Virginia Tech massacre an unbelievably sad event
Friday, April 20, 2007 - The China Post
A total of 32 people were killed Monday in a Virginia Tech campus building in the deadliest shooting rampage in modern U.S. history. The gunman, a student from South Korea, took down his victims in two attacks that were spread two hours apart. The tragic incident has sent shockwaves around the world.
We wish to express our sympathy to the victims' families and hope they will get all the help they need to make it through this very difficult time. The other students at the university should also be assisted so they can overcome the shock and grief they are suffering.
U.S. President George W. Bush has ordered flags flown at half staff across the nation. Speaking at a memorial service on the Virginia Tech campus, Bush said "it's impossible to make sense of such violence and suffering."
"Those whose lives were taken did nothing to deserve their fate," the president said. "They were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now they're gone -- and they leave behind grieving families, and grieving classmates, and a grieving nation."
At first it was reported that the alleged killer was a student from China. Later, however, police found the gunman was a fourth-year student from South Korea, described in the media as a "loner." Authorities said he was a legal resident of the United States. The suspect committed suicide after the attacks. Police said there was no evidence of any accomplice at either of the two attacks, but are exploring the possibility.
The shocking incident has prompted debate and discussion about the prevalence of gun ownership in the United States.
An Indonesian mother, according to a news report, bemoaned the availability of guns in the United States after learning her son was among those killed in the massacre, while South Koreans expressed shame and shock that the gunman came from their country.
"Why can people bring guns to campus?" the Indonesian mother said, recalling third-year doctoral student Partahi Lumbantoruan, who had such a promising future. The family had sold property and a car to finance his civil engineering studies.
The lax gun-control legislation in the U.S. is something on which people in many parts of the world don't agree. Here in Taiwan, gun control legislation is tough and gun possession is generally confined to law-enforcement personnel. The local Gun Control Act even bans the production of toy guns that could be converted into life-threatening firearms, or those bearing similarities to real guns in appearance, material, structure and trigger device.
The strict gun-control legislation here has without a doubt played an important role in preventing violent crime from rising rapidly.
In the United States, there is a powerful gun lobby, and legislators fear that advocacating stricter gun control would result in a loss of votes. Another reason why guns are readily available is the common American belief that in a free country, citizens should be free to own guns.
The slogan of the lobbyists is: "Guns don't kill people, people do." Well, that's like saying, "Bombs don't kill people, people do."
If restrictions on gun possession in the United States were stricter, the Virginia Tech shooting rampage -- and many other campus shootings that have occurred in the past -- might not have occurred.
Hopefully, this tragic event will lead to vigorous efforts in the U.S. to pass some sensible gun control legislation.
--
Original Source: The China Post
<a href="http://www.chinapost.com.tw/archive/detail.asp?cat=1&id=107654&d=2007420">http://www.chinapost.com.tw/archive/detail.asp?cat=1&id=107654&d=2007420<a/>
The China Post
2007-07-22
Na Mi
eng
Editorial: The necessary right of self-defense
From the <a href="http://www.californiapatriot.org/magazine/issue/8/8">May 2007 Print Edition</a>
Respectfully observing tragedy is never easy. Tempering a respect for the deceased and their families with a desire to draw upon lessons from the tragedy to prevent future occurrences is touchy. Indeed, allegations have already been levied that some have exploited the Virginia Tech shootings for political gain. Within hours of the attack, gun-control advocates began a full-fledged campaign against gun-rights politicians, as many in the media were quick to call for increased regulation of guns, ostensibly to prevent future tragedies.
We at the <em>Patriot</em> give our condolences to the families of the deceased, and pray for a quick recovery of those affected by the attack. At the same time, we take a firm stand against gun-control advocates who attempt to offensively use the recent tragedy to silence other voices.
The aftermath of Columbine was no different. Second Amendment advocates were branded "insensitive" and politicians seized the opportunity to put gun-control measures on the table. However, Virginia Tech bears little resemblance to Columbine.
Though the first two student deaths in the dormitory were unexpected, the subsequent slayings in Norris Hall could have been prevented with adequate campus security and warnings. The issue at question should be the shoddy campus security and an administration's apparent complacency in the face of red flags; campus officials issued only an e-mail warning to students after the first two victims were found murdered.
Virginia Tech's administration is not unique.
UC Berkeley's own stance on security is laughable, in the face of a locus of crime around People's Park. Vagrancy exists as a catalyst for crime, yet is permitted to continue. Admittedly, muggings and university shootings are on separate planes, but the complacency about student safety is the same. Unfortunately, it takes a tragedy before bureaucratic and disconnected administrations get serious about student safety.
Despite the fact that the Virginia Tech administration could have done more to secure the campus, gun-control advocates nonetheless spuriously seized the opportunity to make the Second Amendment the primary culprit. However, existing gun-control laws outlawed the killer from having guns. Even <em>The New York Times</em> pointed out that existing laws "made the killer ineligible to purchase guns" since law "prohibits anyone who has been 'adjudicated as a mental defective ...' from buying a gun." The killer slipped through existing statues because enforcement of such laws is spotty. Local mental-health records are often not synchronized with national records, which let killer Seung-Hui Cho slip through.
Gun-control advocates shouldn't be championing more legislation, but instead should be focusing their efforts on enforcing existing laws. Even if one philosophically supports additional gun-control laws, they would only serve to stretch existing enforcement budgets thinner, and result in a net decrease in enforcement.
Yet reasons to oppose gun control aren't just pragmatic. Freedom is often confused as the philosophical justification for the Second Amendment. However, the philosophical base for the right to bear arms is much more profound. Such a right empowers individuals to defend themselves, so they don't have to leap out of windows when threatened by mentally defective maniacs. It gives individuals the ability to defend themselves when a government or administration does not take the adequate steps to protect them. During the rampage, students were at the mercy of the killer and the Virginia Tech administration. Were even one mentally stable student, instructor, or janitor armed, the outcome would have likely been much different.
Far from demonstrating a need for extensive gun control, the Virginia Tech tragedy demonstrated the dangers of relying heavily on a bureaucratic entity for protection. It's true that enforcement of existing laws could have helped prevent the tragedy, and a more vigilant administration could have prevented two deaths from turning into 32. The underlying lesson to take from the tragedy, however, is markedly different. At the end of the day, neither a university administration nor government can ever be trusted to safeguard an individual's safety, because such amorphous bodies lack the direct accountability to do so.
The university president and security force may lose their jobs over the tragedy, and that may compel future officers to be vigilant. Yet the students who barricaded themselves into classrooms won't forget that they owe their lives to their own abilities to save themselves, not to a university administration, police force, or government.
--
Original Source: California Patriot Online
<a href="http://californiapatriot.org/magazine/issue/8/8/editorial">http://californiapatriot.org/magazine/issue/8/8/editorial</a>
Licensed under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License</a>.
California Patriot
2007-08-05
Brent Jesiek
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License
eng