David Wright

April 23, 2007

Editor, Vallejo Times-Herald

Via e-mail

Dear Editor:

I reacted with considerable horror at the atrocity (not tragedy, as that term should be reserved for natural phenomena or accidents) at Virginia Tech last week... Not just at the evil of the wanton murders, but also the circumstance which ensured that Cho could complete his dirty work and at the predictable response from the political class and its supporters in the old-line media.

There were calls for the resignation of VA Tech's president, but none for the right reason: his support of the ban on firearms on campus, whether owned or carried by students, faculty or even campus police. Virginia has a fair bit of sense in its firearms laws, but this ban flies in the face of every law on their books. This criminally insane policy was directly responsible for MOST of the deaths and woundings committed by Cho, as NO ONE was armed and able to stop him. The sole hero, as far as I know, was the Holocaust-survivor professor who barricaded a door, allowing his students to escape through a window. He could not stop Cho, however, and paid with his life. The president should not only be fired, he and the members of the board who voted for that policy should face criminal charges as accomplices to Cho.

Yet despite the irrefutable evidence (and pictures of the responding, armed police officers standing behind trees, a la Columbine), the usual suspects are calling now for even more victim disarmament. The bodies weren't even cold yet, when the first of the media was editorializing about a "need" for more gun control (read: Victim Disarmament).

I have to wonder what it is that these people are pushing that requires a disarmed and subservient population. With all of the clear evidence that unarmed citizens are at the (lack of) mercy of foul beings such as Cho, and that our police cannot, will not (especially if THEIR lives might be endangered) and are not legally required to protect us in times of extreme danger, some pitiful excuses for human beings YET want more disarmament of the public. They have the same sick mentality which holds that a woman, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose in a dark alley, is somehow morally superior to the woman who is explaining to a police officer how her attacker got all those bullet holes in him. It is the attitude which breeds much of the increase in violent crime, such as the atrocity at VA Tech, the shootings at NASA and the other copycat crimes we WILL be witnessing in the days and weeks to come, sure as God made little apples. Because the media, in their infinite (lack of) wisdom, gave Cho exactly what he craved: posthumous attention galore. ALL the copycat crazies saw that and know they will get the same when THEY become notorious. Then what will you media types have to say to yet MORE grieving families? What will the political class have to say to the relatives of those they disarmed and left helpless at the hands of madmen?

And to those who think like Bryan Girard (Times-Herald, 4-22-07), let me hasten to assure you that the Second Amendment to the Constitution for the United States does not GRANT a right to Keep and Bear Arms, as you appear to think it might. As the Founders recognized, the right to defend ourselves and our families and nation, and own and possess the means for doing so, PREDATES the Constitution and comes to us from our Creator. The Second Amendment merely requires all governments in the United States to recognize and respect that PRE-EXISTING right and LEAVE IT ALONE. Your cries for total disarmament fly in the face of reality and will, if acted on, only create the conditions where MORE Columbines and VA Techs can flourish. But I suppose if that's OK with you, you should keep on whining about privately-held firearms.

However, if you look at your history, Bryan, you'll wonder: If no more than a scant few hundred IRA Provo thugs could obtain enough weapons (including fully automatic weapons, blackmarket or smuggled into Ireland) to keep several THOUSAND British troops busy for decades in a SMALL island nation with VERY strict disarmament laws, how much more mayhem could be committed in a country as large as ours and with borders as porous as ours are allowed to be? Your time and efforts would be far better spent encouraging our youngsters to learn the basics of firearms safety and marksmanship, with emphasis on when a weapon should be used against another human being (solely in defense of one's self or others), NOT encouraging the growth of violent crime always associated with restrictive gun laws.

Very truly,

David Wright

Vallejo