by J. L. Kilgore

Created on: May 14, 2007   Last Updated: May 20, 2007

The issue I would (and so would the gun-control advocates in this country, I'm sure) like to address is how did this happen? How did a mentally unsound individual with prior history of allegations against him manage to legally purchase a firearm? And I answer: Here in Virginia, it is ridiculously easy to get a gun. I have one, I got it in 15 minutes. They run your license through the DMV and FBI databanks to make sure that you're not a convicted felon, and that there is no record of mental illness which has been DIAGNOSED. Now, I agree that this is insane, and the wait should be at the very least, 24 hours. Why? Crimes of passion. Some guy gets angry with their partner, co-worker, boss, person who rejected them, etc, and can go and buy a gun, and 20 minutes later go on their way to finish their plan. A 24 hours wait gives them time to cool down, at least. Most gun control advocates would immediately point to this and say "wrong! we need to make it harder to purchase a weapon! more strict checks, longer wait times" I agree that 15 minutes is too fast, but the answer is not trying to make the process more difficult. Why? Because motivated people will do one of two things: go with the proceedings, or get one illegally on the streets. Their crime might take a little longer, but it will happen. People will wait out the 15 day period in New York, the 3 day in Pennsylvania, and what ever else is set. More strict checks are technically illegal as it would involve going into medical records; a confidentiality breach. It is impossible to control who does, and does not have a gun. Waiting is not a deterrent to these people. Here's what is:

ARM people who want to be armed in ALL cases. At Virginia Tech, gun owners can not carry on campus, as is the case in all schools. Campus security can not carry either, and most campuses, their security entails of criminal justice majors. Solution: criminals will be less likely to attack if they KNOW their victims are armed. Bring in real security, preferably real time police, and train them for these type situations. Need proof? A couple of years back in Texas, a man tried to rob a bank. He walked in, and pulled a gun on the teller. In turn, several customers in line pulled their guns on him. He surrendered, and was arrested. In Arizona a couple years back, there was a rash of attempted car jackings, in traffic, with the owners still in the car. In Arizona, you are allowed to carry a firearm loaded in your car, as long as it's visible. NONE of the jackings were successful, because the jackers were shot; and no attempts have been made since then. If those same scenarios had applied at VT, do you think there'd be 33 people dead? No. Someone would have shot them, and less lives would have been lost. Columbine, Lancaster, VT, those incidents would have been less horrendous if the person was taken out immediately. Granted, Columbine and Pennsylvania involved kids. Kids can't have guns, but their teachers can: concealed, so the kids won't even know. Start arming folks, and watch the violent crime rate go down.

In conclusion, we need to start thinking about different ways to deal with these problems. Moderation of firearms is not the way in my opinion. Of course, it's just that, an opinion.

Learn more about this author, J. L. Kilgore.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.