RICHMOND
As Andrew Goddard sat by his son's bedside at a hospital near Blacksburg on April 16, he prayed.
If Colin survived after being shot four times by a fellow Virginia Tech student who had failed to receive mental health treatment, Goddard vowed to dedicate himself to making sure no other father would have to live his nightmare.
Nearly a year later, as the first General Assembly session after the Virginia Tech shootings winds down, Goddard - whose son survived his injuries - has spent a lot of time at the Capitol.
"I honestly thought they would be looking for things to do, based on the recommendations of the Virginia Tech panel," Goddard said.
Gov. Timothy M. Kaine appointed the Virginia Tech Review Panel to investigate the shootings. The panel made 21 findings and 70 recommendations - many related to mental health reform and campus safety.
In response to the nation's worst campus tragedy, Virginia legislators embraced the first significant overhaul in the state's mental health system in many years but did little to change gun laws in the commonwealth.
The mental health bills address shortcomings in the system highlighted by Seung-Hui Cho, who fatally shot 32 people at Virginia Tech before killing himself. Two years before the slayings, a court ordered Cho to receive outpatient treatment after he was judged a danger to himself. He did not receive the treatment.
"This was by far the largest and most expensive and most challenging of all the recommendations that were made," Kaine said. "They're systemic, they're statewide, and they really cost."
The overhaul also resonated deeply with the Tech victim s' families, Kaine said.
"This was the issue the families felt strongest about,"
Kaine said. "This was the one we had to do."
"We knew from the beginning that they were going to address mental health" and other noncontroversial issues such as privacy laws and campus security, said Lu Ann McNabb, a friend of the family of Reema Samaha, who was killed by Cho.
She and Goddard said they were both pleased with progress made during the session in those areas.
Gun control, however, was another matter.
"Guns, we felt, were very controversial, so that's why we focused on that," she said.
McNabb and Goddard, who attended many General Assembly meetings and hearings this year, tracked the progress of about 60 bills.
Gun legislation this session ranged from efforts to close the so-called "gun show loophole" to efforts to make sure concealed-weapon-permit holders could bring their handguns onto public college and university campuses.
Both McNabb and Goddard were disappointed that efforts to change the gun-show law failed.
The Virginia Tech panel had recommended changing the law, so people buying firearms from private dealers at gun shows would have to undergo background checks.
Del. Brian Moran, D-Alexandria, said the push to make that change never gained enough momentum.
"It failed on a party-line vote, and that's unfortunate," he said.
But opponents to the legislation had pointed out that Cho did not buy the two handguns used in the attack at a gun show.
House Majority Leader Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, who opposed changing the gun laws, said lawmakers addressed areas that applied directly to what happened in Blacksburg.
"There wasn't anything related to our gun laws that would have affected Virginia Tech," Griffith said. "Where the system might have made a difference was mental health, was security, not acquisition of firearms."
Griffith said he knew many people were passionate about gun control after the tragedy, but he felt their argument wasn't valid.
"You had people who truly believed in their hearts there was a connection," Griffith said. "Step back and you can see there is no connection."
Other lawmakers believe permitting guns on campus would make colleges and universities safer. Del. C. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah, said the recent rash of incidents on college campuses demonstrates that responsible gun owners should have the right to carry concealed weapons on college campuses to protect themselves.
He sponsored legislation in 2006 and again this session that would have prohibited a state entity such as a public university from banning someone carrying a firearm if he or she had a valid concealed-handgun permit.
Del. Bob Marshall, R-Prince William, introduced a bill to allow full-time faculty with concealed-weapon permits to take their handguns onto campus at public universities and colleges in Virginia.
Both proposals were left in a House committee.
Gilbert, who also sponsored the mental health reform legislation, said he doesn't think schools have the right to ban firearms on campus.
"I have never said 'I told you so' about what happened at Virginia Tech," Gilbert said. "I never said if students and professors could carry on campus it would have made a difference."
Going forward, McNabb and Goddard said they plan to continue educating the public about Virginia's gun laws and will return to the General Assembly next year.
Goddard plans to keep lobbying for gun control and additional mental health legislation.
"There's a lot of unfinished work that still needs to be looked at," Goddard said.
Jen McCaffery, (757) 446-2627, jen.mccaffery@pilotonline.com
Richard Quinn, (757) 222-5119, richard.quinn@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Upload Your Video
iTunes Podcast
Video Feeds
Watch The Dot
It's has been worse
For anyone who thinks the founding fathers could not ever imagine that we could be in the mess we are in; remember the mess they were in and had to use weapons to win their freedom. The weapons of their day were just as inovative to them as ours are to us now. I don't think that they ever imagined a country that had it so good that it could forget how it won it's independence in the first place. WE ARE IN A War!!! If, God forbid, we ever do have to pick up arms and defend our homeland once again (it's already happened, duh) we better be ready. Otherwise, I will still enjoy shooting at paper targets and wasting money on ammo.
Mental Health and Gun Control
I addressed the Mental Health Issue below. Perhaps you didn't read it. If you want to see how Thelma Drakes votes or any other elected official you can sign up for it through Congress.org. This is not the first bill on Mental Health that "the most wonderful Drake" (barf) has voted NO on. And YOU accuse other of "junping"?!?!?!?! Get real!
Jumping again?
Its very easy to jump to the conclusion that Rep Drake did a bad thing when we know nothing about the bill. There are always reasons why someone would vote no on a bill. Perhaps there were certain negative aspects of the bill that would be more bad then good if it were passed? Perhaps it was filled with pork barrel politics?
Someone else didnt just "mention" mental health. If you read the article, it was also about mental health.
Since Mental Health was brought up
Since mental health was brought up by another poster it's worth mentioning that Thelma Drake just voted NO on "Mental health and Addiction Equity Act". Shame on her!
This forum will not change opinions or establish any type of law regardless of any view or "debate".
Still unconvinced
I wasn't asking anyone to justify anything. It was an honest attempt to see if there were a different angle I was missing. Unlike a lot of people, I maintain an open mind and can be persuaded by logical arguments. If you want your apparent goal of increased gun control ever to become a reality, people who believe as I do will need to be convinced of the merits of your argument. It's called debate. And 'whatever,' it's too bad you are incapable of offering reasoned arguments to your point of view. All you do is use inflammatory language such as "weapon worship" and you demean those with whom you disagree, calling them "GunNuts," "gun zealots" and "'Cold War' philosophers." I have to admit you lost me on that last one. See, during the Cold War we were worried about a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union. Incidentally, "thinkers and true men ... of responsibility" I think describes the Founding Fathers very well. You know, the guys who enshrined our right to keep and bear arms.
History
I think most people believe the world is too civilized to have guns in it. Having spent some time in other countries and seen the corruption that has taken over it scares me to think that the same thing might be possible here. But I know that due to human nature that is possible. And if it were to happen I would be more than willing to give me life in defending the freedom I now enjoy so that my children would not have to live in the same type of environment that I have seen in other countries. These countries have goverments who kill journalists who try to print the truth. Bribes are a way of life. Property can be taken without payment by someone who has a judge in their back pocket. To get ahead in life you must be like all of the other corrupt people who are in power.
We have, to a lot lesser degree, areas that are like that in America. When they are exposed they are taken care of, but if most of the goverment were to become corrupt they never would get exposed.
To this could not happen in America is naive.
There are also a lot of countries that hate us. China hates us and is quickly becoming a world power. They are building up their army to levels they
Register all firearms = a tiny step forward
IMO the answer to the question of whether mandatory gun registration will help eliminate gun violence.... is of course NO.
It will take tremendous effort and an epic, if not impossible change in our society to reverse the twisted effects of years and years of weapon worship in America. Wishing on a star or praying for miracles will not resolve our violence problems but if we keep with the GunNut philosophy of simply doing nothing or worse yet, arming ourselves even more, is simply lunacy.
The "Cold War" philosophers and gun zealots will never stop. The thinkers and true men and women of responsibility must prevail.
Mental Health and Gun Control
When it comes to the lack of gun control mental health is a major problem. Some people register guns, and there are guns you can buy that don't require any permit. Life happens and lives change even to those who have registered a gun, have a permit for one, and at the time were law abiding citizens. The mental stability of an individual can rapidly change under some circumstances. Do I think ALL guns should be registered? Yes! Do I think ALL guns should require a permit? Yes! Should such registrations and permits be updated? Absolutely yes! Do I think there should be a database for ALL guns? Absolutely yes! As we know the right to bear arms is legal, but does the owner still have a legal right to own one? With a national database, names can be added and pulled as circumstances change. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I have an obligation to justify my thoughts, feelings or opinions. Please understand that should I not respond to your questions.
Help
I now open my question up to the floor. Would an advocate of registering all firearms please explain what effect it would have on gun violence? I ask this question in a sincere attempt to open dialog, to understand an opposing point of view. I don't personally see how registration would reduce crime, but maybe there's something I'm overlooking. Thanks.
Trust no one?
So because you feel that the author appears to have an agenda that his facts can not be trusted? If this is so, then logic would dictate that anyone with an agenda is completely and totally unbelievable. Hence, not only can I not be trusted, but you also can not be trusted, or this newspaper, or the television.. I research. I have not found contradictory evidence that disproves Dr. Halbrook’s research. I believe what he wrote is credible.
I never once claimed that a single theory such as the well armed militia was the sole reason Germany did not invade. I simply concurred that it was a strong influence in the overall picture.
This brings me back full circle to once again stating that we are focusing on one aspect and missing the big picture. I wish people were as passionate about mental health as they are about guns. Mental health is the problem.
Gun-Nuts & Authors
As far as I'm concerned, one has to read no Internet sites or any book, to review their rights on being armed. In my opinion even accredited historian's works are to be taken as a publication. You only have to read the Constitution, & even then to the 2nd amendment to obtain this information. I take no offence at being called a Gun Nut or anything else by other posters. Daily, posting rights seem to be taken away , I feel, probably due to multiple flags by sensitive readers. Even if these types of posts were not a "given" in the first place, they seem to have been tolerated, until they were considered to be out of hand, by the powers who grant such privileges to the "Local Yokels" , "Gun Nuts", Lawyers Who Never Passed The Bar, Unknown Authors, & Opponents. Ernest Hummingbird
Mr. Twine...
...your revisionist history aside. Why don't YOU Google this an enlighten us? Tell you what I did and you won't like what I found, from a PBS site (you know the left-leaning PBS).
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nazis/readings/halbrook.html
Now continue spewing your ranting hyperbole as you "opened your mouth and removed all doubt."
DonM
I encouraged every user to Google the author you mentioned and make up their own mind. As far as I am concerned, they are free to consider a conservative, pro-gun lawyer with an obvious agenda - and no other books on the war - a legitimate historian.
I prefer that my historians are trained to study history and have written many articles and books that show a wide range of historical interests. Books written by amateur historians with an agenda are, at best, historical fiction.
You seem like an intelligent guy. It is amazing to me that you would swallow an obviously absurd premise from this type of author. But, as I said, you can find any truth you are looking for on the Internet. And you can believe it, as long as you ignore contradicting evidence and the credibilty of the source.
Honest question
Georges61555, I have a serious question. I am not asking to be snide or play “gotcha” or anything else. I truly want to understand your point of view. You constantly say that you want better gun control, the centerpiece of which, it seems to me based on your posts, is registration. I personally don’t have any problem with background checks, including at gun shows or even private sales. Any reasonable measure intended to keep firearms out of the hands of those who should not have them is OK by me. Nor do I have an issue with training and licensing for concealed carry permits (which are already in effect). I wouldn’t even object to beefing up the training requirements. Where I have an issue is with registration. My question is this: What effect on gun violence do you believe registration would have and why? Again, I intend this as a serious question because I'm trying to understand.
What defines a historian then?
Under your guidelines, every historian is potentially nothing more than a spinner of tall tales. There were strategic reasons that made Switzerland desirable. It still doesn’t change the fact that the Germans found it daunting and one of those factors included the armed citizen. The decentralized government system also played a role, but then I suppose it doesn’t matter what I say because you have labeled me.
I still say this original subject matter is more of a mental health issue than a gun debate. Take the gun out of the picture and you still have a mentally unbalanced person who has no regard for human life. Can you say he wouldn’t have used any other method if a gun wasn’t available? There are so many major factors involved in the Virginia Tech disaster that we do the people of this nation an injustice by only focusing on one aspect.
Still waiting for facts instead of emotion
“The day is coming when we WILL have adequate gun cotol [sic] laws.” Actually, Georges61555, the political winds are blowing the other way. In the last decade, states have continued to allow the open and concealed carry of firearms. Why are you so intent on registration? So that when Bob the Crackhead holds up the 7-11 the police can look at the registry and say, Shocking! Coulda sworn this would have been a legally purchased and registered weapon. “It is my most confirmed belief that MOST gun advocates, have deep rooted insecurity problems.” Confirmed by whom, exactly? As you and your cabal continue to accuse Constitutional rights advocates of having mental defects, or of being “gun nuts” or idiots, I shall maintain the high ground and not attack you personally or stoop to calling you names. I will instead sit here in Baghdad, knowing that my service in the US Army allows people to debate political differences in a civilized manner, offering intelligent, reasoned, fact-based arguments to support their points of view. Even if they choose not to.
Other countries
I have absolutley no interst or even care what gun rights are in any country other than our own. I will contine to say, we need better gun contol right here in the United States, and more specifically Virginia. Gun contol laws are out of contol and I do not believe our forfathers, as brilliant as they were, could have invisioned the mess our country is in now.
Not all gun lovers are gun nuts
First, I suggest everyone Google the author mentioned below by DonM. Decide for yourself whether the author is a gun lover or a legitimate historian.
Secondly, you can find books declaring that the earth is flat, that Hollywood staged the moon landing and that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil war. It’s not the truth just because some fools choose to believe it.
Finally, the Nazis left Switzerland neutral because it was a country of only 4 million people with limited production capacity; it had no raw materials Germany needed; and Switzerland's national bank, as well as many private banks and manufacturers, were all doing business with the Nazis. It’s OK to kid yourself, but save the fairy tales for your children.
Not all people who love their guns are gun nuts. You are perfectly sane to support the Second Amendment. You become a nut when you believe the right is absolute and you defend that position with empty slogans, urban myths and revisionist history.
Mark Twine
First, I asked you nicely not use the term Gun Nut.
Second, Swiss gun ownership, the ability to use said gun and the widespread militia (read every man owned a gun and knew how to use it) played a major role in the reason the Germans didn't invade Switzerland. Check your history.
Although the Swiss did not have an offensive ability and therefore not considered a threat to invade Germany, it was their defensive stance that deterred a German invasion because the costs associated would be too high. It was estimated by the Germans that it would cost the lives of 200,000 German troops if they attempted to invade the strongholds of the Swiss Alps. (Ref: "Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II" by Dr. Stephen P. Halbrook)
As if on cue...
What smart feller posted references to Australia gun violence... I don't want to embarrass this fellow so he/she will rename anonymous...hint check a couple posts below this one if your curious.
Anyone hear of Snopes.com??? Probably a few of you have. In case you haven't it is a site that debunks or tries to validate urban myths, hoaxes, scams, and outright lies. Like the crud posted as "fact" concerning Aussie gun troubles...
Check this out
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
GunNut... you have been exposed. Please don't post pseudo-facts and tailor made charts, figures, and dribble. I suggest a change in login name to avoid further embarrassment.
Oh yeah who said MY arguments are mute??? whatever....
Golly, I must have been too mean ...
So, I will try again and see what the posting police do next.
How come the Nazi's didn't attack the Vatican?
Were they afraid the Pope was a good shot?
When gut nuts make ludicrous claims like, "The Nazis didn't invade Switzerland because they heard the Swiss were good shots," it's the duty of every intelligent person to make fun of them.
Name calling
I find being called a "Gun Nut" or a "Gun Idiot" an unfair negative stereotype and therefore offensive. I have asked before that these terms not be used, yet some people seem stuck on using these inflammatory terms. I do not feel I have portrayed myself as a gun nut. I have no problem flagging these for review should you so choose to continue.
I am what you would call a pro-gun rights person. I also believe in gun laws that make sense. I am for preventing the Cho's of the world from obtaining guns. I believe in looking deeper into a problem rather than find the easiest target to blame for societies mental issues. I have no problem with gun sales at a show, dealer or not, require a background check, as long as there is an appropriate system in place to allow non-dealers the ability to run the instant check. So why am I a nut?
What does gun control lead to?
For this we have no better record than the Nazi invasion plans, which stated that, because of the Swiss shooting skills, Switzerland would be difficult to conquer and pacify.
Why shoud we own guns?
European countries occupied by the Nazis had strict gun controls before the war, and the registration lists facilitated confiscation of firearms and the execution of their owners.
I suggest reading:
http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html
ooops
factoid # 2 below is from Britain
Gun Nutz?
I still fail to see anyone suggest why the swiss arent shooting each other up, as well as the people of Kennesaw Georgia.
Keep throwing all the fake statistics, and crud u want, but here are the facts.
1. In Australia which banned all guns, the violent crime rate has gone up over 300%.
2. There were 266 gun crimes and five homicides in Southwark, which includes Peckham, in the 12 months up to December 2006, according to the Met Police.
In neighbouring Lambeth, there were 239 gun crimes and 15 killings over the same period while Lewisham recorded 185 firearm incidents and five killings.
Fact - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6338755.stm
This is in a country where Guns are totally prohibited?
I would rather be legally armed, then a victim.
Regulating private sales would be unenforceable
As silly as the notion of requiring background checks by private individuals at guns shows is, it pales in comparison to the idiocy of trying to get all firearms sales blessed by the NICS system, creating a de facto form of registration.
There are millions of guns in the marketplace that have been resold too many times to trace. They will remain workable for 50 to 100 years.
Any attempt to bring all of them under some form of record keeping would require a police state to enforce and would destroy our civil liberties worse than anything since Prohibition. You would make criminals of millions of the most patriotic citizens in the country, as they simply would not participate.
We have enough problems in this country without inviting a catastrophe like that.
The day is coming
The day is coming when we WILL have adequate gun cotol laws. It won't be today, but many of us are look forward to that very day. The same lame gun advocates are making the same lame gun rights comments. I do not believe our Forfathers had today's society in mind when that was written. After all, as gifted as they may have been, no one could have seen what this country would turn into. It is my most confirmed belief that MOST gun advocates, have deep rooted insecurity problems. Read how quick they are to anger in their written replies. I keep hearing law abiding people don't commit crimes. I hate to tell you, but law abiding people commit crimes every day including murder with a gun. They will continue to make such lame excuses, regardless of what you say. What I suggest is sticking to your guns, pun intended, and don't fall for this bunch of crap. WE NEED STRICK GUN CONTOL LAWS, and WE WILL get them. And please stop the lame expression guns don't kill people do. That really sounds dumb!
Where is the consistency?
I have consistently said I am not promoting the abolition of gun-rights. Yet the maniacs keep comparing guns to cars... well at least they are consistent too.
charlesh11558
I have to question your statistic. After a quick search I found a myriad of conflicting statistics, 42%, 40%, 61%, etc.
Personally I find it VERY difficult to believe it would be below 50% considering the training officers receive (pre and post the academy).
As far as armed civilians, most crimes that are thwarted due to someone with a gun stepping in are done without a shot being fired. Although I admit in during the Tech incident that wouldn't have been the case...
Guns: Re: concealed carry
Regarding concealed guns or unconcealed for that matter, if stats showing that bullets fired by the police in a fire fight hit their target only 28% of the time, with all the training they have received, I don't really believe I want to be sitting in a class-room, bar or anywhere else with a group of gun toters, nor do I want anyone I care about to be put in that same situation.