We Are Virginia Tech
What we should be focusing on.

Well, tragedy struck yesterday. As somebody who has never come close to this situation I can only try to understand what this situation is like for those involved. I know that it isn't a good feeling. Anyway, we (speaking as a representative of the media) are focusing on details other than what I feel should be the main focus. We want to learn about the South Korean student who worked in the English Department and why he did what he did. We want to know why the school only sent an e-mail notice as its only security measure after the first shootings. What we should want to know about and demand answers for are the guns and the laws that have allowed these weapons to slip into the hands of monsters like this as well as past monsters, non-monsters, and inexperienced gun handlers.

When the right to bear arms, the Second Amendment, was written, did it provide for glocks, oozies, and rapid fire machine guns? No. It was a single loaded musket that our forefathers used over 200 years ago in guerilla warfare for our independence. Maybe this shooter obtained the guns legally, appeared to be a collector, was an avid shooter, or just plain obtained them illegally. Either way, it doesn't matter. My father-in-law said last night "Why do you need a gun? If you have it, you will use it." I am sure he is right for the majority of gun owners whether they are hunters, marksmen, criminals, or people who want to protect their home. Even if you pull the gun without firing at somebody, you are still using it for intimidation. A man buys a gun to protect his home and family because the criminals have guns as well.

Too many lives have been lost at the hands of people who have obtained guns (duh). Michael Moore did a documentary a few years back asking how the Columbine killers got their guns. He stated that people in Canada own more guns than the US percentage wise but there were waaaaaay less violent crimes associated with guns. Where did we go wrong? Loose interpretations of the second amendment.

Why can consumers now purchase armor piercing bullets? I understand the police having high tech weapons, but they are needed because the criminals have them now, too. The military certainly needs them, but should be used to actually protect our country rather than rule another one, but that is neither here nor there. How did this happen? What right do I have to die by a criminal's gun? If people want to own a gun they get their rickety old one shot musket. No improvements from the late 1700's. No sights, no silencers, no advancements. Leave those to the police and military. Sure, some may find a way to get their hands on them, but that doesn't make it right for all people to potentially own one.

Finally, last year the Amish school shootings led to what I believe was a protest to tighten down Pennsylvania gun laws. The protesters wanted to limit how many guns a person could buy a month. What the fuck? Why are they needed? Why would you ever need one or more to begin with? Some might be asking "What if we want to collect them for historical prestige or for decoration?" Well, who cares? Go without owning that. That is why there are museums, glass cases, and red ropes. Get over your fascinations of collecting shit.

Unfortunately, there will never be a wakeup call like this. These opinions are considered un-American, unconstitutional. Whatever. The Constitution was written when the threat of losing our independence was still possible. We are made to live in fear of terror rather than working towards peace in a productive manner.