Letter: Gun control may not be the answer
Tuesday, September 11, 2007; 12:02 AM
In the recent article "Kaine to act on panel's review of gun laws," (CT Sept. 5) I came to the conclusion that people are quick to jump on gun control to prevent events like April 16.

This run to gun control is the common "easy way out" for politicians. I would like to pose something for you all to think about.

Are we really any safer by creating more restrictions on the legal sale of firearms? Creating a ban on concealed carry on college campuses? If someone in Norris Hall had been legally carrying they would have been able to stop Cho. Restricting the right to bear arms only makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to get firearms and protect themselves. There is no possible security measure that can be imposed to stop random acts of hatred like April 16.

People need to learn to protect themselves instead of giving up their liberties to the government in exchange for a "sense of security." Everyone dreams of a world without killing or murder, but there are those out there that wish harm on their fellow human beings. Disarming everyone on a college campus, or anywhere for that matter, only turns people into targets for a murderer like Cho. I propose that instead of disarming law-abiding citizens, we need to teach those that want to arm themselves how to properly and safely use their firearms. In closing, I would like to remind everyone that, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Robert G. Ridgell

Senior, Civil Engineering

You might be interested in... Related Topics:
Posted by: donald patriot at 9/26/07 What is it that all of the mental cowards do not understand about "SHALL NOT INFRINGE?" The state citizen or private person does not need or require permission of absolutely any kind to possess any type of 'arms' to protect himself or herself from, Number one, Government, then his or herself, Period! Flag Abuse
Posted by: Tory at 9/26/07 When guns are banned in schools it only benefits the school administrators; everyone else looses safety. In a gun free zone guns may not be present in the school (with only the best security money can buy) but they may be outside of it. Gun bans and especially school gun bans force students and others to walk from the school to either their cars or their homes unarmed leaving them less safe. The 2nd amendment is an absolute restriction on the government; it prohibits government from disarming citizens. Gun bans on public school property are unconstitutional. Guns can only be banned on private property by their property owners. Any law that bans guns is simply unconstitutional and unenforceable. I think gun bans are the single greatest deception and fraud against citizens by government. The reason it's tolerated is because so many accept it. Flag Abuse
Posted by: scott snyder at 9/12/07 I'm glad to hear students like you all speaking out against the anti-gun liberal socialist propaganda machine. Most of your professors and college directors are staunchly socialist leaning. Just listen to them... Education is and always will be about giving you both sides of the story...and then letting you make up your own minds. Learn all you can about the Constitution, about those who debated with furious conviction for the unalienable rights of free speech, self-defense and religion, and remember this...the Second Amendment ultimately protects all the others; our founders knew from past experience how ANY government will eventually try to usurp control. Good Luck on all your life exams. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Mike McWithey at 9/12/07 Mr. Ridgell brings this up again because the gun control crowd won't let it drop. Does anyone truly believe that a total ban of guns on campus would have deterred or even slowed the killer? The police carry guns and no one blinks. They're people too, with human failings just like the rest of us. You'll argue they go through training before carrying guns. So does anyone who wants a concealed carry license. Both go through background checks, both have to pass proficiency tests (which requires considerable practice, just as becoming proficient in any other learned skill). Most CHL holders I know spend more time at the range than is required by the average police department for annual certifications. I don't advocate repealing VT's current rules, because for many the fear is too fresh, and the chances of another 4/16 are beyond remote. However, anyone who advocates posting "gun-free zone" signs around campus should first contemplate how much safer they would feel with the same sign posted outside their house. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Dan Sheehan at 9/11/07 Do we really want to start this machine up again? Apparently, Mr. Ridgell didnt read the CT this summer. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Robert Lundin at 9/11/07 Since the media and politicians likes to point to one and only one scape goat, let's look at the HIPA laws that were created to protect our medical history. It was HIPA that prevented Fairfax County from informing Va Tech of Cho's disorders. It was HIPA that prevented the Va State Police system from knowing that Cho had a history of mental problems and thereby allowing him to purchase a gun legally. And then there is the Va court system that did not follow up to insure that Cho continued to receive the psychiatric help he so desperately needed. What new gun control law is going to fix that? Remember, he was also looking into bomb making. So, if he couldn't get a gun, what was to stop him from building a bomb? Flag Abuse
Posted by: James Mullen at 9/11/07 What is conveniently overlooked and/or avoided is that guns have the potential to be used for good and lawful purposes. Yet, why do we only here about the bad when it comes to guns? Cho could have obtained a weapon via the black market just as easily as anyone may obtain banned drugs. What does it say about a person's mentality when they see no difference between a lawful citizen with a gun and a criminal? What happened at Virginia Tech is the result of gun control policies at the school, not a lack of it. Why do multiple victim public shootings continue to occur in "gun free safe zones" such as schools, churches, the work place, and post offices if they are supposed to be gun free and safe? When you disarm lawful citizens who are not a threat to public safety against violent criminals who are not deterred by gun control or any amount of laws, who is being protected and who is left vulnerable? Strict gun control was in full force at Virginia Tech when Cho attacked. More of the same will achieve more of the same. Why do some people correctly argue that more of the same will not reduce violence in Iraq, but call for more of the same regarding gun control pretending it will reduce violence here at home? Flag Abuse






Add your opinion
Copyright 2009 Educational Media Company at Virginia Tech Inc. All rights reserved.
about | advertising | archive | contact | full edition pdfs | headline emails | join us | subscribe
All stories, photos etc. produced by the Collegiate Times are property of the Educational Media Company at Virginia Tech. No information may be republished without the expressed written consent of the editor of the Collegiate Times.
» Virginia Tech
» Custom Promotional Products
 » VT People Search
» Used Cars
 » Campus Blvd.
»