Florida politicians issue statements on Monday's Va. Tech shootings

Statements from members of Florida's Congressional delegation concerning Monday's shooting rampage in Blacksburg, Va.:

Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-Palm Harbor:
‘Like all Americans, I am shocked and deeply saddened by this horrific event.  This tragedy will not only be mourned by those in the small university town, but by all Americans.  Although all of the details of this brutal act of violence are still unavailable, we do know that this was the worst shooting in U.S. history. Unfortunately, many of our nations brightest have been taken from us.  My thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of the loved ones who were killed or injured in this senseless act of violence. My God be with them during their time of need.”

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-Miami:
“We will never forget this tragic day, April 16, 2007.  At this ultimately difficult time, my thoughts and prayers are with the members of the entire Virginia Tech community, and especially with the families and the loved ones of all those who have tragically lost their lives in the senseless and condemnable violence of today.”

U.S. Senator Mel Martinez, R-Fla:
“I am greatly saddened by the horrific tragedy at Virginia Tech.  This incomprehensible act of violence has affected countless families and robbed many young people of what ought to be among the happiest times of their lives. I speak for all Floridians when I say our thoughts and prayers are with the students, faculty and family members of the Virginia Tech community.”

Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Bartow:
“This tragic day in Blacksburg will be burned into memory for a long time to come. From what we know so far, we have lost many bright young minds at the hands of a deranged individual who senselessly violated the sanctuary of the Virginia Tech campus. Our thoughts and prayers this afternoon are with all the members of the Virginia Tech community, most especially the loved ones of those who have been taken from us too soon and so tragically.”

Compiled by staff writer Anita Kumar

Comments

Such a tragic event. Maybe now the Florida Legislature will put the brakes on the stupid bill that allows people to bring their guns to work. Shocking, but the legislation is making its way through the process.

[Z]

Perhaps there can be a moratorium on the political posturing until the dead are buried.

[Matt Wright]

That was a gun free zone where they were shot genius. Again, if some of those students were carrying a weapon, they could have, and would have been able to stop the not.

But they were forbidden to carry a weapon by school rules.

Again, gun laws only keep law abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves.

VT is in the midst of the Applachians - and in case you haven't been out of the state for a while - sits smackdab in the heart of "hunting Virginia". Guns are evrywhere in this area - but who takes a gun to school (unless you have a nasty plan).

A monster pulled the trigger and killed these folks

But remember, while this is a horrific event - when you look at Iraq and the statusquo of life in Iraq - its just another day - an ordinary day. so sad.

[HCB]

Good idea, Matt - arm the students so they can shoot the shooters. Or each other when they miss the shooter. Or the cheating girlfriend they wouldn't have shot if they didn't have a gun. What would you think - we had one gun nut out of 30 or 40 thousand people on campus here. Give all the students guns and what are the chances of having TWO gun nuts? Or maybe three? Five? I know - outlaw guns and only outlaws have guns. But your idea is the campus becomes the ok corral. Everybody has a gun because they're afraid everybody else has a gun and might shoot them.

I would guess you'd also think it a good idea to pack a gun into the bank or the 7-11 or at a ballgame - never know when some dope is going to start something. Feel threatened by the suspicious guy with his hand coming out of his pocket while he's looking at you? Shoot him before he shoots you.

the real problem with your idea is that most people won't take the time to get proficient enough that they'll hit what they intend. That's why I propose hand grenades. Or, at least, machine pistols.

[IssyWise]

Americans who equate handguns to freedom are deluded. They boil all the duties of republican citizenship down to armed personal countervailance: The flag and my guns! The ethic is that if my neighbor might do onto me then I should be armed and ready at all times to do him in.

I don't mean to be insulting, but isn't this cowardice posing as patriotism?

Politicians who pander to them are unfit for public power.

Shouldn't we be focusing our energy on the poor people whose lives were ruined yesterday?

[Dan McKee]

1) Average Joe would shoot his cheating girlfriend if he could? Or shoot in self defense before ever seeing a threat (hand in pocket example)? Or pull his weapon and fire if he could wait for a shot that doesn't endanger bystanders? That's a very cynical view of the pathology of human beings and/or gun owners... a view not supported by facts. The average gun owner, and especially the licensed concealed carry permit holder, is law-abiding, safe, and proficient. They even have lower failure rates than police, as far as shooting at the wrong person or hitting a bystander (but in defense of police, they usually aren't in their own home/element like gun owners are, and can't decide when to interfere and when to wait).

2) For an ideology group that constantly blames the NRA for "slippery slope" fallacies, it's odd how easily anti-gunners fall victim to it too. Nobody ever suggested that every single student and faculty member at colleges should carry a pistol (or be forced to, as that would require). Nor is there reason to believe that would happen if the laws were relaxed- typically only a fraction of the population, or even of gun owners, attempt to get a concealed carry permit when the possibility opens up. The safety record of those that do likely indicates that they are the minority that DOES think they can handle the responsibility and maintain safe practices at all times. Granted, this is no guarantee that the shooter in this case would have ran into someone who chose to take the necessary steps, and the murdering would have ended sooner, but there are no guarantees in life, including the false guarantee of a "gun free zone."

3) What's wrong with carrying a gun into a bank or a 7-11? I do it all the time, but not specifically because the threat of robbery to that business- I carry everywhere, except to school and to ballgames, and other places my state prohibits it. (At those places I'm at the mercy of anyone whose willing to cross an invisible and unguarded line, and the local and campus police... so I believe the state should be held accountable for anything that happens to me there.)

4) These mass murders are incredibly tragic, and my heart goes out to the slain and their friends and families.

My heart goes out to these families also, and I could really care less what a politican in the Florida lege has to say about it.

[HCB]

Dan - Your first paragraph makes the point. You are talking about the minority who are safe. I don't disagree with gun ownership. I disagree with the idea everyone should have a gun. You suggested students with guns could have stopped the rampage. That assumes the students in the room had guns. All of them? If not, which ones? How would you know which ones should be armed?

Guns should be regulated at least as closely as driving. A gun owner ought to be required to - at the least - show he or she can aim it and fire it safely. You have a permit to carry a gun and you carry it responsibly. Do you really think the same would be true in each of 40,000 students on the campus of the University of Florida?

there is no way possible to be certain something like this tragedy cannot happen. It doesn't matter if other students had guns any more than it matters if people walking on the streets have guns. Had the other students had guns in this situation and attempted to use them, it would likely turn into a kind of circular firing squad and we'd be trying to figure out who killed who? Look, for example, at the recent "friendly fire" case in the FBI.

We should NOT have guns in everyone's hands just because they think they need one for protection. It's bad enough having one crazy person shooting. It's unimaginable having the crazy person shooting and ten or twenty untrained people shooting back. The combat soldier is taught "fire discipline" and always knows (or should know) where his comrades are. But too often that fails and we shoot our own. That's not a cynical outlook - it's fact. Don't create that kind of situation on a campus.

Laws don't protect people from maniacs like that unless they have been locked up already.

What happened yesterday could have happened almost anywhere.

We need to move past this tragic event and not let pandering politicians try to overcompensate (as they tend to do).

1:06 - What an idiotic comment to make. Are you saying that every law abiding gun owner is going to go around and start shooting people if they are allowed to bring a gun to work?

[GOPFL]

My thoughts and prayers go out to all the Virginia Tech students and their families affected by this horrific tragedy.

There will be plenty of knee-jerk political reactions from the anti-gun crowd. It is too bad the right to carry on college campuses bill (1576-I believe) failed in the Virginia Assembly last year. It may have made a difference if a few students (with concealed weapons permits) had been able to protect themselves. The basic fact is that criminals and maniacs will always have guns. Gun control laws only harm law abiding citizens.

[HCB]

10:59
What an idiotic comment you make. Are you saying that no "law abiding gun owner" will ever go nuts and shoot the place up? What is it with you macho gun nuts that you have to take a gun to work? Sort of like the law abiding teens who want to show they're big guys on campus because they have a Glock in the pocket?

Are you privy to some information that the VT shooter was not otherwise "law abiding?" Just because the guy has a gun in his pocket lawfully doesn't mean he isn't very angry and intent on shooting somebody or, in this case, many people. The argument made some posts ago is that if the kids in class had guns they could have shot the shooter. It makes just as much sense to say if the shooter didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have shot the place up.

Consider how many law abiding people living in so many other civilized places in the world neither need nor are permitted to have guns in their pockets when they go shopping.

11:22- No, I am not saying that no law abiding gun owner will every go nuts and shoot up a place. It could happen, but most crimes involving guns dont involve law abiding gun owners.

Also, I highly doubt that the VT shooter was trying to be a big man on campus by bringing his gun to school. Its not like it went off and he accidentaly shot someone.

[HCB]

But - by definition NO crimes are committed by "law abiding gun owners." The corollary is that ALL crimes - including gun crimes - are committed by criminals.

Thus the problem: how do we know which gun toters will remain "law abiding" and which ones will go nuts? The Columbine shooters got their guns from their law abiding grandfather's (or father's) arsenal. Of course he should have protected it. But he didn't. On the other hand, a LOT of kids (of which I was one) are given guns at an early age - my first .22 was when I was ten. How does a parent anticipate the child will use the gun to kill?

Maybe the VT shooter was not trying to be BMOC but, if not, what was he doing with those guns and that ammo and those many magazines in the dorm? From what was he trying to protect himself? Wasn't he "law abiding" before he went nuts? How would you propose we make certain such a person does not have a weapon - BEFORE he commits his gun crime? Isn't that the point so often made to support the unfettered ownership of guns - that gun crimes are not committed by law abiding gun owners?

Even in the Army, when in garrison the weapons are locked in the arms room. I carried my .45 on my hip only when on duty - not to town or on leave. I could not have possession of ANY weapon without signing it out. When in combat, then the weapons stay with the soldiers but only because they expect to have to kill someone. We should not create that kind of environment on a college campus or in the workplace - there should be NO weapons permitted. Period. No exceptions. None at all for any reason at all. There is absolutely no reason to have students carrying weapons unless the idea is that they expect to have to kill someone. Or, of course, if they just want to be the big man on campus.

Ok, point taken that no crimes are committed by law abiding gun owners. So lets assume that the bill fails and that employees are not allowed to bring guns to work. Are you saying that there will never be some nut who just decides to bring guns to work anyway and shoot up the place? No. And I agree with you that if the bill passess, some law abiding gun owner could flip out (but probably wont). My point before was that most crimes that you hear about are not from law abinding gun owners like you and me and and that it is not fair to lump in all gun owners like myself with criminals.

[HCB]

I agree with you completely. And, of course we can't predict who's going to go nuts - we can't even predict who will DUI. But there are certain places we just can't take the chance, I think. We all agree, for example, you and I and any other "law abiding" gun owner should not be permitted to take our weapon on board an airplane so we can clean it on our way to NYC. But why not? I'm law abiding, I've never gone nuts (at least that I'm aware of) and I have no suicide ideation. So why can't I have my gun with me on the airplane. (It used to be I could - I've travelled with a 12 gauge shotgun in a cloth carrying bag) The reason is, the airline and the government simply aren't willing to take the chance. I can't even carry a pointy nail clipper.

It was otherwise law abiding postal workers who invented the idea of "going postal" with their lawfully possessed weapons. I'll bet no letter carrier gets into the post office packing heat anymore. Try taking your Colt Python with you when you take the White House tour.

Likewise college campuses and the workplace. Of course we can't prevent insanity. But we can make it harder to carry out this kind of rampage. Maybe a ban won't stop it. But there is NO reason for college students to have weapons with them. We already said so in high school. And, unless they are cops, there's no reason to take your gun to work if you don't expect to have to kill someone some day.

You're right that it's not fair to lump law abiding owners in with the crazies and criminals. But sometimes "fair" isn't as important as "expedient." That's what happened on airplanes and in courthouses and high schools and government buildings, and so on. It's a damned shame. But it's the way things are anymore.

[HCB]

This is from the MSNBC article about the shooter. It makes my point about "law abiding" and the lawful possession of guns:

Law enforcement officials told NBC News that Cho was carrying a backpack that contained receipts for the purchase of a Glock 9mm pistol in March. As a permanent legal resident, Cho was eligible to buy a handgun unless he had been convicted of any felony criminal charges.

Cho renewed his green card in late 2003 and would have undergone a background check at that time, immigration officials told NBC affiliate WSLS-TV of Roanoke. If a criminal record had shown up then, officials would have denied the renewal, they said.

[Dan McKee]

HCB, I answered your question to me already: "Granted, this is no guarantee that the shooter in this case would have ran into someone who chose to take the necessary steps, and the murdering would have ended sooner, but there are no guarantees in life, including the false guarantee of a "gun free zone.""

Would one of those 33 (?) people had a gun if it were allowed? Probably not, considering the mentality present on most college campuses. For all we know right now one could have been a regular carrier, which IMHO makes the state responsible for his death and every one after him, but let's assume none were. Legalizing on-campus carry would still serve 2 benefits: 1) Should on-campus shootings (or on-campus abductions, serial killers, whatever) suddenly become extremely common starting right now, and students and faculty actually went to school thinking about that kind of thing, they would at least have viable options of self defense open to them. Also, individuals who find they have specific reasons for being prepared to defend themselves (gaining a stalker or gang extortion), would be able to carry even though the rest of campus is relatively safe. 2) Deterrence. The fact that the shooter KNOWS every law-abiding citizen in a given area is disarmed, makes him less apprehensive about both committing the crime, and about moving to new targets (like this shooter crossing open ground to get to a new building with new victims)- with the possibility of guns in the population, he has more than police to worry about.

To summarize point 2, knowing what you know about the gun control laws, if you wanted to commit a similar crime and maximize your body count, wouldn't you choose a school or another "gun free zone"? (Even worse in this case are highschools and those without armed campus police.) I know that whether my goal was to survive or just do the most damage I can, I'd much rather be in a place where I wouldn't have to look over my shoulder.

>"The combat soldier is taught "fire discipline" and always knows (or should know) where his comrades are. But too often that fails and we shoot our own. That's not a cynical outlook - it's fact."

Hooah. 4 years airborne infantry, myself. While anybody can agree any amount is "too often" I'd say it's still not at all often. Granted, things may have changed since the .45, but I'd say some of my own experiences dominate a civilian shooting situation in the stress and confusion areas. And regardless of this comparison, the record of civilian self defense practitioners still stands- it's better than that of cops. Therefore while claiming civilians should be disarmed because it would turn into some sort of crazy deadly massive shootout, you stand an even higher chance of convincing me that the cops should be disarmed.

(re: glock purchase) The shooter was still likely not truly law-abiding; even if he was authorized to carry concealed (doubtful) he broke the law by entering campus with it. Still backs up that the law in question is useless- what chance does a future mass murderer have of turning around at the "gun free zone" sign? None. If he's anywhere near ready to break laws about murder he's not even thinking about illegal possession laws. What chance does the guy who might defend himself have of obeying that same law? Almost 100%.

ok last one, i promise
"We should not create that kind of environment on a college campus or in the workplace - there should be NO weapons permitted. Period. No exceptions. None at all for any reason at all."

We'll talk when you've perfected the anti-gun forcefield or the gun chamber satellite tracking and instant alarm system, or turned all campuses into massive razor-wire protected security zones with patrolling guards and metal detectors. Until then, it's just not possible to keep all weapons out (only the weapons owned by responsible people, and I'm not worried about those ones). So if an institution is not truly capable of protecting its residents against gun crime, it should offer those residents the responsibility and ability to fend for themselves. It's a heck of a lot cheaper just to let me carry than to hire the necessary amount of police this would require, too.