OPINION & EDITORIAL
Tragedy provides opportunity to re-evaluate nation's violent culture
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Emily Friedman:
- Tenure at paper teaches, changes (May 10, 2007)
- Straight or gay, hire either way (May 3, 2007)
- Tragedy provides opportunity to re-evaluate nation's violent culture (April 19, 2007)
- Anti-abortion methods go too far (March 29, 2007)
- 'Don't ask, don't tell' hypocritical (March 15, 2007)
Related Stories:
- A day of mourning (April 17, 2007)
- Tragedy will strengthen America (September 12, 2001)
- VA Tech shootings provide perspective (April 30, 2007)
- National unity gives way to discord (September 12, 2005)
- Media martyrdom plagues shootings (November 14, 2007)
by Emily Friedman
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Like any tragic event, the shootings at Virginia Tech this week have left many of us with hundreds of questions, wondering how something so terrible could happen to so many people. The 24-hour news coverage has us glued to our televisions in a way that is reminiscent of the days following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The unrelenting stream of information about the shooter, the victims and the motive is only just beginning to make sense, and amid the new details that are trickling in by the hour, controversy surrounding the incident is also growing.
Many are calling for the president of Virginia Tech to resign on the grounds that his delayed response in notifying students of the first shooting was irresponsible. Had they been warned, some argue, perhaps the second shooting never would have happened.
The majority of the discussion is focused on the question of how the shooter, now known as South Korean Virginia Tech student Cho Seung-Hui, got his hands on the guns he used to kill 32 people and injure almost as many.
The answer is pretty simple. According to a report by CBS News, Seung-Hui traveled just a few miles off-campus to Roanoke Firearms to purchase a 9 mm semi-automatic for $570, which he charged to a credit card. And, adhering precisely to Virginia state law, Seung-Hui showed three forms of identification as well as a green card. A police background check — also required by law — was dutifully administered. According to the shop owner, the entire process rarely takes longer than 20 minutes — far less time than Seung-Hui spent shooting his classmates.
Despite the legality of how the shooter bought the firearms, many are beginning to question if the meager identification requirements and routine background check are enough to protect against guns landing in the hands of the wrong people. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence gave Virginia's gun control laws a C-. Its website outlines the different rules and limitations for buying handguns in the state, and many of the rules — or rather, lack thereof — are surprising. While the state does have a one-handgun-per-month rule, there is no limitation on buying assault weapons or magazines. No child locks have to be sold with the guns, and no license or permit is required to buy handguns.
On the Virginia Tech campus, however, the rules are a bit more stringent. CBS News spoke to a former campus police chief at the university who said that despite the somewhat lenient state gun laws, the school took extra precautions: All guns owned by students must be registered with campus police.
So what now? Gun control laws were in place in Virginia as well as on the Virginia Tech campus. Herein lies the debate: Many say these laws were not nearly strict enough and that a tragedy such as this only brings light to alarmingly inadequate legislation. Others are throwing in the towel altogether in a "if you can't beat them, join them" mentality and are advocating that everyone should be permitted to pack heat. That way, they argue, students who came face-to-face with the shooter could have had the means to defend themselves.
Gun violence in America is hardly new. While Virginia Tech is certainly the most recent example of a human's deadly potential, instances of gun violence have been commonplace throughout history. Take, for example, the 1966 shooting at the University of Texas at Austin, which resulted in at least 12 deaths, or the infamous Columbine High School shooting. Guns are deeply rooted in American culture, and while it may be easy for politicians to tout ideas of prohibiting guns altogether, it's just not going to happen. At the same time, I doubt the situation would be much better if we allowed our beer-guzzling college undergraduates to carry concealed weapons.
Perhaps the only answer to catastrophic events such as the Virginia Tech shooting is to use it as an opportunity to look deeper into the violent nature of our society, rather than have knee-jerk reactions regarding gun control. Violent video games and Marilyn Manson clichés aside, there are plenty of neighborhoods nationwide where people live in fear after nightfall. There is routine violence on college campuses nationwide — take our own surge in sexual assaults in Madison or even the hate crimes in the dorms during the past few years. Violence is everywhere, and no matter what, guns will be, too.
The Virginia Tech tragedy will inevitably become fodder for political gain. People with opposing views on gun control will continue to talk over one another and will never admit that there just may not be an answer. Our society is uncomfortable with the idea of coming to terms with a situation that may not have an easy solution, but that should not stop us from trying to deal with the underlying causes of violence of all kinds rather than the particular weapons we use.
Emily Friedman (efriedman@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in journalism and legal studies.
Anonymous (April 19, 2007 @ 2:44am):
Does individual responsibility still even exist? Blame society, blame guns, blame violent video games, blame profane music, etc. ...but, no, never blame the murderer.
-David Lapidus
Anonymous (April 19, 2007 @ 3:10am):
You know, if there is one thing that sickens me about this, it's the fact that a mentally ill man can go on a rampage and kill 32 people and we're still trying to use it in evidence in a debate over gun control.
Listen, you can't control guns anymore than you can control the humans that wield them.
Don't turn tragedy into a debate. The only debate that we should be having is over security of our campuses, and I can tell you that on that question - the verdict is still out.
Oh, and by the way - you editors couldn't write a short, catchy headline if it bit you in the ass.
Anonymous (April 19, 2007 @ 4:02am):
A few more things as I am finished with my homework for the night.
BTW I encourage all posters to post non-anonymously on this topic. I assume this topic will get plenty nasty, so how bought everyone keeps themselves accountable to their own arguments by attaching a name to them.
"Despite the legality of how the shooter bought the firearms, many are beginning to question if the meager identification requirements and routine background check are enough to protect against guns landing in the hands of the wrong people. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence gave Virginia's gun control laws a C-. Its website outlines the different rules and limitations for buying handguns in the state, and many of the rules -- or rather, lack thereof -- are surprising. While the state does have a one-handgun-per-month rule, there is no limitation on buying assault weapons or magazines. No child locks have to be sold with the guns, and no license or permit is required to buy handguns."
The only smart gun control regulation (federal) that might emerge from the lessons of this tragedy follow closely a federal regulation already in place for purchasing certain automatics. If a person appears farking crazy to a therapist or doctor that information should somehow cross-reference to all gun retailers in the country as a grounds for selling this person nothing. In enacting any regulation, however, politicians should tread carefully, since if done incorrectly it may also affect the rights of many responsible gun owners and purchasers. Keep in mind that I am very pro-gun, but that this type of control appears extremely reasonable if done correctly.
"On the Virginia Tech campus, however, the rules are a bit more stringent. CBS News spoke to a former campus police chief at the university who said that despite the somewhat lenient state gun laws, the school took extra precautions: All guns owned by students must be registered with campus police."
You forgot most of the things that made the rules "stringent":
http://www.policies.vt.edu/5616.pdf
Please see pages 2-3.
"2.2 Prohibition of Weapons
The university's employees, students, and volunteers, or any visitor or other third party attending a sporting,
entertainment, or educational event, or visiting an academic or administrative office building or residence hall, are
further prohibited from carrying, maintaining, or storing a firearm or weapon on any university facility, even if the owner has a valid permit, when it is not required by the individual's job, or in accordance with the relevant
University Student Life Policies.
Any such individual who is reported or discovered to possess a firearm or weapon on university property will be
asked to remove it immediately. Failure to comply may result in a student judicial referral and/or arrest, or an
employee disciplinary action and/or arrest.
2.3 Authorized Exceptions to Prohibition on Possession of Firearms or
Weapons
An employee may possess a firearm or weapon if it is:
- Used by an employee who is a certified law enforcement officer employed by the Virginia Tech Police
Department;
- Required as a part of the employee's job duties with the Commonwealth of Virginia; or
- Connected with training received by the employee in order to perform the responsibilities of their job with
the university."
Basically VT university policy made it legally impossible (short of risking serious disciplinary measures) for anyone in Norris Hall or the dorms to concealed carry, something that the law allows with a permit in Virginia.
Whether or not allowing concealed carry in the dorms or Norris Hall might have prevented the event or at least lowered the death toll should see some very serious partisan discussion in the next couple weeks...
-David Lapidus
Anonymous (April 19, 2007 @ 4:30am):
Last thing for the night...
BTW any Badger Herald staff reading this comment might want to take notice (the topic is likely news worthy).
As in any tragedy there exists evil people who will try to take advantage of people's sympathetic generosity through fraud. So if anyone plans to give money to a charity for VT victims PLEASE make sure it's legit.
Here's an article on currently known scams for VT charity's:
http://www.itweek.co.uk/vnunet/news/2187983/security-firms-brace-virgina
If you want to give it seems safest to give to the official VT memorial charity located here:
http://www.vt.edu/tragedy/memorial_fund.php
-David Lapidus
Anonymous (April 19, 2007 @ 7:15am):
It should also provide an oppurtunity to reevaluate nation's culture of victim-hood and surrender. I can't imagine having a debate about whether to barricade the door. I'd like to think that I would do something more than play dead if someone was trying to kill me.
Anonymous (April 19, 2007 @ 7:37am):
The president of VT should resign, the president of Duke should resign, Don Imus should resign, Rosie O'donnell should resign... does anyone else recognize a pattern?
Anonymous (April 19, 2007 @ 7:39am):
Not just guns - hammers must also be controlled! Or perhaps the liberal "artists" that make movies should be controlled?
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/04/movies-and-murder.html
"Will the Virginia Tech murderer change anyone's opinion about violence in the movies? Do the people who already avoid extremely violent movies have new power to shame those who like them... or perhaps to get major studios to shun them and prestigious organizations to refrain from giving them the "Gran Prix prize"?"
Anonymous (April 19, 2007 @ 10:10am):
I'm not really sympathetic with any of the victims. Some guy just tried to get an education and the "cool people" decided to go and pick on him. Then, when he's finally had enough, he goes berzerk, gets a couple of guns and lets 'em have it.
Yeah, street fights, violent movies and video games are fun because someone else is always taking the ass-whipping. And then one day they come after you and suddenly it ain't so fun anymore. College students, get over your pathetic little narcissistic selves and face the fact that you asked for it! You think you're soooo cool!
Anonymous (April 19, 2007 @ 11:07am):
I feel this is a very serious shooting in Virginia and all schools in U.S should take notice and practice at least 1 time a year a lock down. I am a 7th grade student from New Holstein Elementry/Middle School. I am worried our school will not know what to do in lock down and i beleive if we don't practice we might loose alot of people from not knowing what to do. Thank you
Anonymous (April 19, 2007 @ 11:08am):
There is no one to blame here except one man who didn't get the help he clearly needed. Guns, video games, movies, tv and the news have nothing to do wiht it.
Anonymous (April 19, 2007 @ 11:51am):
Maybe, if nothing else, this tragedy will at provide an "oppurtunity" for the editors of the Badger Herald to learn to spell "opporunity"?
It's the very least we can hope for.
Anonymous (April 19, 2007 @ 1:09pm):
10:10am needs to be checked out by big brother.
asap.
Anonymous (April 19, 2007 @ 1:31pm):
WE NEED HAMMER CONTROL LAWS - before it't too late!
After escaping, he goes on a rampage against his captor. In one scene, he dispatches more than a dozen henchmen with the aid of a hammer.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070419/ap_en_mo/virginia_tech_movie_inspiration;_ylt=
connor gyles (April 19, 2007 @ 2:35pm):
What happened at Virginia Tech cannot be decribed. My heart goes out to the victims, and the victims family. May there souls rest with God. Cho burn in hell.
Anonymous (April 19, 2007 @ 3:59pm):
seems to me that this is a problem with the media and the pharmaceutical companies.
prozac and other antidepressants cause suicidal thoughts...
let's talk about that "help" he got.
Anonymous (April 19, 2007 @ 4:20pm):
David @ 2:44am,
If you're at all familiar with social theory, in particular Emile Durkheim, you'd know that suicide and homicide are in fact the result of social phenomena. So yeah, society is kind of to blame here.
Anonymous (April 19, 2007 @ 6:13pm):
I find it amazing that a 7th grader is the one with the most common sense and humility on this issue. You are a special kid! :)
Anonymous (April 19, 2007 @ 9:41pm):
"Anonymous (April 19, 2007 @ 4:20pm):
David @ 2:44am,
If you're at all familiar with social theory, in particular Emile Durkheim, you'd know that suicide and homicide are in fact the result of social phenomena. So yeah, society is kind of to blame here."
I'd prefer that next time you post with a name BTW, unless you want to a appear a complete hypocrite. If you truly believe that we should always assume our actions are the result of our society what do you care if I know you posted a controversial argument? You weren't responsible for it, after all, right? For society made you do it...
I am plenty familiar with Emile Durkheim. Her views on society causing everything remain irrelevant at the end of the day. Unless you want to assign consequences to nothing an individual does, inviting complete chaos and unaccountability, individuals must assume that THEIR OWN actions have consequences. Taking her world-view to the extreme means inviting crap like: "I was only following orders" as a victimizing excuse for every evil deed. Unless this philosophy, a philosophy that plenty of former SS-Totenkopf death camp guards used after WWII to excuse what they were doing as "victims", exists as something you want all humans to emulate.
-David Lapidus
Anonymous (April 19, 2007 @ 10:45pm):
spell check didn't seem to come through in the title here...well done editors
Anonymous (April 19, 2007 @ 10:46pm):
he other Virginia college shooting, five years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting
In 2002, another Virginia college was attacked by a madman bent on mass murder. That time, only three people died-- because two legally-armed students intervened before the local police could arrive.
Virginia law allows college students to carry guns just like other responsible adults, but Virginia Tech's rules left its students defenseless.
It's time to face facts in the gun-control debate. Gun control doesn't protect people. Guns protect people.
Anonymous (April 19, 2007 @ 11:26pm):
@10:10
I'm not really sympathetic with any of the victims. Some guy just tried to get an education and the "cool people" decided to go and pick on him. Then, when he's finally had enough, he goes berzerk, gets a couple of guns and lets 'em have it.
You have honestly got to be kidding me. You make it sound like the deserve to die...and I believe that no one (no matter what they do) should die before it's their time. On top of that there is no way of proving that the 32 people that were shot even knew the kid or made any gestures toward him that would be demeaning to him. Many people go to that university for the education they can get not because they are rich. You should be ashamed of yourself for blaming the victims. The true people at blame for this are the people that allowed him to be released into society despite the fact that he was ruled a danger to himself. I wonder if people kept track of whether or not he actually went to the outpatient evaluations.....
Anonymous (April 19, 2007 @ 11:30pm):
Not so much the editors as the people in the web department who retype the headlines... the editors rock
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
