R.I.P. VT

It was nothing short of human tragedy yesterday, as a clearly disturbed and deranged student shot and killed 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg, Virginia. The murderer also took his own life. He did so in what can only be described as cold-blooded and cold-hearted murder. Everyone should take a moment (or more!) to reflect on this, and to offer prayers for the victims, their families, and all others affected and touched by the event.

There are a lot of emotions swirling in peoples minds, across our media's airwaves, and in the press and blogs. I'm going to veer into controversy here. If you think you can read my thoughts and react reasonably and rationally, and without letting your own emotion cloud your thoughts, then read on. If not, then bookmark this blog entry and come back when you can.

First, there is only one person to blame for this massacre and that is the perpetrator of the crime. He bought the gun, he bought the bullets, and he pulled the trigger. Those 32 people are dead because of his actions. Not because the University's president did or didn't react properly or with enough force; not because we have a (constitutionally protected) right to bear arms; and not because the law-enforcement community didn't act fast enough or smartly enough. The anti-gun crowd will most certainly use this tragedy as a new rallying cry, and to achieve their political ends. They're wrong, and I'll tell you why.

Second, to believe that this event is proof of a need for more gun restrictions and gun laws, or to believe that these would be the prescription required to prevent events of this sort in the future, would also require you to believe the following:

1. Criminal-elements will continue to break other laws, including existing gun laws, but respect newly enacted gun laws;
2. Elimination of 100% of all existing guns in America is attainable;
3. Outlawing guns will mean that no new guns will ever enter America. (works real well with drugs and illegal aliens today, huh?);
4. Guns are only used by those with murderous intent, and are never used to stop and prevent other crimes, or to defend oneself;
   
5. Elimination of guns will mean an end to violence, rather then violence through other means;
6. There is a realistic chance of amending the US Constitution to eliminate our right as citizens to bear arms (remember 2/3 of the House; 2/3 of the Senate; signature of the President; and ratification by 3/4 of the States).

So, assuming you've read through this and conclude that we need an alternate AND realistic thought process, welcome to my side of the argument. Allow me to make a few additional observations:

1. One of the existing laws of the State of Virginia, and enacted under the pretense of providing an additional measure of protection to students, prevents event legally-permitted gun owners from carrying their weapons within 1000-feet of a school. While perhaps well intentioned, this law practically guaranteed that the perpetrator would meet no resistance while on his killing spree. One additional armed citizen could have made a difference yesterday.
   
2. Moral relativism is doing more harm than good. As a society, we don't criticize the actions of individuals enough, nor do we hold individuals in judgment when and as we should. We forgive too easily at times, and will readily attribute these behaviors to external agents. In other words, we have too many people comforting society's worst elements with hugs and "it's not your fault". That's not to say we should revert to stockades in the town square, but nor should we give someone a pass because their Mommy yelled at them when they were 3. It may be too early to draw a such a conclusion at this point, but reports seem to indicate that the shooter in this instance was known to have harbored violent thoughts, and was also thought to have undergone treatment for at least one psychosis (depression). Were these warning signs that observers, not pre-disposed to diminish, might have heeded?
   
3. The same politicians and "leaders" that try to get mileage from the deaths of so many innocents will call for abridging our citizen's rights under the 2nd Amendment. These will invariably be the same people that believe: enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay have US Constitutional protections; that non-signatories to the Geneva Convention are guaranteed the same protections as actual-signatories; that terrorists and non-terrorists should not have their international phone conversations subject to monitoring; and that convicted felons should have the same voting rights as you and me. [Kind of makes you wonder whose side they're on, doesn't it?]

Finally, I'd ask that you take your open mind and read this interview with John R. Lott, Jr., resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, former Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School, and author of the book "More Guns, Less Crime".

Maybe I'll have some more thoughts on these weighty matters over the coming days and, if so, I'll post again or update this blog entry. Until then, it is my prayer that God's grace and blessings be with those in grief.