, who are equally outraged at opponents of guncontrol. Some terrible mistakes of judgement were made at VT about the shooter, but most of all the easy access to guns allowed this deranged young man to commit this horrendous act. We must stop crying about the great loss of innocent students and start acting on changing the laws about guns. Let us all stop being hippocrats and start a war against access to guns to everyone who wants them for so called protection or comitting crimes. Bravo Marsha, your article should rally us who have not done our duty with our votes.

Howiek wrote on Apr 22, 2007 8:24 AM:The benefits of PE? You forgot recess! Honestly though, there has to be meaningful thought given to some sort of a more effective gun control process and it needs to be on a nation-wide level. There are now proposals in Sacramento to control ammunition—big deal! Why was Seung-Hui Cho’s psych evaluation not on his records, after all, he was considered an imminent danger to himself and maybe others! If we as a society can get almost instantly information from anywhere in the world via the internet we should at least be able to identity people in our midst that are “a bit off-balance” and prevent them from buying a gun!

Veteran wrote on Apr 22, 2007 9:03 AM:Why does this paper insist on printing so much of this left wing, liberal pablum. No gun has ever killed anyone. I've had guns for years, and always will no matter what, and they have not killed anyone in my family or anyone else. They have never even made threats on my life. However there are many people that make threats all the time that we as a people are too stupid to be able to think for ourselves and that the government should lead us around by the nose. Ain't gonna happen sister!!

Plowshares wrote on Apr 22, 2007 9:56 AM:Stealth Blogger: I have to disagree that the solution is to have more armed people - on a campus or elsewhere. There are a couple hundred million guns in this country. A couple hundred thousand get stolen every year. 90 people a day die from gunshots. We are up to our hips in guns. One of the solutions for those opposed to gun control is to advocate even more guns in the hands of more people. This, IMO is madness. It is counterintuitive that more guns could result in less death. datrout: I find that the substance of an argument is inversely proportional to the name calling it contains. An ad hominem attack can never substitute for a well reasoned argument or even, and especially, civil discourse. Please rethink your post. Surely you have reasons to oppose gun control but they are missing from your straw man diatribe. This forum would be better served by that kind of response.

William wrote on Apr 22, 2007 10:23 AM:Ms Sutton asserts "The remarkable argument that this could have been prevented had students been allowed to carry guns on campus is a preposterous, wild-eyed extension of the paranoid attitudes that got us into this mess in the first place." Why is this argument "preposterous"? Guns are everywhere- very recently a Japanese mayor was shot by a Japanese gangster out of revenge. No nation on earth has a more stringent gun control program than Japan; if even Japanese autorities cannot control gun violence, what can be done elsewhere? Had a single off-duty peace officer, with his weapon, been present during the several hours of Cho's murderous rage, many lives would have been saved. Had any of the students murdered in their classroom had a gun, many lives would have been saved- instead, they were reduced to trying to block the door with their bodies and several were shot during the attempt. Cho got his guns illegally (he lied). On the other hand, how many people who legally carry concealed weapons commit gun related crimes? Since guns are now everywhere (England, Russia, Japan, Australia etc) tightening gun control laws simply disarm the lawful and do nothing to discourage the unlawful- I refer you to the Japanese incident.

Plowshares wrote on Apr 22, 2007 10:39 AM:Fish: An agenda is not the exclusive province of the gun-control side. Both sides have an agenda, and while their objectives may be diametrically opposed, their strategies and tactics bear a remarkable similarity. The gun advocates cite the Constitution to support their position. But it is not as if they are opposed to guns and feel compelled to have guns because of the second amendment. They want to have guns and use their interpretation of the second amendment to support that position. Not the other way round. In just the same way as the gun-control advocates interpret the same words to mean that an absolute right to own guns is NOT guaranteed. Both sides insist that their interpretation is correct. One difference I note, however, is that the anti-gun-control side insists that it is not interpreting the words but taking them literally and therefore they feel they have won the day on that point. A position which I find to be a bit disingenuous.

Reality Check wrote on Apr 22, 2007 11:23 AM:There are over 15 MILLION college students and over 50 MILLION grade school and high school students in this country. How many have been killed by maniacs with guns? If the author wants to use the "one is too many" arguement, then how about the huge number of times a murder is prevented because someone protected themselves with a gun. Take that gun away, and that person is dead. Is this life any more valuable than the ones the author thinks "might" be saved if guns would somehow disappear completely? The "one is too many" argument can go both ways. If only 1 in 10 of the these instances reported by pro-gun supporters is real, that is still a lot of people, far more than are murdered each year by someone using a gun. How many of these crazy maniacs on a killing spree are inspired by the overly exagerated significance of their last ditch effort to give their life meaning? Seems to me, when it comes to these types of insane crimes, the media is more guilty than gun owners in making this possible. The chances kid will be killed when sitting innocently in their classroom is like 1 in 750,000. If we wouldn't give these nut cases so much media coverage, that would be more like 1 in a couple million. Rather than an irrational, emotional response directed towared people that AREN'T killing anyone, doesn't it make more sense to work on those that ARE killing people?

Mike in Escondido wrote on Apr 22, 2007 11:36 AM:Ms. Sutton is not a realist. In a perfect society the government would ban ownership of firearms and the end result would be that only law enforcement and the military would be armed. In the real society, if the goverment bans ownership of firearms, law abiding citizens would give up thier firearmss and only law enforcement, the military and the crimials would be armed. In every instance where local governmetns have severely restricted the ownership of firearms, the criminals are given the upper hand and violent crimes, invoving the use of guns, have increased. If you don't believe me look at the FBI website and look at the national crime statistics.

Here we go again wrote on Apr 22, 2007 11:39 AM:The reqs for being an "education writer," whatever that is, apparently do not include being educated. Educated, that is, not in the sense of being able to list diplomas or degrees, but by a display of knowledge and understanding. Ms. Sutton says "The fault for this deplorable condition of society rests solely in the hands of those whom I call accomplices, those who holler on behalf of the rights of any homicidal nutcase to purchase a gun and use it." I have never heard ANYONE propose, much less "holler" that there is a right for "any homicidal nutcase to purchase a gun." Federal law is quite clearly states the opposite. The NRA has never championed the right of "nutcases" to obtain firearms. Existing Federal law clearly states that the sale or transfer of a firearm to a person with documented mental illness, conviction of a felony, etc. is lllegal. BTW, FBI statistics show that gun crimes have continuously DECREASED over the past several years. The "right-to-carry" states have not turned into a gun-crazy Wild West shoot-em-up environment. For example, Florida has NOT experienced an increase in gun crimes, but exactly the opposite. Our First Amendment guarantees that any citizen, even "education writers" can speak, write, preach, publish, and hysterically and sarcasticaly rant about "really important issues." It does not require that they know what they are talking about.

Kim wrote on Apr 22, 2007 9:45 PM:Yikes, these comments! The NRA has successfully polarized our society and led gun owners to fear that any attempt to regulate gun ownership is a threat to their most basic right to bear arms. Too bad, because we, the people, are closer together in our thinking on this issue than we are led to believe. The majority of Americans have no interest in revoking the second ammendment. However, the majority of Americans do believe there is a place for regulations that ensure guns will not be sold to the mentally unfit. Tweaking those regulations from time to time to improve them is not the same as taking away your right to bear arms.!

Reardon wrote on Apr 22, 2007 10:04 PM:If there ever was a time for gun control it was in 1776, but the cat has been out of the bag for lo these many centuries and there is no need to debate it because Ms. Sutton and all the King's Men can't put that cat back in the bag. You can get a handgun in Russia, or Germany, or Japan, or Mexico or any other country that bans guns. I just can't understand why we arrest drivers when multiple deaths happen on roads, because, if Ms. Sutton's logic is to be followed we should arrest car dealers and manufacturers. Her flawed logic would make her logic professor cringe!

Larry wrote on Apr 22, 2007 11:18 PM:I'm not a Second Amendment guy, but we as a society need to understand the risks we face. We and our children, for example, are at much greater risk of serious injury and death from medical errors and auto collisions than we are from guns.

Mark wrote on Apr 23, 2007 4:20 AM:It seems to me that everyone has forgotten that it is not about whether we should be allowed to have guns or not - it is simply when you have 200 million people all in one country there are going to be killers amongst us - whether it was a gun, knife, baseball bat etc...We will never get rid of guns like we did the 'war on drugs' (haha) becuase of the sheer number of people and the percentages that go along with them.

Morelegal guns wrote on Apr 23, 2007 6:22 AM:These students never had a chance. The author of this article needs to get her head out of the pickle barrel. Maybe get some good pistol training. Might save her life one day.

James wrote on Apr 23, 2007 6:46 AM:Marsha you have no idea what you are talking about. people can't kill people in such horrific numbers without the help of guns. Have you looked at the Murray building in Oklahoma city, the World trade center, or better yet the deaths that have occured annually from car crashes. One student who was interviewed at V tech stated "I have a concealed carry permit but due to the schools gun free policy I had to leave my weapon off campus". Just think, if this student had been armed this whole tragedy could have been stopped. Gun control has never worked anywhere it has been tried. Nagasaki japan bans all guns yet the mayor was recently shot and killed, so much for gun control. Remember criminals will not and do not obey the law.

Dene wrote on Apr 23, 2007 7:28 AM:("And here's the corollary ---- people can't kill people in such horrific numbers without the help of guns.") Oh, really? Some how you must have missed the events of 9/11/2001. Not one of the nineteen highjackers had a gun.

David wrote on Apr 23, 2007 8:50 AM:OK Ms Sutton, here's the challenge: tell us a gun law that would have stopped what happened at V.T. In your answer, remember that even a 100% ban on something doesn't stop determined people who are willing to break a law from getting it (is there a major shortage of marijuana, heroin, or cocaine in the US today?), so there's no reason to believe that a 100% ban on all firearms in the US would make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns (guns are easy to make in a machine shop, easy to import from other countries through the same route as illegal drugs, etc.)

Bill wrote on Apr 23, 2007 9:35 AM:"We grant them the right to life, equality and justice.", "we can expect the usual apoplectic reactions from those who think owning guns is a God-given right". I guess she missed "that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, " part of the Declaration. We, nor our governments do not grant these rights, they are god/creator granted.

carl wrote on Apr 23, 2007 9:59 AM:Just a few things to consider... 1. Criminals do not obey the law. 2. 30 of the 32 murders at VT occurred after the police were on campus. 3. The police and government agencies "misplace" guns on a regular basis, whether by true loss or theft. 25 were just stolen from a sheriff's office in Maine. 4. The more guns are restricted, the more valuable they will become and the bigger the black market will be. Look at the current state of drugs and our previous attempt at prohibition in the 1920s. 5. The biggest school killing occurred in 1927 when gun control hardly existed (for white people, anyway) and when anybody (white) could purchase a machine gun from their local hardware store. The killer chose to use explosives instead. He was upset about having to pay taxes. 6. Gun control has always been a back door form of racism. Banning "Saturday Night Specials" was banning guns poor (black) people could afford. 7. Registration doesn't prevent crim. Criminals are not required to register guns because this would be self incrimination. 8. You trust your children to a teacher for eight hours a day. Does this trusted teacher instantly become a homicidal maniac if he carries a gun to protect your children? Would it be better for your child to die rather than having someone defend him with a gun? 9. What do you do between calling 911 and waiting for help to arrive? Do you shout at the person while he's raping you that the police are on the way? Do you plead for him not to kill you because he'll be arrested soon? If someone is committing a crime, how worried is he about the consequences of his action? See Number 1.

Texas_Jim wrote on Apr 23, 2007 11:06 AM:Ok…so I feel slightly compelled to put in my 2 cents on this. I am a strong 2nd amendment advocate and what I have to say may get some criticism from my fellow advocates. I am 34 years old; former active duty military; a husband; a father; a part time student at state university; and a concealed handgun license holder. That being said, I believe that everyone has an absolute right and duty to protect oneself and their family from serious bodily harm, using what ever means necessary in the defense of that end. Personal protection is an individual responsibility not the responsibility of law enforcement. I personally try to avoid places and situations that may increase my risk of being a victim. I carry a concealed pistol wherever I am legally allowed to carry and I do so to help mitigate the potential for serious bodily harm if I ever do become a victim. Unfortunately, State law prohibits me from carrying a concealed handgun inside the buildings at the state university I attend. I can legally carry a concealed pistol in the parking lots, sidewalks, and etc on campus. The university that I attend is an open campus and therefore anyone with bad intentions can simply walk onto campus and fulfill those intentions with little fear of intervention. That being said, I am an advocate of “concealed” carry (open carry can foster intimidation and not conducive to a learning environment) by law-abiding individuals (who have had the more extensive background checks one goes through for a CHL) at state universities. Here is where I will be criticized. I do believe that gun control laws should be enacted/reformed. I believe that information which affects the eligibility of an individual to purchase a handgun should have a mandated time frame to inform the appropriate authorities so that (like in the VT shooting) mentally incompetent individuals or felons can not slip through the cracks in the NICS. I also believe that we need to take a stronger stance on those who do commit crimes with a handgun with stiffer minimum sentences. We should enact legislation that targets criminals and their ability to purchase handguns as well as enact laws that allow law-abiding citizens to carry and protect oneself (i.e. shall issue regulations). We also need more than legislation, we also need to provide the funds to support and oversee such legislation.

Tom wrote on Apr 23, 2007 11:57 AM:I think that before ANY writer espouses any Anti-Gun/ Disarming retoric, they should Disarm themselves, put a sign in their front yard stating "This Residence is Unarmed" for a year That way these "Heros" can experience first hand what will be in store for us all.Then let's see if their perspective changes

No. County Reader wrote on Apr 23, 2007 1:02 PM:I agree completely with Texas Jim and I am seriously considering applying for a gun license and learning to use a hand-gun. We live in a gang infested community and I do not believe the police will arrive in time to help us if we are ever in a near death situation, again. We were confronted one evening by a gang member whom bragged that he was not from this area...and did not know if we were going to see tomorrow. This person threatened our lives and to cause damage to my friends car. We were parallel parking the car after an evening out and this person jumped out of the passenger side of an SUV driving by and wanted to know why we were looking at him. We were waiting for them to pass by so we could finish parking the vehicle. I still have my heart in my throat just thinking of the incident. He kept telling my boyfriend and my other friend that he didn't "mean us any disrespect." Well I thought we were all going to die that night, my boyfriend defended us women and he would have taken the first bullet. We had no idea if this person was on drugs, or what he was packing let alone how many other people were in the other vehicle !!!

Texas_Jim wrote on Apr 23, 2007 1:58 PM:Just FYI...the State of Texas is required by law to distribute statistical information about the percentage of convictions of those who have CHLs versus the total number of convictions; grouped by specific crime. In 2005, out of the 34,791 convictions, only 129 of those were CHL holders for a grand total of 0.3708% of crimes being committed by CHL holders (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2005.pdf ). Now that does not mean that there are 129 bad seeds out there with CHLs as one person with a CHL could have been convicted of several crimes during one incident. Not a bad percentage considering as of 21/31/2005 (the same time period of the quoted crime number) there were 248,874 active CHL holders in Texas (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/PDF/ActLicAndInstr/ActiveLicandInstr2005.pdf).

Hey, wrote on Apr 23, 2007 2:14 PM:You just got of love liberals. Marsha, my high school yearbook shows me with the rifle club holding our firearms on the steps of the school. We didn't have this kind of crap going on when I grew up. You could leave your keys in your car, you could leave your house doors unlocked. What changed Marsha? I will give you a clue, no family values, eroding morals, no God nor Church, no respect for life (does abortion ring a bell).

Fiftycal wrote on Apr 23, 2007 2:47 PM:I guess I missed the part in the Constitution that "guaranteed" my safety. Where is my cop? The one(s) that will protect me 24/7? Try this. Dial 911 on a Friday night and then call Domino's for a pizza and see who shows up first.

AEQUITAS wrote on Apr 23, 2007 3:03 PM:These incidents repeat ~ over and over again. Each time there is a hue and cry about it and a myriad of solutions advanced. Gradually the furor dies down and finally is largely out of the public mind. After the media has finished its race for higher ratings and thus more revenue, the issue disappears from the news and all the yacking stops. Business as usual. It's depressing. The sad part is that the repetition of this kind of horror seems inevitable and incurable.

Marsha, wrote on Apr 23, 2007 3:24 PM:Research the Reichsgesetzblatt articles showing the weapons laws of 18 Mar 28, further gun control laws referenced in Reichsgesetzblatt were signed into law in 1938 by Adolph Hitler.

Matthew wrote on Apr 23, 2007 4:51 PM:I sincerely wonder what would have happened if there had been other students with firearms on campus at the time of the Virginia Tech shootings. Would the vigilantes have banded together in little bands and turned the campus into a game of counterstrike? Or would things have turned into chaos? Would police have ever been able to identify the shooter if everyone had guns? I think that those of you flaunting the 2nd Amendment card should actually read the 2nd Amendment. "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." Now, if we are going to form a WELL REGULATED MILITIA, then I am all for it. I will be amongst the first to sign up for the training and licensing that would be required to make me an effective emergency responder (just as I am licensed and trained in first aid, cpr, lifesaving, and other emergency response procedures). Until then however, I have no right to take the law into my own hands in a potentially lethal matter. Would I attempt to stop a shooter if I were in the situation? Absolutely. Do I believe that I should have a lethal weapon to facilitate it? Absolutely not. This is not the Wild Wild West, and there is no need for a posse of urban cowboys. What this country needs is a willingness to examine the problems of the world as they are, and not as we wish they could be.

DMann wrote on Apr 23, 2007 7:37 PM:Well guns have been around since what like 1870 that were repeater type weapons. We've had machine guns since the 1920's. Did we suffer from school shootings then? in the 40's? 60's? 80's? No so its not the guns themselves but THE CULTURE of violence we now live in. When you have 10 million rap songs about killing everyone, movies about killing everyone, and news that shows everyone being killed dont be surprised when kids, troubled true, start killing everyone. Parents are less & less involved with thier children. That time is now spent soaking up a culture of violence.

michael wrote on Apr 23, 2007 8:23 PM:The left always fails to mention that they are the ones who have destroyed the moral fiber of our nation. Liberal judges gave people the right to kill the unborn. Its easier to get an abortion then is to get a man to take out the trash. Take prayer out of schools, remove the to comandments from the public eye. Our young reiceve their moral training from video cobat games. and slutty primetime tv shows. Theleft will never take credit for the damage that they have done. No they want to blame an inanimate object instead.

Con Cerned wrote on Apr 23, 2007 9:03 PM:More guns, more rap songs, more in your face whatever. We live in a very crowded, tense, stressful society. Guns are part of the problem and not part of the solution. Every armed Type A personality, every over stressed or quick to anger person or jilted lover with a gun will make our society a slaughter.

Steve wrote on Apr 23, 2007 9:36 PM:WOW, this article is so very, very shallow and filled with cliches. It must have been written "on a dark and stormy night."

Wow! wrote on Apr 23, 2007 11:40 PM:Marsha Sutton sure got it right - "As we face yet another school tragedy of ghastly proportions, we can expect the usual apoplectic reactions from those who think owning guns is a God-given right." Just look at all the apoplexy in this comments section!!! It gets more and more suffocating for a sane person to want to live in such an increasingly insane society. I wish the insane would just leave. But they won't. So if and when the rest of us do, and leave this sorry country to the gun nuts, I guess they'll all just continue to arm themselves to the teeth and kill each other "in self defense".

Can you imagine wrote on Apr 23, 2007 11:42 PM:the magnitude of the mayhem and slaughter that would occur if all students and teachers arrived every day in school "packin" their handgun du jour? What a cockamamie idea.

Cho wrote on Apr 24, 2007 2:05 AM:Marsha is right, it would be like "shooting fish in a barrel" in a defense free zone. As for the promise of "We will protect you", defense free zones have been set up, guaranteeing your safety. Does this make you feel safer? Even the politicians that tell you that you are safer do not believe it. When the politicians show up for the photo ops, where do their armed bodyguards check their guns before showing up on campus? When Bill Clinton shows up at someone else's church, what do you think is in that hollowed out bible? No one else has a need to bring one. (Another gun free zone for law abiding citizens with exemptions for those politically connected and/or criminals)

carl wrote on Apr 24, 2007 5:22 AM:Just a little more to consider: from 1876 until 1885, Dodge City had 15 homicides. Dodge City's worst year for murder was 1878, when 5 people were murdered. So far, "the Wild West" myth has been thrown out three times on this page. It has little truth to it and that little truth has been embellished by Hollywood for the last 100 years.

ChrispyInIndy wrote on Apr 24, 2007 6:28 AM:As a member of the NRA I get American Rifle magazine each month. Each edition has at least 1/2 dozen accounts from different newspapers around the country wherein armed citizens have thwarted attacks on their person, property or loved ones. These are only the small percentage of uses of firearms that get reported to the police, reported by the media and then picked up by the NRA for print. Many of these attacks were attempted break-ins attempted while the perpetrator knew there was a person in the home, so we can assume that bodily harm would have most likely resulted from the break-in. Recently we saw one such use of a firearm to protect property and possibly life when 82-Year-Old Former Miss America, Venus Ramey used a handgun to stop a crime being committed against her. The National Self Defense Survey conducted in 1994 by Florida State University professors Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz found that guns are used an estimated 2.5 million times EACH YEAR defensively. As bad as the murders on VT are, this pales in comparison to how many deaths there would be without guns. Think about this the next time you want to take guns out of the hands or law-abiding citizens.

Maria wrote on Apr 24, 2007 6:30 AM:To blame circumstances such as the tragedy that occurred at Virginia Tech on something as simple as "access to guns" is to miss the bigger picture. Place a stockpile of guns and ammunition next to someone who feels a connection with the world and the people in it and they still won't use it. How many reading this know their neighbors names? How many interact with the world around them compared to those who choose to stay disconnected by cloistering in their own world via cell phone? Not many from what I see. It's easy to take the lives of those you feel nothing for. The answer isn't to ban guns. It's far more complex than that.

Texas_Jim wrote on Apr 24, 2007 6:35 AM:Mathew said: “Would I attempt to stop a shooter if I were in the situation? Absolutely. Do I believe that I should have a lethal weapon to facilitate it? Absolutely not.” After a comment like that all I can picture in my mind is Monty Python…(in my best British accent) “Stop…or I will yell stop again.” LOL.. If you were in that situation, with no means of protection…you would probably be dead. As for first responders, do you really trust your life to first responders? First responders showed up two hours earlier that day for the first set of murders and without knowing all the facts deemed the campus safe citing that it was an isolated incident. Man that was a slight lapse in judgment. Then, even though first responders were already on scene, they were powerless to stop the carnage. First responders did not stop the killing…the killer ended his own life…stopping the killing. The most the first responders could do in this case was pass out body bags (don’t mean to sound cold but it is the truth). Considering the major foul up by LEOs deciding not to shut down campus after the first two murders…do you think they will be held responsible? Probably not, and do you know why? Because the constitution does not guarantee your safety…nor does it mandate that LEOs are required to protect you. As a matter of fact, they are mandated to protect themselves first and protecting anyone else is secondary. That being said, what tools do LEOs use for self protection? Guns! In my case the two best tools I have for self protection are, first and foremost…my brain...and second my concealed handgun.

Jim wrote on Apr 24, 2007 7:22 AM:If the shooter at VA Tech had gotten the help he needed,those people would still be alive today.Quit blaming the guns he used.All of us as a society has failed them.

Bob wrote on Apr 24, 2007 11:14 AM:Virginia Tech is no worse than had the same thing happened at a Post Office. Where yers ago the phrase "going postal" was coined. Our colleges are full of ADULTS ...not kids ...ADULTS. THey can vote, drink in some places, pay taxes etc. They are ADULTS ...so lets not pull that "children" card that makes it read more like a kindergarten full of 6 year-olds. That said ...it doesn't diminish the significance of this event. And the fix isn't to ban guns...since clearly if ONE ADULT has been armed that person could have defended him/herself and stopped this nightmare. And here;s the kicker ...what idiot thinks that if we could amke all the guns disappear some nut job that felt picked on wouldn't find another way to exact his or her retributiuon on society. What ...all the menatl cases will just not lash out if they can't kill people with a gun ? Oh please...that's a bunch of crap. And if you think guns are the only way to kill large numbers of people you are wrong again ... serin gas or any number of other lethal gases could be created from producted available to every citizen along with pipe bombs and such that are already made and used every day. Its not rocket science 'cuz we've seen other people in the news do it. Our society is NOT geared for protecting itself from a well planned and thought out determined attack by anyone ... and disarming the masses makes us all even more vulnerable. We can never have enough cops, fireman to protect 300 million people in this country ... at some point we need to be protecting ourselves. Get a grip ... we can't ban all the things that can be used to harm us and lets not lose sight of the fact that we have civil liberties and freedoms to protect too. Of course, if you want a police state run by dictators ...its not like there aren't plenty of those in other parts of the world....and you are certainly ..at least right now ..still free to move there if that's what you want.

Cormac wrote on Apr 24, 2007 7:31 PM:GUNS SAVE LIVES 2.5 Million Defensive Uses Each Year. One of those statistics that many people would like us to forget. There are more than enough policies in place right now to prevent this sort of tragedy...but if the people we trust to execute them (or put certain files on record) are too lazy to do their jobs then no amount of legislation will help. Besides, if you outlaw guns the only people who will abide by these laws are law abiding to begin with...leaving those who already illegally carry to be the only gun-owners. We don't need lawmakers to impose more restriction upon us, we need to stand up and define our rights. If one law abiding, gun carrying civilian had been able to stand up and put this crazy man down how many lives would have been saved?

S.D. Patriot wrote on Apr 25, 2007 1:44 AM:The problem wasn't the guns, it was the cowardly police who instead of rushing the gunman were taking cover behind trees as students were being murdered. Even with body armor and AR-15's they were scared of the shooter. Just goes to show you that when the bullets start flying it's everyone for themselves. Ignore the gun-grabbing hippies and arm yourselves.

JOHN wrote on Apr 25, 2007 2:20 AM:Shouldnt the title of this article be"IDIOTS FUEL NIGHTMARE AT VT?he alleged perp in this mess was on a student visa that he wasent following the law on, he was part time and was supposed to be full time. They should look real close at the schools admin.for allowing this guy to even stay in the school,heads should roll.AND WHY WAS A FOREIGN NATIONAL ALLOWED TO BUY A GUN AT ALL?THIS MELTING POT CALLED AMERICA IS BOILING OVER WITH ILLEAGALS.

esteban wrote on Apr 25, 2007 10:02 AM:So Marsha...you want all guns off the street. Well, let's hear your plan. If you have a plan or the ability to somehow remove ALL guns from EVERYBODY, I'd love to hear it. Are you a magic wizard or something? Waiting.....waiting.....

esteban wrote on Apr 25, 2007 10:03 AM:Too bad SD Patriot wasn't there to save the day!!!!!

American Mike wrote on Apr 25, 2007 6:42 PM:I’ll bet there are a few thousand Chinaman wishing to Buda they had a weapon in hand when the lethal injection van pulls up to their front door. Without the second amendment, this would be next for the United States.

Godzilla wrote on Apr 26, 2007 7:02 AM:The next time a school shooting situation comes this countries way, just send in the fireman. They seem to be the only men left in America. Police were told to stand down 4 hours at Columbine, Police stood down and cowered behind trees for two hours at the insistance of Feds at VT. The crux of the problem is the militarization of the police and the constant demorlizing of the regular police.

Carek wrote on Apr 26, 2007 9:10 AM:Case cutters killed 2000+ in one event. Any effective tool kills in the hands of a determined criminal, even an elderly angry driver. Maybe we should control case cutters and automobiles.

RCH wrote on Apr 26, 2007 2:32 PM:And this lady works in education? No wonder we have a generation of illiterates coming up. She throws out these theories without thinking them through to their logical conclusion. That's when you get this "Pie in the sky" thinking that gets more people hurt or killed. The warning signs were there in that deranged young man long before he started shooting.

Clayton wrote on Apr 27, 2007 8:12 AM:One question: Martha Sutton, are you a mother and do you educate your children? Have you trained your children in the virtues of honesty, concern for others, morality? Or do leave it up to others and let them soak up the movies, TV, music, and mass media plethora of violence and disregard for other human beings? I hope you have the guts to answer truthfully. P.S. Who trained you?

Frustrated wrote on Apr 28, 2007 6:55 AM:This writer is a fool. A fool who wishes to impose her controlling impulses on the rest of us. She is dangerous.

Lawman wrote on Apr 28, 2007 8:50 AM:I urge citizens not to have their gun rights taken from them. As a lawman, I cannot be everywhere all the time. I may take ten minutes or more to get to your address while the carnage is going on. Constitutional scholars agree that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was written with the individual in mind, as per other documents of the time that clearly specify as much in their documents as well. The bottomline is this. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them. Just as banning alcohol produced a black market in this country. Doing the same for handguns will have the same result. And then we will have less of an idea of who is buying them, and with what intent.