There is no question what took place at Virginia Tech this week was a nightmare of the highest order, an ordeal which destroyed 33 lives (including the shooter) and certainly altered the lives of countless survivors and loved ones. The university will undoubtedly be forever scarred as a result of the actions of one demented individual. The point which stands out is that it was one, and only one, sick mind which produced the agonizing events this week. Those who choose to draw broad and wide-sweeping conclusions from the actions of one person are sorely misguided. It is, however, human nature to want and expect some kind of resolution, or closure, after high profile tragedies. There is a natural urge to quickly assign blame, find a "silver bullet" solution and demand associated action. "Gun control" is the immediate fix in this case, at least that is the conventional wisdom displayed by some. Enact stronger gun control laws and this kind of event will not take place, or at a minimum the likelihood will be significantly reduced.

The problem with the gun control as the silver bullet solution is that we already have countless controls over guns already in place in this country. The laws vary by state, but in general they include mandatory waiting periods, background checks, special permits to carry concealed weapons and required registration of all arms in the possession of citizens. None of the laws and regulations on the books stopped the Virginia Tech student from taking 32 innocent lives, just as those laws have not prevented lower profile shootings across the country.

Of course, the real definition of "gun control" as intended by many of its proponents is the complete dismantling of the Second Amendment, the elimination of guns in the hands of private citizens altogether. Many feel that guns belong only in the possession of police departments or the military; all others should turn them in forever. Perhaps a case can be made that restricting access to guns would reduce the number of deaths in the homes from accidentally discharged weapons; however, it seems to be a stretch to believe that twisted minds will be unable or less likely to wreak havoc if guns were made illegal. Two of the most deadly terrorist attacks on this country, the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks and the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995 were undertaken without the use of even one gun. The Oklahoma City attacker used a bomb concocted with fertilizer and some other readily available chemicals to take 168 lives and injure more than 800 people. Other sick individuals managed to use ordinary box cutters to take control of jet aircraft and turn them into giant flying bombs killing thousands. Perhaps the unavailability of guns would have prevented Cho Seung-Hui from gunning down his fellow students in cold blood, but would they have prevented some other deranged plot by this sociopath?

The arguments for and against gun control have been debated off and on for decades. Each side does make some strong points, and there are conflicting examples of other nations who have strict gun control laws in place. In some instances, deaths have been reduced and in other cases there has actually been an upswing in crime and shootings after enactment of gun control laws. Switzerland has some strict gun control laws, but also has required all "able bodied" men between 20 and 42 to keep rifles or handguns at home. This country's neighbors, Austria, France, Germany and Italy--all with more strict gun control laws than Switzerland and no requirement of gun ownership for its citizens--had significantly higher murder rates (21% to 112% higher) for the year 2000 than did their neighbor, Switzerland. It is also interesting that mass killers appear to be drawn to "gun free" locations to commit their cowardly acts--schools, airplanes and office buildings. After 9/11, one of the first measures devised to make travel safer was to actually put someone with a gun on airplanes. Opponents may argue that, in this instance, that armed person is a trained professional, which is a valid point. So why not require training for anyone purchasing a gun? It is certainly not unreasonable to assume that, if some students or faculty were carrying guns, the killings at Virginia Tech could have been stopped sooner than was actually the case.

Aside from the standard arguments for and against gun ownership restrictions, there appears to be an overwhelming contradiction which stands out in the gun control advocate cause relates to 9/11 and the Patriot Act. For years, the political left has railed against the Patriot Act as being partially or wholly unconstitutional, an infringement upon basic civil liberties. Critics have called President Bush and other supporters of the Act every name in the book for imposing this supposed freedom stifling law on America. Some Democrats in Congress proudly proclaimed that they successfully killed this supposed evil law before last minute compromises effectively renewed its provisions. Most of this criticism has not been aimed at the Act's efficacy for preventing future terrorist attacks like that which occurred on 9/11. The primary point is that the law infringes on basic American rights. The implication is fairly clear: The Act is not worth the cost of watered down rights even if it does reduce the odds of future attacks and even if it does save lives as a result.

Yet, many of the very same voices who have railed heavily against the Patriot Act are those who fully support wide-sweeping gun control, which takes weapons out of the hands of Americans. In this case, the additional protection offered by banning weapons is deemed to be completely worth the reduction or elimination of a basic right of American citizens. It is perfectly acceptable to compromise rights related to gun ownership in exchange for additional protection but that same compromise is considered unacceptable when the "eroded' rights involve the government potentially listening in on our overseas phone calls or monitoring books that we're looking at in libraries? There is a wide chasm in this rationale which simply does not compute.

Related to this issue, the "9/11 Commission" hearings revealed considerable evidence that the inability of certain federal agencies to communicate key information with each other, a rule enacted during the Clinton Administration, may have at least aided the terrorists in carrying out their deadly attacks. The Patriot Act actually opened up the communication between government departments. Had this law been in place prior to 9/11, there is reasonable evidence that the World Trade Center would still be here as well as 3,000 lives which came to an end that day. Since the attacks of 9/11 very directly led to the U.S. feeling the need to eliminate Saddam Hussein as a risk, had the 9/11 attacks not happened, there would likely never been an Iraq War. So how many lives could possibly have been saved if the Patriot Act were in place well before 9/11/01? We'll never know.

We do know that many of our fellow citizens, even now in the aftermath of 9/11, still feel the Patriot Act is just not worth any challenge to our rights, even if it does offer the potential to save thousands of future lives. One nut guns down 32 people in Virginia, though, and the same voices are ready to rewrite our constitution. Given the obvious contradiction, one might imagine that those who espouse these conflicting viewpoints care more about advancing a specified political agenda than actually saving American lives.

	Web useless-knowledge.com