Ryan ChartrandIt’s been over a week since the massacre at Virginia Tech and our nation has yet to recover. Within 24 hours of the shooting, the media pundits from the political left and right were already heavily engaged in gun debates and political rhetoric. Does our country need less guns or does it need more? Is there too much violence on television, in the movies, or in our video games? In the aftermath of the event, it makes sense to ask these questions.
To begin with, let’s start examine the murderer. The gunman, Cho Seung-Hui, was declared by a Virginia Court to be a danger to himself and others in late 2005 and was sent in for psychiatric treatment. This alone, according to federal law, should have prohibited Cho from purchasing a weapon. However, there was miscommunication between federal and Virginia state agencies.After purchasing the guns, Cho carried out the massacre on a campus that is a “gun-free zone.” Virginia Tech strictly prohibits guns on campus, even students with valid concealed-carry permits are not allowed to carry them. However, it seems that a psychopathic killer like Cho ignored these rules. Unfortunately, no one else had any weapons to defend themselves with. In other situations like this, in a non-gun free zone, students actually have halted killings in progress by getting their personal weapon. For instance, in 2002 at Appalachian School of Law, a student who had murdered three people and injured three others was stopped by two students, who had rushed to their car to retrieve their personal firearms.
As politicians debate gun control laws, they miss some of the basics behind any kind of gun-related crime. A gun is merely a tool that is used by a criminal to commit a crime. In fact, the Roman philosopher Seneca the younger noted many centuries earlier that, “A sword is never a killer; it is a tool in the killer’s hands.” Using this kind of gun control logic, it would make more sense to heavily restrict and control cars, alcohol and Big Macs. According to the authors of the nationally bestselling book “Freakonomics,” gun control laws, like the famous Brady Act, have failed to reduce crime. This is mainly because only law-abiding citizens follow through on gun control laws, while criminals tend to ignore them.
The debate over gun control is a hot topic now, but in all honesty, it seems to miss the other messages that should be taken from the Virginia Tech massacre. The shooting shows that in America and on our college campuses, we really must depend on one another. We are a small part of a greater American society. This American society is an open and free one that attracts people from across the world, and the victims are a reflection of that openness and freedom. The victims included: a postgraduate student from Indonesia, a professor from Romania, a student from Peru, a postgraduate student from Egypt, a professor from Canada, a graduate student and a professor from India, along with others from across America. It tied together victims who came from small towns like Cedar Rapids, Iowa, to larger ones like Richmond, Va. It tied together an active Muslim and a Holocaust survivor. In a sad sense of irony, the murderer was also a symbol of the openness of American society. Cho was a South Korean who was here in this country on a green card.
The openness and freedom of our society is one of this country’s greatest strengths. In the convocation following the Virginia Tech massacre, a Buddhist speaker, a Muslim speaker, a Christian speaker, and a Jewish speaker each communicated a message of comfort and hope. Zenobia Hikesm, the moderator of the convocation, told students, “We will eventually recover, but we will never, ever forget.” During this week, let’s remember Virginia Tech, continue our prayers, and of course, never forget.
Brian Eller is a materials engineering junior and Mustang Daily political columnist.