Lowell,

Actually the results are not surprising at all to those of us who have been on the front lines fighting for gun safety. The majority of people support laws that keep us safe from gun violence. A number of polls both in VA and nationwide have had similar results.This is particularly true in NVA..For the past seven years the Million Mom March and other gun safety advocates have done petition drives and had educational booths at events like the Fairfax Fair. We have received overwhelming support for our initiatives. And Senator Devolites-Davis did a recent poll of her constituents with similar findings.

I think it's probably a safe bet that *if* there had been one or several *competent* gun handlers carrying weapons in those classrooms that the shooter would have met some resistance and probably/possibly would have been taken down before he killed so many people.

Realistically speaking, however, even if guns were allowed on campus I find it hard to believe there would be that many people with a weapon, and probably few to none with a concealed/carry permit that could have prevented it from going as far as it did.

I think we need to get some more controls on handguns in the state/country.  The questions I have is that, if this guy wasn't a US citizen, then why was he allowed to purchase a weapon [or more correctly, why do we allow non-citizens to purchase weapons so easily] and also, if he had a police record, I think that should also be a criteria to prevent or at the very least slow down the ability to purchase a gun legally.

And full disclosure, I'm a long time gun owner and hunter [not like Mitt], but I think we need to put a muzzel on the NRA and gun lobbyists and get a handle on some of these glaringly troubling practices pertaining to gun ownership.

From my understanding, a permanent resident has the same rights and obligations as a citizen except for a few points, which include not having the right to vote, and the potential of being deported if they commit a horrible crime.

Of course, in the context of terrorism, it would be appropriate to restrict the sale of weapons to citizens only.

You don't need to show competence to use a gun like you do to use a car.

FBI studies show cops hit their target in the field (in real life) only one out of 5 times.  And they are better trained then the vast majority of gun owners.  How much cross fire do you want to get caught in?

The FBI also says nine of ten shootings with private firearms hit either the wrong person, the gun owner himself, or a member of the gun owner's family.  That last group (gun owner family) is usually the person intended to be shot, so those numbers aren't included in "wrong person."

For a horrifying story of private gun ownership gone wrong, Esquire did an award-winning piece on the event when terrorists took over the school in Chechnya in 2004. And if anyone needs a gun for self-protection, I'm willing to assume it's a farmer in Chechnya.  The investigation not only showed the armed townspeople killed schoolchildren under the tough circumstances, they probably started the exchange of fire that escalated the conflict so badly. Then, they provided a perfect cover for the real terrorists to slip away. The terrorists just said they were one of the armed vigilantes.

I was simply saying that in "theory" one might argue that if there was a competent gun handler [definition of "competent" unknown] that it might have made a difference, but in reality the chances of such a person being there and actually having a weapon would have been slim to none, even IF the campus had allowed guns.

There will always be people who say that if guns were allowed on campus then this could have been prevented or reduced.  I don't necessarily buy it.

Do I want to risk a crossfire or eliminate the risk altogether (making it a certainty of being shot) if the shooting is only coming from one direction?  I can go either way on this and don't see any real answers but since all of our laws, collectively, make sure that no one is responsible when these things happen (except the nut with the gun who could care less about laws), it's not going to get better quickly. 

It is important to remember that the shooter had been "committed to a mental institution".  That prevents him from legal purchase. The NICS (National Instant Check System) failed to detect this, and the shooter lied about his background on his gun application.

http://www.lcav.org/...

Bubby,

I don't think that authorities are clear on whether his admission was voluntary or involuntary. It would only be illegal to purchase a gun if he was admitted involuntarily under Virginia law, sad to say. Michael Kennedy, the young man who shot the two FX police officers last year, voluntarily committed himself then skipped out of the MD facility.

BTW, Delegate Al Eisenberg introduced a bill in the 2007 sesssion that will become law on July 1. I believe it is HM 3064. It will require that colleges have programs to address student suicide and mental illness. Too bad it wasn't in place before now.

The Federal Stature (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) makes no distinction about how the guy got "committed".  He got committed to St. Albans in December 2005.  A finding of mental illness by a Dr. Roy Crouse was certified by Special Justice Paul Barnett who ordered follow up treatment (which never occurred).

Tech has a suicide and mental illness program.  Tech does not have a clear procedure to identify and remove pychopathic/sociopathic people from the University community.  I'm not convinced that it is the responsibility of universities to minister to the sick. 

even if the law says people who have been committed can't buy firearms, "Following the evaluation, a magistrate determined that Cho was 'an imminent danger to himself because of mental illness' and ordered outpatient treatment for the disturbed young man, according to court documents filed at the time," according to CNN. You tell me how someone who was dubbed an imminent danger to himself was able to buy a firearm. Either the background check wasn't properly conducted or the law needs to be changed to prohibit anyone with documented mental illness or deficiencies from purchasing a firearm until the citation has been reversed.

...is that "mental illness" can cover a spectrum ranging from relatively mild anxiety or obsessive/compulsive disorders to full-blown schizophrenia or severe bipolar disorder.  I don't know where you draw the line here.  Also, I would point out that many people who are depressed, anxious, phobic, etc. do NOT seek mental health treatment, so there would be no documentation in their cases.  In other words, you'd be penalized if you saw a psychologist for your "mental illness," but not if you didn't see a psychologist.  That doesn't seem right at all, since it creates the perverse incentive of discouraging people from getting mental health treatment.  That's the last thing we want...

Seeing a psychologist or psychiatrist on an outpatient basis means your condition is treated, and supervised by a mental health pro responsible for oversight, it is not included in the gun purchase prohibition, or check.

People are "committed" to a mental institution because they have lost  the ability to control their mental illness, through  either treatment or therapy. These are seriously ill people who do no one, including themselves any good by owning a deadly weapon. Nothing personal, blind men can't drive.

I see no problem with the distinction, but maybe I'm not understanding your concern.

"Nothing personal, blind men can't drive."

But in Virginia I bet they can buy a handgun.  Could that possibly be true?  Scary.

...and that I'd hate to see people discouraged from seeking mental health care treatment for any reason.

One of the things I would like to see coming out of this thing is greater support for mental health services.  That means de-stigmatizing diagnosis and treatment as well as an open discussion about the many ways in which our modern society drives people to mental illness. 

I find it really strange that so many parents feel compelled by education officials to dope their kids up to cope with schooling, and get physicians to dispense anti depressants, yet we can't have a broader public discussion about how our alienated, disconnected lifestyles can lead to the carnage at hand. 

It would be great if this event, paid with so many lives, led to a re-evaluation and improvement in our society.

But will this happen?  I'm not counting on it... :(

An anonymous donor is doubling donations to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

https://secure2.conv...

From the site:  Extend Brady Background checks to all gun sales.  Since the enactment of the Brady Law over 10 years ago, more than 1.3 million felons and other prohibited purchasers have been blocked from buying guns from licensed gun dealers. As important as the Brady Law is, it only applies to sales by licensed gun dealers, and four out of every ten guns are sold by unlicensed dealers with no background check at all. State legislatures must extend Brady background checks to all gun sales, wherever they occur. Congress must pass a federal law. Our national policy should be no background check, no sale, no excuses.

I saw this survey characterized in a news article as respondents "in the cities of Roanoke and Lynchburg", and immediately thought to myself 'No way; that skews it way more Democratic than Virginia at large'. 

The poll itself, in the link provided in the post, says "Geography Surveyed: Roanoke-Lynchburg DMA" (I'm assuming DMA = direct marketing area).  Does anyone here know if that includes the counties around Roanoke and Lynchburg?  If so, it's a much more accurate picture of Virginia political sentiment.