I think Tom Regan was in such a hurry to connect this tragedy with America's foreign politics that he forgot to use proper grammar. "...overwhelming sympathetic towards..." towards what?

Just it because it looks nice on your iBook doesn't mean it makes any sense.

Sent by Cody Ledford | 11:50 AM ET | 04-18-2007

Recent events serve to illuminate a couple of points about the gun debate in this country which are of interest if viewed from an academic, rather than emotional perspective. To appreciate them, it is necessary to set aside for the moment one's own position on the subject. We've all got one, me included, but they only get in the way of understanding why this is such a difficult subject.

First, the issue has more the character of a religious debate than a political one, even though the subject itself is nearly devoid of any conventional relegious content (by contrast, e.g., the abortion debate is awash in religious content). As both sides posture and preach following the tragedy in Blacksburg, it becomes more apparent than ever that each side has so consolidated its position that it is not only unreceptive to information or argument not compatible (or, better, congruent) with its beliefs, but is actually incapable of hearing, much less understanding, incompatible external input. Each side has built an impervious frame of reference, a liturgy, that precludes reasoned debate. Sound familiar?

Second, it is, ... um, interesting that the extreme camps on both sides (where most with any interest in the subject seem to live, by the way; There's not much middle ground) view the tragic events at VT as a signal affirmation of the correctness of their utterly opposite views. The wild-eyed, bloodthirsty gun nuts say that if students and others on campus were legally armed, this would never have happened as it did. The lilly-livered second-amendment-trashing gun wimps (was that equally pejorative? I hope so.) say that if handguns were illegal, this would never have happened as it did.

Here's a radical thought. Maybe they're both right. Maybe the problem is our current half-way, let's try to compromise and keep everyone happy approach to the issue. It could be that the current situation is actually WORSE than EITHER extreme.

Food for thought.

Thos.

Sent by Thos | 12:40 PM ET | 04-18-2007

Isn't it a federal crime to have a gun in a learning institution? I suppose that if kids are buying guns, they are not using a dormitory address? I am assuming, of course, that a postal address to a dormitory would block a would-be gun purchaser from being allowed to buy such weapons. What if it were required moving in to the dorm to register with the post office, might this help offset bringing the guns onto campus? I personally believe handguns should be outlawed, but in the face of such intense support for handguns, perhaps this could be one way to circumvent guns getting into the schools.

Nicole Labry in Austin, TX
(pronounced Luh-bree).

Sent by Nicole Labry | 2:33 PM ET | 04-18-2007

In Iraq our soldiers are threatened more by explosives than guns, IED's and suicide bombers. It seems that there will always be those who want to end the lives of others, those who are determined will kill people. It does not seem that the shooter was actually a part of the "gun culture". He had only purchased the guns shortly before the shooting. The goal of gun control is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, however criminals will be able to get guns illegally, so unfortunately gun control will not end gun violence. Our schools teach about our 1st amendment rights and responsibilities but nothing about our 2nd amendment rights and responsibilities.

Sent by Joel | 2:56 PM ET | 04-18-2007

Stop with the GUNS - - look at the Common Thread ---> PROZAC !!
Where is the awareness of Psychotropic Drugs in all these shootings?

Sent by GrumpyJohn | 2:59 PM ET | 04-18-2007

I am from Belgium but I live in Kansas City since 2001.Every morning, the local TV reports at least one shooting !!
There are more people shot by gun in a month in KC than in a year in Belgium and KC has only 1 million people when Belgium has 10 million.
The "gun culture" is a disaster for the american people.

Sent by Ghislain Neuforge | 3:12 PM ET | 04-18-2007

If our "Gun" culture is such a disaster why is it the Model society that others either strive to emulate or we force it on them? Regardless, I felt that the Pro gun speakers were either cut short (1) caller out of three and drowned out by the Congresswoman who knows what's better for "you and me". Look at what they have tried to do in Washington D.C. , the murder capital of the US. Banned handguns, has that worked? Hardly, on the other hand look at the statistics in Texas and Arizona where their concealed carry laws are very liberal and most exercise the right. NPR is know to be a liberal station although they preach accurate news with an unslanted bias. In the future I would like equal time to both camps instead of a paid advertisement for house bill 10/22. Do you homework people. A senator once stopped a burglary with an illegal handgun in D.C. , when questioned about possessing the illegal weapon he said that the rules did not apply to him and his ability to protect his family as he was a Senator, nice huh? Insert sheep bleat from all the constituency. An armed society is a polite society.

Sent by Jerry Honeycutt | 6:20 PM ET | 04-18-2007

Oh, forgot to add Japan, Russia, China, and most of the major European countries do not REALLY get the "culture of freedom"

Sent by Daniel | 7:08 PM ET | 04-18-2007

"An armed society is a polite society."

Yep, this really helped Wild Bill Hickok, didn't it?

Sent by Randy Eischer, Jr. | 7:41 PM ET | 04-18-2007

Here are a couple of my favorite quotes that come to mind in this friendly banter;

" I think opinions should be judged by their influences and effects; and if a man holds none that tend to make him less virtuous or more vicious, it may be concluded that he holds none that are dangerous, which I hope is the case with me."
o Letter to his parents (c. 1728) as quoted in Benjamin Franklin: An American Life (2003) by Walter Isaacson

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

* This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759

I cannot claim the passage about the armed society, its Robert Heinlein's.

"Two men enter. One man leaves. That is the law in Bartertowns"

Sent by Jerry Honeycutt | 9:59 PM ET | 04-18-2007

Its funny how in this society of ours the 'doom of political correctness' and 'lack of self accountability' has clouded our view on who is responsible for these tragedies. While everyone argues 'gun control could've stopped this!' or the flip 'liberal carry laws could've stopped this!' both these points are truly moot. There is 'someone' not 'something' or 'someplace' who is completely and utterly guilty of this crime, who the blame should be solely placed on and his name is Cho Seung-Hui the fingers that pulled the triggers were his, his alone.

Doesn't anyone blame him? No, they blame EVERYONE ELSE. The school, the teachers, the police, the laws, the lack of counseling, the gun store owner, the guns, Everyone but Cho Seung-Hui.. Aparently its ok to NOT be responsible for your own actions if you 'aren't OFFERED help' not that they didn't seek help, but that it wasn't 'OFFERED?'

Its time that we accept the simple basic fact that bad people will do bad things. Whether handguns are legal or not is a moot point, whether or not people didn't help him enough is a moot point. This tragedy happened because of one disturbed man. Who took it upon himself to cause this tragedy.

Sent by Keith D | 8:47 AM ET | 04-19-2007

Keith D. has it mostly right .... as far as he goes. There is no doubt that Cho is to blame. But there are really two conflated issues here. (1) Who's to blame for THIS incident (Cho), and (2) what constructive steps might be taken to reduce the likelihood that this happens again.

Those that indulge in the gun control argument - either side of it - though they may themselves be confused, properly should be addressing the second issue, not the first as Keith implies.

Though the two may SOUND very similar, there is a world of difference between (incorrectly) asserting that guns or gun control policies are "responsible" for THIS tragedy and suggesting that changes in gun control policy - in either direction - might reduce the likelihood of ANOTHER such tragedy.

Thos

Sent by Thos | 10:48 AM ET | 04-19-2007

"Stop with the GUNS - - look at the Common Thread ---> PROZAC !!
Where is the awareness of Psychotropic Drugs in all these shootings?"

I've take Prozac a number of years back and I coudn't agree more!! At the time I was taking it, I could have killed anyones whole family and could not have cared less. Prozac takes away all emotion but anger. It leaves that COMPLETELY intact. So that makes for a realllly bad combination if your depressed due to anger and hostility you feel is coming from group x or person x and the doctor prescribes a drug that makes you not care at all but remain angry. The only hope left is you actually care about right and wrong. If that goes, all it takes is access to a gun of any kind to make it easy as pie for a massacre to take place. I personally think Prozac should be completely banned from the market along with effexor and several other drugs of this type.

Sent by Dwayne | 1:04 PM ET | 05-30-2007