As a psychotherapist, I am deeply concerned by this man's belief that more guns on campus would prevent more violence. This premise hangs on the supposition that all students are mature and mentally stable enough to not use the guns to settle arguments, to reflexively reach for the gun if a student reaches into his jacket for something or reaches for his wallet.

I suggest that the problem with the Virginia Tech shooting was not that students didn't have guns but rather that Cho, who had a past history of mental illness (stalking, depression) as identified by a magistrate, was allowed to pass two vettings for the right to purchase and own two handguns.

NCIC must have information on potential gun buyers which include - not only previous criminal behavior - but also the mental illness history of the person doing the purchase. Another alternative action would be to have all potential purchasers required to have one evaluation session with a forensic psychologist at the cost of the purchaser. This would provide even more valuable information in terms of a "current" mental status.

To reiterate my opening statement, gun density is not proportionate to less violance.

mr. wiles as a vietnam veteran I support your request and hope you can get this message across as we know the laws are for the criminals not the victims this is why they call it criminal law not vicitims law.

Sheriff Ted Mink also decided against releasing videotapes the two gunmen made before the massacre over concerns they could encourage copycat attacks.

This was part of a newsweek story, after Columbine.
Interesting huh?

I agree 100% with Bradford Wiles. Law abiding citizens are going to do just that obey the law. They will not pull their weapons out "willy nilly" for unappropiate reasons. Mentally imbalanced people or unlawfully people can be expectd to do the opposite.

We have to recognize that most college students are 18 years and older. Society considers them adults. Therefore they must be allowed to conduct themselves as such. They should be afforded the right to bear arms like every other "ADULT" in this country.

I do believe there would have been fewer deaths and injuries if someone like Bradford had been on the scene and packing too.

If you study the history of America, when more people did carry guns, the death rate was fewer then, than it is now. The reason being people were less apt to draw a gun when they didn't know if the other person may or may not have one to draw too.

Besides the modern history of campus shootings in 40 years total 60 people. America has 300 million people. That is the perverbial drop in the bucket.

Yes, the shootings were tragic and not to be dismissed. I still believe Bradford is correct in his position.

The police as in all cases are never on the scene until a crime has already been committed. They are always "after the fact". Think about it!

If one other person had a gun perhaps they could have shot the gunman.....but lets assume that 5-6 students had weapons. Would they have known who to shoot....who the actual threat was, or would there have been a shootout with all those permitted to carry weapons shooting each other. Then there is the strong possibility that the police not knowing who was the actual criminal would have taken longer to secure the scene causing more victims to die instead of getting medical care. Or even worse shooting one of the "heroes" thinking they were the threat. Allowing a population that is statistically at a higher risk of homesickness, depression, and alcohol induced stupidity to carry wespons on campus doesn't seem like the answer in the slightest.

Dont' people realize that there are dozens of parked cars around them legally concealed guns in the glove compartments and under seats? A "psycho" with a concealed weapon can pretty much get you anytime -- it doesn't have to be in a classroom. People should have the right to protect themselves and others. Sad that anyone at Norris Hall may have had a legal gun in their car at the time of the shooting to protect themselves...and for any other legal carrier who worried about the ramifications of bringing their weapon on campus to help take the killer out.

I BELIEVE IN THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. THOUGH, I THINK THERE SHOULD BE STIPULATIONS, WE SHOULD NOT LET A CONVICTED CRIMINAL CARRY A GUN, WE SHOULD HAVE AGE LAWS. THOUGH, I BELIEVE SCHOOL CAMPUSES ARE NOT A PLACE FOR GUNS. THAT IS A PLACE FOR LEARNING, THERE IS NO REASON YOU SHOULD NEED A GUN AT A SCHOOL. YOU GO TO THE MALL, OR ON A WALK AND THINK ABOUT SOMEONE HARMIMG YOU, THAT IS THE TIME FOR PROTECTION, THOSE THINGS HAPPEN EVERYDAY, BUT YOU DONT EXPECT TO GO TO A CLASSROOM AND BE HARMED, I KNOW IT HAPPENS, BUT NOT EVERYDAY. A CLASSROOM IS NOT A PLACE FOR A GUN.

Can anyone think of a more dangerous combination than college students, raging hormones of the late teens and 20s, alcohol, drugs and guns?

Sure, one person with a gun could have prevented some of the deaths at Virginia Tech this week...if that person was in the right place at the right time.

But, how many more shootings would take place when armed, drunk students at parties get into arguments with each other?

This case proves the futility of "gun-free zones." Banning guns does not make guns go "poof" and disappear, anymore than it does with regard to drugs, prostitution or (in the 1920s) alchohol. The free market always, always, ALWAYS wins, and there is a huge market in this country for guns, including illegal guns (stolen or smuggled into the country) for criminals. Banning their legal ownership would only enlarge the size of the black market. Criminals and those mentally ill people with deranged intentions would easily get anything they wanted.

Besides, history has shown that when our government bans guns, violence explodes, not when it allows them. Case in point: Washington, D.C. The District banned the lawful ownership of guns by just about anyone in 1976. Shortly thereafter, the violent crime rate tripled in D.C. and was 8 times the national average. Today the most gun-restrictive cities are the MOST dangerous: D.C., Detroit, New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia. The reason why is simple. Ask any violent criminal what he wants, and its weak, defenseless victims. That's why Cho didn't walk into the Campus Police Headquarters and start shooting. He knew he'd be gunned down in seconds. Instead, he went places where he was guaranteed by the campus's "gun-free" policy that nobody could fire back. Tragically, he was right.

I am a 34 yr old mother of three and I totally agree with this young man. I just talked to my husband and children about allowing professor and teacher to get a license to carry a weapon on college campuses and school campuses. Today's world is totally different than the one we grew up in and I don't see where people my age and older have caught up with it. We need everyone to start taking these things seriously. I also believe that the law on whether or not you voluntarily or involuntarily enter into a mental institution this should show on your record.

The addition of more guns to any situation will result in chaos, not clarity, and certainly not in safety. The logic that permits a glorified shootout between clearly defined "good" and "evil" is a disturbing and skaky one.
And a primary distinction should be made here between guns in general and handguns in particular. The argument for handguns based on protecting oneself assume the possibility (and disturbingly, probability)of others "packing." Cease the sales of handguns and the argument for protection is likewise weakened. There is no reason for our country to continue to support interpretations of the 2nd amendment that rely on a "it says we can, so we should" reading. Handguns are not used for hunting, they're used for human harm (and on the flip-side, for "protection" against being harmed). Add to the argument that it is virtually impossible to absolutely certify a person's psychological fitness to carry a weapon, and we're left to wonder...if we need guns to protect us from guns, what are we thinking? Most of the developed world is wondering the same thing.

Some of you are so blinded by your desire to carry a gun that you're simply ignoring the fact that what makes it ok for a victom to carry a weapon makes it just as easy for a criminal to obtain and use one. You're so obsessed with "protecting" yourself you don't even recognize that it's your own method of protection by firearms that your defending yourself from in the first place.

Cho was not a murderer UNTIL he murdered someone.

He was not a criminal UNTIL he commited a crime.

Your own system of protection doesn't protect against a potential criminal from obtaining a weapon UNTIL they've done already done something or hurt someone. The guy passed every background check currently in place to prove that he was just another average citizen making a routine purchase, yet I'm supposed to believe adding more guns to the equation is supposed to somehow stop criminals?

Make it so that you can't obtain a gun in the first place and you don't have to worry about protecting yourself and living in fear. The rest of the gun-free civilized world (e.g. most of Europe) has figured this out. How many more innocent people have to die before you people realize it too. The constitutional right to bear arms has long outlived it's purpose. People have twisted it's wording to support their gun obsession to the point that it's simply become another loophole for criminals to exploit our society. Get your head out of your rear ends and realize the problem is the presence of guns, not the lack there of.

Wiles speculates that if people were allowed to carry guns someone could have stopped Cho. I'd prefer the alternative of wondering what would have resulted had Cho been denied the right to ever purchase a firearm in the first place.

Dr Gagnon

You may be "deeply concerned about the maturity of students", but at the very least, there is no reason that the staff at VT should have been prohibited from having a CCW on campus. If Professors were willing to give their lives for their students that says all I need to know about their level of maturity. If the elected Representatives have said these people are qualified for a CCW Permit in public at large, then just why are a bunch of unelected bureaucrats allowed to override their decisions? Especially in light of what appears to be the mishandling of the situation.

The real fact here is the SYSTEM failed. As stated right here on MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18217741/site/newsweek

"But Rand and others—including federal officials—say that enforcement of the provision in the law barring the mentally ill from buying handguns has been erratic at best. More than 20 states don’t report any mental health records—including court records of mental commitments—to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the central federal database for background checks on firearm purchases, according to Paul Bresson, a FBI spokesman. Other states, including Virginia, do report some records"

WHY don't these states reports? Have courts said no? Is the medical community resisting? Is it simple laziness? Is it due to lack of money? Why isn't it mandatory that all states report to NCIS?

Putting a sign up saying "gun free zone" doesn't make anyone any safer. How naive can one get, especially if there is no screening for it. People like Cho don't care what the policy is...
You can't stop a man like Cho from going goofy, but you surely can limit the results. The fact is that VT has woefully inadequate security, made bad decisions, and should be reviewing it's policies.
When a campus like VT bans a person's right to defend themselves if they choose to do so, then they must assume responsibilty for their security.

Will, the problem isn't that they didn't have guns. It was that he did.

What happened was tragic...no doubt about it. It would have tragic if just two or three had died. There may have been a few more, but surely not THIRTY-TWO INNOCENT people killed, had there possibly been an armed , 'on-the-spot' perspective victim.
Drugs are not legal, yet if you want them, you CAN get them! The same thing with guns. The whole idea that gun control will protect you is irrelavant. Look at the past (?) butchery in Africa. Knives, swords, even a baseball bat, can become a deadly weapon in the hands of one who does not care what happens to themselves. Do you think that if someone is bent on destruction, that they would give a darn what you thought? So you are saying, "Stand here and watch others die and patiently await your turn. Maybe they'll run out of ammo before they get to me..."
You live in another world...

Maybe a person packing heat MIGHT have stopped the killing. Maybe he or she would have caused MORE deaths. Maybe allowing concealed weapons on campuses where students regularly binge drink and engage in risky behavior will save lives, maybe it will cause MORE massacres. I'm distrubed that gun gusto folks are so willing to gamble with people's lives considering that even WITH this massacre, gun-free campuses are much, much, much safer than the outside world where guns are more plentiful. Why not convice private campuses to go conceal and carry (like at religious colleges) and compare the violence rates after 10 years. Otherwise, we are just using our imaginations to make arguments. Bad idea.

I agree with the comment that when more people carried arms, there were fewer shooting deaths because it made people think first about showing their arms in fear of the next person having equal or more firepower. If you're looking for proof of the concept, look no further than the Cold War. Our own government set the standard of prevention through a race of arming. The arms race was not a race to a finish line, but a race to see who could have the most nuclear weapons as a deterrant to make sure the other guy didn't use theirs. There are many good arguments in this thread, and I feel that the more educated/approved/experienced people carry arms, the less everyone else is likely to draw theirs out in fear of the consequnces. Certainly the shooter at VT used this to his advantage knowing that the campus doesn't allow arms, he had no resistence until law enforcement officers caught up to him, and by then, well, we unfortunately know what damage he caused. But if he knew that he was one of many who could legally carry on campus, I feel the loss of life certainly could have been minimized. He would have known he had only so little time to maximize the bloodshed he could take with him.

Responsible people wouldn't need guns if idiots like Cho weren't allowed to purchase them, period.

Sure arms manufacturers don't like to see buying guns becoming illegal and so far they've managed to deceive people by the argument of "you need a gun to protect yourself from a gun". That might be true (in some cases) on the battlefield! And it is also based on the assumption that there are lot of guns out there, but what if there were no guns? During my 34 years of life I have never felt that I needed a gun to protect myself. And I haven't seen any. As long as some people can not see the obvious reason behind such incidents arm manufacturers will thrive on them, and more blood will be shed. Prevention is better that cure. If owning any kind of firearms is declared illegal and be highly punishbale by law there will be less guns (or ideally no guns) so people can shoot each other. Less (ideally no) guns means less incidents. But reaching that goal is a one though road for American people. Godspeed!

I realize how scary it is for something like this to happen and to feel like there is nothing you can do to protect yourself, but this is a very bad solution to an even worse problem. If noone had a gun, except for military and police personnel, then noone would need them. A time has come where people can not be trusted with them, so they should be removed from our society.

I live in The Netherlands. A country of 16 million inhabitants. In 2005, 198 where murdered in my country. Of these a minority actually through use of fire-arms.

The same rate translated to the USA would put your country theoretically at about 4000 deaths annualy. The reality is that there are 22.000 deaths in the USA anually, the majorty caused by fire-arms. More than five times higher than in the Netherlands.

I myself, as most of my fellow countrymen, support the strict ban on the sale and posession of firearms in The Netherlands. The statistics prove us right. As long as firearms are up for grabs for any nutcase like candysticks at the store, your country will have to prepare for more slaughter of the innocent.

An armed society is a polite society. I think the VT shooter would have thought twice about going on a rampage if he was worried that someone in class might have been packing. You have to get rid of all guns, or let responsible members carry them for protection. Right now, only criminals carry and use, and we've seen how that works.

I think all of you anti-gun, anti 2nd ammendment speakers have visions of a media feed wild wild west, of train robbers and pistol duels at high noon. The reality is that when average citizens were allowed to carry weapons, crime and murder was at it's lowest.

I'd like to agree with you that guns don't belong on campus and if students were allowed to "defend themselves" more harm would come than good.

However, I can sympathize with those of you who support guns for defense, I know that if was allowed to carry a weapon to school (or even in my car locked and keyed) that if something went down, I could defend myself and others I care about.

My question for all of you (whether pro "defense" or anti "gun") is, how does more gun control protect law abiding citizen's and hurt illegal black market trades? Making it more difficult for people to defend themselves hurts victims, not offenders. Looks like we have 3 options.

1) Everyone can carry a gun everywhere (live in a state of fear).

2) Tighten or ban guns permanently( and hope criminals obey the law).

3)We create a new system, like the DMV, where tests of physical, mental, and emotional capablities are measured like a driving test. If you pass, then you get a gun license which entitles you to carry a gun, whenever, wherever, with no questions asked.

I support option 3, Either trust everyone, trust no one, or trust only qualified indiviuals to carry firearms, because it's obvious the police can't do it anymore.

Have most gun owners been faced with life threatening gunfire? Are they going to act rationally like a trained professional? Even professionals get caught up in the heat of the moment and cause collateral damage; do you expect an amateur to make no mistakes?

The problem with submitting mental health records is a sticky one. Will the government use the information strictly for determining if a person can purchase a firearm or will that knowledge be used for other purposes such as denying government employment, denying entry into this country or some other insidious scheme?

Stigmatizing mental illness will cause more people to not seek mental health care and that would truly be a great crime against society.