On Virginia Tech anniversary, Saugus mom lobbies for changes

By Mike Gaffney
GateHouse News Service
Posted Apr 16, 2008 @ 01:37 PM

SAUGUS —

A year after she lost her son Ross in the Virginia Tech shootings, Lynnette Alameddine is fighting for legislation that would require universities to issue campus emergency notifications in 30 minutes or less.

Wednesday marked the first anniversary of the massacre at Virginia Tech. One of the 33 victims of the deadliest school shooting in this country's history was Ross Alameddine, 20, a Saugus resident and college sophomore known for his sharp wit and uncanny ability to make people laugh.

In a recent interview, Lynnette Alameddine declined to reflect upon Ross's death and its affect on her family for personal reasons.

But she found the courage during an emotionally draining week to talk about the causes she is championing so other parents do not have to experience the same heartbreak.

Over the last few months Alameddine has been working closely with Security on Campus Inc., a nonprofit organization committed to improving student safety at institutions of higher learning.

Security on Campus wants to strengthen the Jeanne Clery Act that requires colleges to warn their campuses about crimes that present ongoing threats in a "timely" manner.

The problem with the federal legislation, Alameddine explained, is the act fails to define what "timely" means. As a result, warnings are sometimes issued many hours after a university becomes aware of an emergency, or even the next day.

History shows that colleges do not always follow the guidelines of the Clery Act. Alameddine mentioned one particularly troublesome case at Eastern Michigan University when a coed was found raped and murdered in a residence hall, but officials issued a statement that no foul play was suspected in her death.

Alameddine and Security on Campus hope Congress revises the Clery Act so universities must initiate a warning process within 30 minutes of an emergency being confirmed.

Thus far Alameddine said a bill has been introduced at the House to include the 30-minute time limit in the renewed Higher Education Amendments of 2008, but no such clause exists in the legislation being worked on at the Senate level.

"There has been a lot of resistance from university presidents who don't feel they can complete the notifications in that amount of time," Alameddine said.

Mere minutes can mean the difference between life and death when a threat of a shooter surfaces on a college campus, Alameddine pointed out. In the case of the Virginia Tech Tragedy, two hours passed between the discovery of the shooter's first two victims in a dormitory and when the university sent out its alert.

Alameddine traveled to Washington, D.C., recently to share her concerns with an advisor on Sen. Edward Kennedy's staff and the vice president of Security on Campus. Her daughter, Yvonne, has become the president on Facebook for the Students for Emergency Warnings in 30 Minutes or Less.

A decision on the specific language included in the Higher Education Amendments is expected by the end of the month.

With this looming deadline in mind, the Alameddines are encouraging the public to call or e-mail their senators to request they support the mandatory campus warning provision of 30 minutes or less. For more information on this cause, log on to www.securityoncampus.org.

"I think this has the potential to prevent tragedies from happening," Alameddine said. "It is shocking that colleges and universities don't notify people about emergencies on campus."
Advocating gun control

Another concern of Alameddine's is how easy it can be to secure a firearm. Earlier this month she attended a gala in the nation's capital sponsored by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, an organization that strives to enact and enforce sensible gun laws.

The gala featured a special tribute to the survivors and families affected by the Virginia Tech shooting. Also honored was Abby Spangler, a Virginia native and staunch gun control supporter affiliated with the Web site www.protesteasyguns.com.

After the Virginia Tech shootings, Spangler took it upon herself to hold a silent protest expressing outrage over the senseless loss of human life. The movement eventually evolved into a phenomenon culminating with the National Lie-In.

On April 16, the grassroots group organized 80 lie-ins in 31 states. To honor the memory of the Virginia Tech victims, Alameddine said each protest involved 32 people — signifying the number of students and teachers killed by shooter Cho Seung-Hui — who dressed in black with Virginia Tech colors and laid down for three minutes.

"That's how long it takes someone to get a gun in this country," Alameddine said.

Several lie-ins were held in the Boston area, including a silent protest organized at Simmons College by Katie McKendrey, a close friend of Ross Alameddine's.

From the research she has conducted, Alameddine said it is alarming how effortless it is for people to purchase guns. She hopes to close the existing loophole that allows private dealers at gun shows to sell firearms to customers without conducting a background check.

According to statistics collected by www.protesteasyguns.com, approximately 40 percent of sales at the 5,000 gun shows held every year in this country are made by unlicensed sellers who aren't required to perform background checks.

At last count 35 states had yet to close this loophole. Alameddine is convinced the time has come to take action and close the loophole so the guns used in crimes no longer find their way into the wrong hands.

Although Alameddine acknowledged the need to respect the rights of the National Rifle Association, she said precautions should be taken so firearms are kept away from dangerous individuals and off college campuses.

Gun control laws differ considerably from state to state, which Alameddine noted can lead to troubling circumstances where common sense isn't always taken into account. For example, she expressed concern over finding out some universities allow students to carry concealed weapons on campus.


Licensed under Creative Commons
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/">Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Generic</a>


--

Original Source:
<a href="http://www.patriotledger.com/archive/x883016434">http://www.patriotledger.com/archive/x883016434</a>

Mike Gaffney

2008-04-19

Kacey Beddoes

eng

Controlling the threat

In my opinion
By: Elon Glucklich | Opinion Editor
Issue date: 4/23/07 Section: Commentary

The list of communities stricken by gun violence rings out like a grim roll call - it&#39;s best left out of mind, if possible. But now there is no such luxury; we find it back in the spotlight, following last week&#39;s tragic shooting on the Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, Virginia.

People raised around here know this all too well. In 1998 Kip Kinkel, then 15, walked into the Thurston High School cafeteria in Springfield with a semiautomatic rifle. By the time he was apprehended, he had killed two students and left 25 wounded.

In Blacksburg, VA, 33 people are dead, and an entire community finds itself grappling with feelings of grief and shock. And I sit here, 3,000 miles away, trying to sort through it all for some meaning. I could recount the tragedy, minute by minute. I could try to psychoanalyze the shooter - look into his past and try to figure out what drove him to such a depraved act. But what good would that do? All that there is to say has already been said. Besides, none of it really matters. He and 32 of his classmates are dead because of his actions. Nothing is going to change that.

But have times changed? Look at the past ten years: Springfield, Columbine, Colo., Red Lake, Minn., Lancaster, Calif. and a slew of others are still fresh in the nation&#39;s mind. Now, as members of the Virginia Tech community try to sort through their anger and pain, the rest of the country begins to ask questions. Are there too many guns on the street? Are we in the midst of an irreversible moral decline? Should we prepare for more incidents like this? Certainly it will happen again. When, where and to what capacity is anyone&#39;s guess, but it will happen again.

In the meantime, we must not be afraid to ask these difficult questions - questions that cut through the unbridled emotions of the present in hopes of finding some reason, some underlying cause as to why this happened, and how such an event can be prevented in the future. Every incident of this kind has two main components: The unstable individual and the weapon. Determining who has the capacity to take lives is nearly impossible. Furthermore, when a potential shooter decides they no longer have the will to live, there&#39;s really no stopping them. I mean, how do you deter someone who, like Seung-Hui Cho, has already embraced death?

The answer: You take away their guns. Of course, that answer raises a whole new set of questions. In the wake of this tragedy, some advocates have renewed their efforts to bring the gun control issue back into the spotlight. But gun rights advocates, led by the National Rifle Association and backed by the Second Amendment, have been quick to counter. Their argument is that gun control legislation will leave our criminals as the only ones with weapons.

But when you examine Cho&#39;s mental history (he was deemed "an imminent danger" to himself and others as recently as 2005), and the ease with which he came to legally obtain a 9 mm Glock and a .22-caliber pistol, it becomes clear that more stringent gun control is needed. Besides, what exactly defines a criminal? Cho wasn&#39;t a criminal when he walked to the pawnshop across the street from the Virginia Tech campus and purchased that .22. What we need are more thorough background checks to ensure that criminals are not the only people exempt from buying weapons; people with the capacity to resort to criminal acts must be exempt, too. And yet, as the Second Amendment and its unwavering supporters make abundantly clear, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment used to make a lot of sense. When I say "used to" I mean about 200 years ago. The United States of America was a lot different back then. Its inhabitants lived under the constant threat of conquest: England and France occupied land to the north, the Spanish lay in the south, and all around were Native Americans; it&#39;s easy to see why an early American&#39;s life was steeped in fear.

I guess, in a lot of ways, we&#39;re just like those early Americans. We&#39;re all just as scared. But while our early ancestors lived in fear of outsiders, we fear each other. This is a different America we&#39;re living in. We don&#39;t like to admit it, but the rugged individualism that defined our frontier forefathers is largely a thing of the past. Still, many choose to cling to this old mentality - a mentality so interwoven with gun obsession that the two are practically indistinguishable.

In the meantime, the guns are still here. And the violence is still here. Complaining about them isn&#39;t going to make either go away - especially when a lot of people believe the answer to stopping gun violence is to give people more guns. Maybe we as a society are just desensitized to guns. Maybe we need to re-sensitize ourselves.

eglucklich@dailyemerald.com

--

Original Source: Daily Emerald
<a href="http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2007/04/23/Commentary/Controlling.The.Threat-2874215.shtml">http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2007/04/23/Commentary/Controlling.The.Threat-2874215.shtml</a>
<a href="http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2007/04/23/Commentary/Controlling.The.Threat-2874215-page2.shtml">http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2007/04/23/Commentary/Controlling.The.Threat-2874215-page2.shtml</a>

Elon Glucklich

2008-02-19

Kacey Beddoes

Judy Riedl <jriedl@uoregon.edu>

eng

Americans have a right to feel safe from gun violence everywhere

By: Letter to the editor |
Issue date: 4/26/07 Section: Commentary

In response to Elon Glucklich&#39;s article ("Controlling the threat," ODE, Apr. 23, 2007), I am also outraged by the increase in gun violence in America, especially the recent shooting at Virginia Tech. Unfortunately, incidents like this happen all too often in all parts of this nation.

All Americans have the right to be safe from gun violence in their homes, neighborhoods, schools, and places of work. And all children have the right to grow up in environments free from the threat of gun violence.

It is too easy for anyone - children, teens, and troubled adults - to access firearms in this country and the lethality of guns make death or severe injury more likely. This must stop!

Curtis Taylor

Eugene

--

Original Source: Daily Emerald
<a href="http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2007/04/26/Commentary/Americans.Have.A.Right.To.Feel.Safe.From.Gun.Violence.Everywhere-2882636.shtml">http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2007/04/26/Commentary/Americans.Have.A.Right.To.Feel.Safe.From.Gun.Violence.Everywhere-2882636.shtml</a>

Curtis Taylor

2008-02-19

Kacey Beddoes

Judy Riedl <jriedl@uoregon.edu>

eng

Government by martyrdom is not the way it should work

By: Guest Commentary |
Issue date: 5/1/07 Section: Commentary

We must not let those who abuse our rights forsake our national belief in freedom above all else. If we do, then the victims of these shooters, these evil young men who have turned classrooms into firing ranges, will not only be those innocents slain in Blacksburg, Va. and other places where massacres have happened, but all who believe in American self-determination.

An editorial in The New York Times concluded that, "What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage and such unbearable loss."

But blaming guns is too easy.

This shooting was an act of insanity and we must treat it as such. The shooter&#39;s actions should not be given the power and legitimacy to change our laws governing civil liberties. That is government by martyrdom.

My belief, that guns and violence enjoy a marriage of convenience, was reaffirmed by news that the mayor of Nagasaki, Japan had been assassinated this week by a man with a handgun. He was shot point-blank in the back because of an unresolved dispute with a gangster over damage done to the gangster&#39;s car. Japan is a country where handguns are outlawed.

"But," a child in Nagasaki might ask, "if handguns are forbidden, then how could my mayor be killed by one?" I would tell that child that it is impossible to ban handguns; that it is impossible to ban anything.

Japan also knows that people die by means other than guns.

Multiple leaders have been stabbed to death in Japan - one was even killed by a man with a samurai sword. Atomic bombs have killed thousands there, too.

Hopefully, the Japanese do not decide to increase the scope of their bans, just as we should be hopeful that the United States does not increase the scope of its gun bans.

Because if we were to enact stricter gun laws, it would be an admittance of our uneasiness with the freedom we have been given. And then, before we know it, we are a fearful and retreating democracy called to action by hateful men wielding 9mm and .22-caliber pistols on college campuses.

So then what do we do when we are shocked and hurt by events such as those that occurred at Virginia Tech?

Let&#39;s try collectively standing up to hate and violence with our countrymen, becoming a people holding one another so tightly and with such conviction that we are as impenetrable as a great seawall. Let&#39;s disarm hateful and violent people before they arm themselves, by recognizing and resolving their personal crises.

But that is difficult and abstract.

We have yet to mourn and come to terms with our grief.

Perhaps we should not rush to judgment until our tempers have cooled and loved ones have had the opportunity to tell us about the people who found themselves in the shooter&#39;s path in Blacksburg, but not in the path of most of our lives.

Perhaps we should try to remember them completely.

And then? What do we do with those memories?

We never forget, that&#39;s what.

And we look to the people who we share this free and open country with and decide whether we will be the ones who let the self-righteous and insane run things or if we will be the ones who are brave, once the pain has subsided, and become that impenetrable seawall so that we may protect our right to self-determination and tranquility wherever we are.

It is not the guns of the world that should worry us, it is the shooters.

Dan Anderson is a University graduate student

--

Original Source: Daily Emerald
<a href="http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2007/05/01/Commentary/Government.By.Martyrdom.Is.Not.The.Way.It.Should.Work-2889799.shtml">http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2007/05/01/Commentary/Government.By.Martyrdom.Is.Not.The.Way.It.Should.Work-2889799.shtml</a>
<a href="http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2007/05/01/Commentary/Government.By.Martyrdom.Is.Not.The.Way.It.Should.Work-2889799-page2.shtml">http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2007/05/01/Commentary/Government.By.Martyrdom.Is.Not.The.Way.It.Should.Work-2889799-page2.shtml</a>

Dan Anderson

2008-02-19

Kacey Beddoes

Judy Riedl <jriedl@uoregon.edu>

eng

Gun control won&#39;t work in U.S.

By: KONRAD KLINKNER
Columnist
Posted: 4/23/07

The intricacies of the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech are proving to be very enduring media fodder, with NBC lapping up Cho&#39;s media package and the investigations probing deeper and deeper into the background of the gunman, savoring every juicy drop of sordid drama. It&#39;s been so lasting because, as the act of an irrational psycho, it&#39;s riddled with questions that will never be answered - and that always keeps an audience.

Almost grudgingly, one of the few concrete issues that the tragedy has forced back into the national spotlight is one of America&#39;s least favorite debate topics: gun control. One might think that the massacre naturally lends itself easiest as an example of how guns are too easy to acquire here in the States. But, pro-gun rights advocates are already quick to turn it into a case for more self-defense.

Indeed, some gun-rights proponents are even suggesting that Virginia Tech&#39;s campus policy of prohibiting the possession of firearms on campus should be reviewed. A fair number of students are quoted as saying they wished somebody had a gun with them on that day. Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said, "All the school shootings that have ended abruptly in the last 10 years were stopped because a law-abiding citizen - a potential victim - had a gun. The latest school shooting at Virginia Tech demands an immediate end to the gun-free zone law which leaves the nation&#39;s schools at the mercy of madmen."

So Pratt is suggesting here that allowing guns on campuses would be a big step toward curbing shooting outbreaks. Really? Who thinks to bring a gun to class on a regular basis?

Beyond making a strong case for having more vigilant background checks, though, it&#39;s very unlikely that the Virginia Tech tragedy will spur any significant gun control initiative within the United States. It&#39;s not like any previous mass shooting has.

To many people elsewhere in the world, the recent tragedy is yet another bloody stain on America&#39;s generally ugly reputation. European critics, as to be expected, particularly express their never-ending bafflement that Americans never seem to do anything about their gun laws.

And well they may wonder. But as much as I don&#39;t care for guns and identify more with the ethos of gun-control advocates, I can&#39;t believe that gun control alone is going to fix things. Serious gun control legislation, like what Europe has, is doomed to fail in the United States as it is today, and that&#39;s because guns are just too embedded in American culture for laws alone to make lasting changes about it anytime soon.

History has shown us that prohibition laws are rarely ever effective when they run up against big cultural institutions. A real attempt to bring our gun control laws anywhere near the standards of Western Europe would be disastrous today. If someone ever miraculously pulls off an outright ban on general gun ownership in the United States, that person will probably get shot, and I&#39;d fully expect ferocious, widespread defiance of the law across the entire nation. You&#39;d have to pry those guns from America&#39;s cold, dead hands. Before law reform can be used effectively to curb guns, our gun culture must first undergo reform.

Gun ownership is often trumped up in the United States as a testimony to the hallowed virtues of individualism and self-sufficiency. The civilian&#39;s gun embodies vigilante security and is about as literal as "power to the people" gets - this harkens all the way back to the Revolutionary days when militias actually mattered, which is indeed where we got this Second Amendment from in the first place. It was an assurance to those suspicious of the new federal government that they&#39;d always have their guns to protect them should the feds ever get too tyrannical. Even today some pro-gun rights people will talk about a civilian&#39;s firearms as the last line of defense against governmental tyranny, which really can&#39;t be anything more than just a psychological comfort, since I can&#39;t imagine today&#39;s citizenry armed with handguns and hunting rifles having any chance against our government&#39;s tanks and bomber planes.

But of course it&#39;s naive to say that gun enthusiasm in America mainly comes from a militant devotion to liberty. On a more simple level, people just like shooting things, and having guns makes you dangerous and therefore potentially cool.

I get somewhat torn when it comes to this, because on one hand, I&#39;m not a fan of real guns, but I honestly also think guns are quite awesome when kept to the realm of fiction, as in video games. Most U.S. politicians tend to take an inverse stance, being way more comfortable supporting restrictions on the mere depiction of guns rather than restricting guns in real life. Personally, I would rather there not be necessary restrictions on anything, and that American culture could just chill out with the guns out of its own volition. That, I think, will bring more peace than any law will bring about, but it will be a long time in coming.

--

Original Source: <a href=http://media.www.pittnews.com/media/storage/paper879/news/2007/04/23/Opinion/Gun-Control.Wont.Work.In.U.s-2873292.shtml> The Pitt News - April 23, 2007</a>

KONRAD KLINKNER

2007-08-19

Sara Hood

Annie Tubbs <annietubbs@gmail.com>

eng

Shooting proves need for gun control laws

By: Joe Bialek
Posted: 5/2/07

The shooting crisis at Virginia Tech has once again sparked the debate about gun control. The second amendment of the United States Constitution states: "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." Obviously the need for a state militia has been replaced by the National Guard and Coast Guard whereby trained military personnel are entrusted with the defense of this country against domestic enemies. Their weapons are tightly controlled and safeguarded.

The only two reasons for a citizen to own a firearm are for hunting or defense of the household from intruders. In either case, ownership of a handgun, shotgun or shoulder rifle is more than adequate to satisfy these purposes. There is absolutely no need for any U.S. civilian to own any weapon more powerful or sophisticated than these. Accordingly, all handguns, shotguns and shoulder rifles must be licensed and registered to the degree necessary to match weapon to owner at the click of a computer key. Furthermore, if we had prohibited the purchase of more sophisticated weapons, several innocent victims would not have died at the hands of Cho Seung-Hui.

Joe Bialek
Cleveland, Ohio

--

Original Source:<a href=http://media.www.thelantern.com/media/storage/paper333/news/2007/05/02/Letters/Shooting.Proves.Need.For.Gun.Control.Laws-2891670.shtml>The Lantern - May 2, 2007</a>

Joe Bialek

2007-08-16

Sara Hood

GERRICK LEWIS <lewis.1030@osu.edu>

eng

Gun licenses safe choice

By: Karl Spaulding
Posted: 5/7/07
When Florida liberalized its restrictive and disjointed system of concealed carry laws in 1987, many states followed suit. In each case, naysayers predicted everything from "blood in the streets" to "parking lot shootouts." Just as regularly, after each state changed the law to allow more law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns, the results were peacefully anticlimactic. Within a year or so after a law changed, a law enforcement or political figure would be quoted in an article admitting they were surprised that there had been no major problems.

Now after the Virginia Tech shootings, there are those wanting concealed carry to be allowed on college campuses. I&#39;ve wanted this for ages, not as an "answer" to mass shootings (there is no single answer), but because it would further improve the safety of individuals who are legal to carry elsewhere in Ohio.

Predictably, the naysayers are still at work. They claim the same tragic consequences as they always have, aggravated by our youthful population and the abuse of alcohol. One of the arguments that keeps popping up is that "everyone will have a gun." They expect us to believe that the most irresponsible students will start carrying guns while drunk, wreaking havoc in our residence halls and classrooms. What they don&#39;t mention is that in Ohio the minimum age for a concealed handgun license is 21. Plus, applicants have to take a 12-hour training course. At most, only around 4 to 5 percent of state populations obtain gun carry permits. Plus, schools could still be allowed to ban guns from their residence halls. I could state that these predictions are balderdash, but there is a better way to show this: real life results. "Campus carry" already exists.

Utah is the only state that specifically allows licensed gun carriers on college campuses. Until just recently, the administration of the University of Utah banned legally concealed guns, but a decision from the Utah Supreme Court forced them to comply. Other colleges in Utah, including the College of Eastern Utah, have had legal concealed carry since at least 2003. If there were serious problems with these schools, wouldn&#39;t we have heard of them by now? Opponents of campus carry don&#39;t like to talk about what happens in the real world; only what happens in their pessimistic, sociologically illiterate minds.

The best reason for allowing CHLs on campus is that those of us who want to go armed need to carry as much as possible to make it a habit. The safest place for a defensive handgun is on one&#39;s person, not locked in a car (currently allowed by Ohio law on campus) or at home. No one can predict when they might be attacked, so one needs to carry a defensive weapon as much as possible. Do you only wear your seatbelt when you think you will be in a crash?

Proper weapons training (another thing most administrators don&#39;t have) dictates that weapons should be carried in the same place as much as possible. When faced with danger, the mind will be occupied by other things, and one&#39;s weapon presentation should be automatic. This is true for any weapon or tool that will be used under stress. Unfortunately, our society ignores the real purpose of defensive weaponry, and stigmatizes handguns as suitable only for killing people instead of admitting their real purpose: saving innocent human life from an unexpected attack. A 1995 study, which showed firearms are used more than 2 million times per year in self-defense, described how prosocial uses for weapons at the very least cancelled out the negatives. Another criminologist, the late Marvin Wolfgang, followed that article with his own, expressing surprise as well as admiration because he had long been against firearms ownership, but could find nothing wrong with their methodology.

CHL holders do not become violent, "Wild West" savages when they come onto campus. Those of us who carry simply want to be able to protect ourselves to the best of our abilities at all times. Yes, campus is relatively safe, but the neighborhoods surrounding OSU and the places where visitors come from may not be.

Society is not made any safer by restricting individuals&#39; right and means to self-defense.

--

Original source:<a href=http://media.www.thelantern.com/media/storage/paper333/news/2007/05/07/Opinion/Gun-Licenses.Safe.Choice-2896369.shtml>The Lantern - May 7, 2007</a>

Karl Spaulding

The Lantern

2007-08-16

Sara Hood

GERRICK LEWIS <lewis.1030@osu.edu>

eng

Terror gun control

<b>New bill consistent, sound policy</b>

By:Unknown
Posted: 5/7/07

Following the Virginia Tech incident, governments have examined many of the legal practices for the sale of firearms. Some of the proposals have come under attack by gun advocacy groups such as the National Rifle Association, including a recent bill granting the attorney general the authority to prohibit gun sales to those on the terror watch list.

The terror watch list includes those suspected of being terrorist threats, even when they have not been convicted.

As reported by the Associated Press, NRA executive director Chris Cox wrote in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, "the word &#39;suspect&#39; has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties."

If Gonzalez and the Bush administration show any consistency in their policies, they will support the plan to deny Second Amendment rights to terror suspects, because they have had no problem denying other constitutional rights to those suspected of having terror connections. Those of us who pay attention might remember Guantanamo Bay, where it is a matter of procedure to deny due process and other rights to those accused of having terror connections, and sometimes even those who have been exonerated.

Although The Lantern appreciates the NRA looking out for our constitutional liberties, we wonder why all of a sudden gun rights get a special pass.

The Lantern believes the rights guaranteed in the constitution are created equal, and the fact that one might come in the Second Amendment makes it no more important than those in subsequent amendments. It is true that the political ideologies in the United States have latched onto certain rights to call their own. Some on the left have taken freedom of religion to mean absolutely no mention of God in public, ever, while some on the right have taken a well-regulated militia to mean an AK-47 in every home. Still, we should remember it takes a significant majority to amend the constitution, which means at one point in time the issues addressed by the amendments were not simply tools for partisan bickering.

The NRA is not at fault here, because they exist for the preservation of gun rights and it is their job to advocate against anything they see that would abridge those rights, just as the American Civil Liberties Union should not be attacked for fighting for the liberties of those detained at Guantanamo Bay.

In the end, it is probably for the good of the nation&#39;s security that the government have the ability to deny gun sales to those who might pose a serious danger, as the threat of terrorism is one ever growing in a world where the United States continues to make more enemies than friends. Those who support the NRA in opposing this bill, yet were silent when other liberties were denied for the same reasons, are hypocrites taking a stance based on politics rather than philosophy.

--

Original Source:<a href=http://media.www.thelantern.com/media/storage/paper333/news/2007/05/07/Opinion/Terror.Gun.Control-2896363.shtml> The Lantern - May 7, 2007</a>

unknown

The Lantern

2007-08-14

Sara Hood

GERRICK LEWIS <lewis.1030@osu.edu>

eng

Letters to the editor - April 17, 2007

VT tragedy requires look at gun control

For too long this country has refused to take a realistic approach to gun control legislation, often pointing to the debatable phrasing of the Second Amendment. This negligence has led to the horrifying events that unfolded at Virginia Tech Monday, capping a disturbing trend that the American public has largely chosen to ignore.

Demonstrating this, an article covering the shootings in the London Times contained a "Timeline in U.S. School Shootings," something that would be impossible for an American paper commenting on a similar story in Europe to include. Although the timeline detailed only the last 10 years, it contained 15 massacres at the cost of 72 lives and many more injuries. Lawmakers have to date been content to be bullied by the gun lobby into an inculpable submission, but they remain blameless no longer. If Columbine and Enoch Brown weren&#39;t enough to catalyze change, then Virginia Tech must, for the sake of schoolchildren across the country.


Daniel Witt
wittdd@muohio.edu

--

Original Source:<a href=http://media.www.miamistudent.net/media/storage/paper776/news/2007/04/17/Editorials/Letters.To.The.Editor-2845823.shtml> The Miami Students - April 17, 2007</a>

Daniel Witt

The Miami Student

2007-08-14

Sara Hood

"Skotzko, Stacey Nicole" <skotzksn@muohio.edu>

eng

Letters to the editor - April 20, 2007

By:Paul Morrow
Posted: 4/20/07


As details regarding Monday&#39;s tragic shooting at Virginia Polytechnic Institute continue to emerge, and in particular, information concerning the of the shooter, Cho Seung-Hui, I want to urge all Miami students to show solidarity for Miami&#39;s small, but burgeoning, community of international students.

Since September 11, student visas for study at U.S. universities have become much more difficult to acquire. The worst possible policy outcome of Monday&#39;s tragedy would be to increase to these restrictions. Foreign students enrich the academic and social climates of American universities, especially universities like Miami, where they help diversify our largely homogenous student body. Miami administrators are currently working to increase Miami&#39;s population of international students; this is an important process, and should not be halted or impeded because of the actions of a single individual who, it appears, committed his crime out of motives of romantic jealousy that, though disturbing, are all too universal, and hardly restricted to "foreigners" or "resident aliens" (terms incorporated much too glibly into the media&#39;s coverage of the massacre).

As a resident of Wells Hall, I am privileged to be acquainted with a number of Miami&#39;s international students and I want them to know that the university community will continue to support and appreciate their presence even as we grieve over Virginia Tech&#39;s losses.

Paul morrow
morrowpc@muohio.edu

--



Hatred toward shooter serves little purpose

As the tragedy that occurred Monday at Virginia Polytechnic Institute weighs on our minds, I have been bothered by a widespread sentiment permeating the public mind-set. In the wake of this horrific shooting, there seems to be quite a bit of hatred generated toward the shooter. Having experienced the untimely deaths of two friends my own age over the past few years myself, I understand and can directly relate to the emotional roller coaster that comes with the loss of a close loved one in such a brutal way. In spite of that, I don&#39;t think it&#39;s necessary or useful to extend loathing or other ill will toward the deceased gunman. No amount of contempt will bring the victims back to life, nor will it bring peace to their families. The disdain I have seen over the last few days mirrors the same sort of malice that led to this tragedy and others like it. As vicious as the act was, and as easy as it is to harbor such animosity toward Cho Seung-Hui, I contend that we should focus our energies elsewhere ­- namely on the return to tranquility, particularly for the friends and families of those murdered. As we mourn and exhibit sorrow over these next several days, by all means hope, wish, and pray for the serenity of the victims&#39; families and friends. However, bear in mind that there are 33 families directly suffering, as there were 33 killed Monday, not 32.

Julio santana
Santanj@muohio.edu

--

No link exists between gun control, shootings

I am writing in response to Daniel Witt&#39;s letter that appeared April 17. I was very disappointed to see a political response to the Virginia Polytechnic Institute shooting so soon. In all fairness to those who read Witt&#39;s letter, I would like to respectfully disagree with the points he made and add a little clarity to the discussion.

A little reported fact regarding the Virginia Tech shooting regards Virginia conceal and carry laws. At the end of January, 2006, Virginia House Bill 1572 which would have allowed students to carry concealed weapons on campuses was defeated. Following the defeat Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was quoted as saying, "I&#39;m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly&#39;s actions, because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." This was the same spokesman who is currently speaking to the media about student deaths at VT.

Witt also mentions Columbine. When the horrible shooting there took place, a stringent Federal Assault Weapons Ban was in place. This legislature didn&#39;t do anything to stop the deaths of those students. Afterwards, one of the parents of a slain Columbine student said, "You can make all the laws you want, but when someone wants to get a gun badly enough, they&#39;re going to."

I am confused as to the relevance of Witt&#39;s decision to cite the 1764 Enoch Brown massacre unless he is advocating restrictions on muskets and tomahawks.

Following the Virginia Tech shooting, both ABC and CNN news services hosted a poll on their Web sites asking if gun control was an effective means of stopping violence. The CNN poll ended with 56 percent of participants saying they felt gun control was not effective. The ABC poll, as of 4 p.m., April 17 showed that more than 70 percent believed it irresponsible to link shootings to gun control.

Firearms should be taken seriously. They are objects that can kill, just as a car can. In high school, we weren&#39;t simply handed the keys to a car, but given detailed instruction. The same should be true of firearms.

There are many misconceptions about firearms today. I encourage those who have opinions about gun control to do some solid research before simply suggesting another such gun ban.

I feel it is also important to note that after any such large-scale violent act, we as a society search for a solution, a way to end it once and for all. However as sure as there are such people as Cho Seung-Hui, there are people who will do anything in their power to kill others.

Whether by one means or another, if a person is motivated enough, they will follow through with such violent desires.


scott guye
guyesh@muohio.edu

--

Original Source:<a href=http://media.www.miamistudent.net/media/storage/paper776/news/2007/04/20/Editorials/Letters.To.The.Editor-2870765.shtml>The Miami Daily - April 20, 2007</a>

scott guye, Julio santana, Paul morrow

2007-08-14

Sara Hood

"Skotzko, Stacey Nicole" <skotzksn@muohio.edu>

eng