Well, I was going to comment on the gun control angle that inevitably emerges from the kinds of murderous rampages like the one Virginia Tech experienced this week. But Cal Thomas beat me to it, so I'll just point you in his direction. For those of you who may not have time to read his entire editorial, I've included one of its most compelling portions:
Our problem is that we try to control evil from without when, in fact, it resides within us. Having abandoned the teaching of right and wrong and accountability for one's actions for fear of offending a person's sensibilities, we have unilaterally disarmed ourselves against evil. We don't need more gun control. We need more self-control.
What is it that has made life so cheap? Why do juveniles kill for a pair of shoes or a leather jacket? How can we turn our backs on the tens of millions of abortions that have been performed legally in America in the last 30 years? Did we think there would be no consequences when life is treated so cheaply?
Cal Thomas touches on the critical issue--namely, the cheapening of human life. We stand aghast at the carnage perpetrated by the gunman, and yet, we are simply reaping the consequences of a culture that has devalued human life. The cheapening of life, combined with the unmistakable reality of evil, does necessitate a meeting of force with force at times. One does wonder, as Mr. Thomas suggests, how many lives would have been saved had there been someone who was armed and properly trained in how to use a weapon in self-defense? As the old adage goes, "Better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it." That we live in a world which requires violence to stop greater violence is indeed tragic, but imagine the alternative--a world where the perpetrators of evil roam free with no one to stop their murderous intentions. To abdicate our responsibility in confronting such diabolic atrocities, even by violent means if necessary, is itself the greater transgression. 
It is not what is in a person's hand that makes a killer, it is what's in the person's heart. The gun control advocates fight only the flames where professional fire fighters fight the source of the flames.
Some may recall Mark Barton, the deranged day trader who shot up the Atlanta, GA day trading office, then beat his wife and children to death with a ball peen hammer. Much was made of the firearm, but no attention was directed to the murderous hammer. Was it a Craftsman, a Stanley, who knows? Who cares?
The salient point is that the make and model of the firearm is no more relevant than that of the hammer. In the hands of a murderer, both are equally lethal. Yet no background check or waiting period is required to purchase a hammer. It can be carried to school in a child's backpack or on a contractor's tool belt.
Did VA Tech make its campus less violent by banning all firearms? Are NYC, Washington D.C., Chicago, LA or Boston safe cities because they have total firearm prohibitions? Each is more dangerous than Baghdad, teeming with armed insurgents and Marines. Ever wonder why?
PGR
Posted by: Pete Ross | April 22, 2007 at 09:04 PM
I say either ban all guns (impossible) or give everyone a gun.
Otherwise, you are right where we are right now.
What I do know is, being an anti-gun advocate won't stop the badguys from putting a plug in my behind.
And I culdn't agree with Pete more. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Without guns, we'll find another way, don't you worry.
Posted by: Jim | April 23, 2007 at 12:37 PM
I'm not sure if this is true or not. But I heard on the Neal Bortz show the other day that Great Britain and Australia went door to door collecting all the personal firearms. I'm not sure if it was handguns only or what. But supposedly now those two countries lead the world with the fastest incline in violent crime.
Anyone else hear the same or different?
Posted by: Andy Bullock | April 23, 2007 at 01:27 PM