What we have learned so far about the VT shootings are the following facts: 1. The murder was a known mental case. 2. Back ground check for the hand gun didn?t pick it up due to the way the law was written. 3. VT wasn?t allowed to do anything about it either. 4. VT was only a gun free zone for those that obeyed the law. 5. VT was not a gun free zone for the murder ? just his victims. PC made it possible for a known mental case to freely roam through out campus as a student. PC made it impossible for VT to get rid of him or even to notify his roommates of the problem. PC made the victims total and complete sitting ducks with no possibility to defend their selves. While the events at VT could not have been stopped due the PC, the state legislators and federal legislators have to take part of the blame for protecting this known mental, while intentionally putting the normal folks in harms way. The laws should be created to protect the innocent people such as the 32 killed at VT, not the 1 disturbed individual. This could have been stopped several places like: 1. Once he had been ruled likely to be harmful to other ? kick him off campus. 2. Extend the background check on a hand gun purchase to include any mental health issues. Of course he could have gotten the guns illegally if he wanted. 3. Allow teachers and possibly students (under tight restrictions) to be allowed to carried hand guns if they are properly licensed to do so. Any one or a combination of these would have limited the damage this murder brought to VT. But since all of them are politically incorrect I don?t expect the legislators to have enough backbone to do what is necessary to protect our young people from similar attacks in the future.

2. Extend the background check on a hand gun purchase to include any mental health issues. Of course he could have gotten the guns illegally if he wanted. The current background check covers such things - if they have been reported. Cho's mental health adjudication was never reported to NICS.

Some of the reporting has indicated that the problem was that he was treated as an out-patient. In any case there shouldn't be a loop hole once anyone has been determined to be threat ... at least until all treatment has been deemed a success.

Being treated as an outpatient is a distinction of no value as regards federal firearms laws. Cho should not have been able to purchase the weapon under current law - period. The problem is that the state of Virginia did not notify NICS of Chos' adjudication of mental illness. You might find the article below helpful. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/us/20cnd-guns.html?em&ex=1177300800&en=83da23f78a6f1cdb&ei=5087%0A

They the victims families have grounds for a law suite. However, the is a mute point since the murders (I won't use his name) had access as does anyone else to buy the guns illegally. He had taken his time to plan what he was going to do ... getting a gun wouldn't have been that hard.

Excellent point. By and large, laws affect the behavior of the law-aiding. Even if guns were completely illegal in the US, he'd have gotten one somewhere if he really wanted to.

Being treated as an outpatient is a distinction of no value as regards federal firearms laws. But, this was not a Federal law, it was the Va instant background check that didn't include possible mental states.

But, this was not a Federal law, it was the Va instant background check that didn't include possible mental states. There is no "Va instant background check". It is he National Instant Check System, run by the FBI. And as I said before, it failed in this case because Virginia had not reported Cho's adjudication of mental illness to NICS.

There is no "Va instant background check". It is he National Instant Check System, run by the FBI. It is supposed to be a national check, however with the gutting of the bill by Clinton, states like Maryland are still running under Brady type laws. I am a knife dealer and work the gun shows in the DC area. There aren't any buyers walking out of a Maryland show as there are in Va. I stand by my comment about a Va check.

It is supposed to be a national check, however with the gutting of the bill by Clinton, states like Maryland are still running under Brady type laws. CLINTON "gutted" a gun control bill? Please, do provide details!

CLINTON "gutted" a gun control bill? He took the money that was allocated for a true national check. This would have allowed someone from Va to come to Md and make a purchase. Now, we have states like Maryland that don't have an "instant check". Here, you still have to wait to be able to pick up your gun.

Maryland has the same National Instant Check System (NICS)that the rest of the country has. That's why they call it "National". Federal Law requires that ALL firearms purchasers undergo this check. Read some of the news stories that others and I have linked to on this thread and others. In Maryland, you have to wait to pick up the gun, because state law requires you to wait.

You have to wait in Maryland because state law requires that you wait. You still have to pass the NICS background check, because federal law requires that.

I have been reading gun control studies as I said I would. I have to admit that the statistics are surprisingly low considering all the debate. In Canada?s challenge for gun control, most of which I believe is already in affect in America. There was a drastic difference in gun deaths in Alberta where guns were not required to be registered. Nearly 30%, this number unfortunately includes suicide also. Personally I don?t feel that is relevant to add suicide in the numbers. The nearly 30% represents 2 tenth of 1%. I recognize that gun control is an emotional issue for many people for many reasons. But to pursue this matter any more just is not logical. All agree that even if guns were completely banned and the public disarmed, gun violence would still exist. Lets say that number would grow to ½ of 1%. Let?s all remember that the real reason for the second amendment is to protect the citizens from the government becoming oppressive or tyrannical. It would not be logical to jeopardize the strength or security of a heard for ½ of 1%. Now there are great emotional contacts with that statement, especially if you or someone you know has been involved in some way with gun violence. Or if you attended Columbine High School or Virginia Tech. Logic prevails for shepherds, it has to, if this country makes it past the next 50 years it may stand for a few hundred or thousand more. I know that there is no way our government would ever conduct itself in a tyrannical manor, that is why it is building walls to separate the population of Iraq. I appreciate the debate, I read only pro gun control reports and did not even look into the encyclopedia of info I?m sure the NRA has, it is over as far as I?m concerned.

PC will be our undoing. Our marines are having a tough time in Iraq bacause they are trained to kill not police.

2. Back ground check for the hand gun didn?t pick it up due to the way the law was written. The way that the law was written was the fault of the ACLU. The NRA and others wanted all of the country's checks to include any mental or abusive tendencies of a potential buyer. I agree with your #2 solution. Adding mental or other situations like this could have prevented the sale.

2. Back ground check for the hand gun didn?t pick it up due to the way the law was written. The way that the law was written was the fault of the ACLU. The NRA and others wanted all of the country's checks to include any mental or abusive tendencies of a potential buyer. I agree with your #2 solution. Adding mental or other situations like this could have prevented the sale. No, the law that created the National Instant Check System disqualies purchases such as Cho's. It failed to do son in this case because Cho's adjudication of mental illness was not reported to NICS by the Commonwealth of Virginia.

But then, where do you stop? Obviously, those with psychotic disorders or antisocial personality disorders are out. Anorexics and bulimics? Depressed on Zoloft? Bipolar controlled on meds? The whole country is on one psychiatric drug or another for a plethora of diagnoses, most of which are BS. You never know when that couples therapy session will come back to bite you in the a**. You just may use that gun to kill your spouse!

I am pretty sure that "where to stop" is pretty well defined, or can be. What is wrong with "adjudicated a danger to himself or society"?

Exactly...this man wasn't some depressed guy who went to therapy and got some Zoloft. He had been forcibly committed by a judge to a psychiatric institution. I'm a liberal who feels that those who have suffered mental illness deserve a second chance, but even I think there's a logical way to define this for background check purposes.