Gun Owners, Responsibility, Madmen and a Reality Check

Thirty-two and the killer all dead, dozens injured and how many more mentally scarred in some way on that maddening Monday at Virginia Tech?

The pundits are debating, arguing and critiquing every aspect of the uncontested shooting spree of Cho Seung-Hui with rather cloudy after the fact clarity. The two-hour window between the killing of two at West Ambler Johnston and later thirty more would be killed and twenty-six wounded at Norris Hall across the campus. The shooter, Hui had a history of mental problems and the media accurately pointed out that his handguns were acquired because he voluntarily went for treatment and this would not have showed up on federal information taking away his right to own a handgun.

There is also the usual rash of blaming the guns themselves for being available and used in the crime. We have heard the far left once again cry, "Why do you need an AK-47 to hunt deer?" The mainstream press will certainly be giving time and space to many who echo that sentiment. This article will be more about other defensive options you won't often see in the mainstream and why we should explore them.

Most of the rabid anti-gun folks often loose site of the fact that laws are directed only at law abiding citizens. A person so intent on committing a crime such as the one at Virginia Tech, while not a criminal at the moment of purchase, will acquire weapons through unconventional methods if necessary. Laws only prohibit citizens from protecting themselves and contrary to the propaganda of the anti-gun crowd there are far more incidents of guns being used by citizens to protect themselves than any version of Dodge City being stirred up by conceal and carry laws. Cho was committing a criminal action and the only law that works is the one that is enforced, in this case a bullet was needed long before he used one on himself.