The Virginia Tech panel report is now available on-line

[K Frame]

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/TempContent/techPanelReport.cfm

The section related to firearms is here:

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/TempContent/techPanelReport-docs/10%20CHAPTER%20VI%20GUN%20PURCHASE%20AND%20CAMPUS%20GUN%20POLICIES.pdf


It's interesting to note that the report backs more gun control measures (measures that wouldn't have stopped Cho from buying his guns) and dismisses allowing students of legal age and staff carrying guns as ineffective against these "rare" occurrences, yet recommends millions of dollars in expenditures to helpe prevent these rare occurrences.

This passage from the firearms section of the report is particularly interesting...

"Likewise, the panel knows of no case in which a shooter in campus homicides has been shot or scared off by a student or faculty member with a weapon."

I don't remember the particulars, but how did the incident at the Law School of the Applichians go down? You'd think that this would have been known, and considered.


In other words, it's largely a whitewash, advocating more gun control measures that wouldn't have solved the problem in the first place.

[mtnbkr]

IIRC, the incident at the Law School was stopped by an armed student or teacher (can't remember which).  Also considering it happened not too far from Tech, it's obvious they ignored it because it didn't fit their world view.

Chris

[nico]

The last sentence of the first paragraph kills any notion that the report will be even marginally objective on the issue.

[The Rabbi]

Did anyone expect a sudden flash of enlightenment that they created a "gun-free zone" that allowed a criminal free passage to terrorize and murder?  That a "gun-free" zone only works for people who abide by it, who are the last people you'd have to worry about anyway.  That the entire idea of a "gun free zone" is laughably, sadly absurd in the context of an open campus?
Did anyone honestly expect any of that?  That the powers that be will say "gee, our entire thinking on this issue has been wrong from Day 1."  No, that isn't realistic.  It is up to those in the blogosphere and internet fora to tear apart such specious logic piece by worthless piece.

[Perd Hapley]

The last sentence of the first paragraph kills any notion that the report will be even marginally objective on the issue. 

I gotta get me one of them rapid fire weapons.   

"Likewise, the panel knows of no case in which a shooter in campus homicides has been shot or scared off by a student or faculty member with a weapon."

Because you insist on victim disarmament, you wretches.  Good luck with that blood on your hands. 

[nico]

I especially like how they specifically say that the capacity of the magazines didn't have a significant effect on how many people he was able to kill.  Then, in the summary at the end, they say that the high capacity magazines allowed him to kill more people. 

[wmenorr67]

I especially like how they specifically say that the capacity of the magazines didn't have a significant effect on how many people he was able to kill.  Then, in the summary at the end, they say that the high capacity magazines allowed him to kill more people. 

You weren't supposed to notice that.

[LadySmith]

This topic was on Lars Larsen's radio talk show tonight. His guest was a professor from VT. Lars was of the opinion that an armed student or faculty member could've stopped the guy before he killed so many. The professor took the position that students shouldn't be armed because of all the drinking that goes on and because he's seen students "get very, very angry." Lars basically made that professor seem stupid. 

[Manedwolf]

This topic was on Lars Larsen's radio talk show tonight. His guest was a professor from VT. Lars was of the opinion that an armed student or faculty member could've stopped the guy before he killed so many. The professor took the position that students shouldn't be armed because of all the drinking that goes on and because he's seen students "get very, very angry." Lars basically made that professor seem stupid. 

Gotta love projection.

Same as the people who hate guns because guns can make you violent, and then they go on to describe, in disturbing detail, how "someone" could get violent and want to kill someone over jealousy or something.

Project much?

[French G.]

When the report writer slides in non relevant comments like

Certain firearms transfers do not require background
checks at all. Virginia law does not
require background checks for personal gifts or
sales by private collectors, including transactions
by collectors that occur at gun shows.

their bias really shows.

Stupidity shows in this:

The panel also considered whether the previous
federal Assault Weapons Act of 1994 that banned
15-round magazines would have made a difference
in the April 16 incidents. The law lapsed
after 10 years, in October 2004, and had banned
clips or magazines with over 10 rounds. The
panel concluded that 10-round magazines that
were legal would have not made much difference
in the incident. Even pistols with rapid loaders
could have been about as deadly in this situation.

  I can only assume by context that "pistols with rapid loaders" means revolvers on speed loaders.

Virginia Tech, with approval of the state Attorney
Generals Office, had banned guns from campus
altogether.

   Worked great...

[French G.]

So because Cho transferred his firearms through an 01 FFL we should: 

VI-2 Virginia should require background
checks for all firearms sales, including
those at gun shows. In an age of widespread
information technology, it should not be too difficult
for anyone, including private sellers, to contact
the Virginia Firearms Transaction Program
for a background check that usually only takes
minutes before transferring a firearm. The program
already processes transactions made by
registered dealers at gun shows. The practice
should be expanded to all sales. Virginia should
also provide an enhanced penalty for guns sold
without a background check and later used in a
crime.

[Guinness voice] Brilliant![/GV]

[The Rabbi]

Wait.  So private sellers would be able to access the database and in effect run a 4473?
And how would anyone be able to check to see they did that?  With dealers, we keep A&D books so the forms are checked against the book.  What would you do with private sellers?
It is unenforceable. duh.