Share
A student-organized lie-in took place as planned on the Drillfield today, with upward of 50 individuals participating.
Though there had previously been controversy regarding a potential political agenda and rumors of a counter-protest, speakers at the event clarified their intentions, and the event was met with just minimal opposition.
A large banner reading, "God Bless Virginia Tech," and volunteers passing out maroon and orange ribbons greeted students approaching the shaded area between Davidson Hall and the agriculture quad.
Alison St. Onge, a senior environmental science major, addressed the media and participants first, stating that those lying down were doing so to remember and honor those who were killed last April.
"It hurts, and I'm pretty sure it's never going to stop hurting," St. Onge said. "Though the bad things in our life stick out more, always remember the good. I stand here today to honor those lost."
After St. Onge spoke, her mother, Candace, stood behind the podium and brought the issue of the since dubbed "gun show loophole" to the audience's attention. Candace St. Onge also defended her daughter's decision to continue with the lie-in, despite opposition claiming it was disrespectful.
"This is a college campus where ideas are shared," Candace St. Onge said. "It can provide comfort to some families to know that some good has come from their passing. My heart still breaks for Nicole (White)'s family, and my daughter."
While the lie-in passed without incident for the most part, local criminal lawyer Joseph Graham Painter was at the scene to protest their appearance, supporting what he claimed to be a "political" stunt and not a "remembrance" for the victims. Painter stood behind the speakers wearing a sign that read "Brady Go Home, Show Some Respect." Painter, a '69 alumnus of Tech, said the Brady Campaign against gun violence was a sham, that administrators within the organization are scamming potential donors for personal benefit. The lie-in, Painter said, was a typical event aimed to confuse participants in their safety-oriented organizations real goal.
"This is a political event not a commemoration of the victims. This is a pure Brady type of demonstration. The more people know about Brady, the more you know they are just a political organization, a political lobby to bring more money in for themselves." Painter said. "I get tickled when people say "gun show loophole." For there to be a loop hole there has to be a law, technically speaking. (Demonstrating against the protest of "easy guns") is a chance to stand up and say, 'Brady, you're liars.'"
Painter claimed the statistics the Brady campaign are falsely cited, mainly the statistic that 32 people die everyday from firearms.
Lori Haas and Anne Goddard also gave speeches before the lie-in took place, pleading with those in attendance to begin to make a difference before it is too late. Lori is the mother of Emily Haas, and Anne is the mother of Colin Goddard, two students injured in Norris Hall.
Haas noted that the nation needs to work to close the "gun show loophole," sparking considerable emotion from her listeners.
"As members of this community, we have witnessed pain and lives destroyed," Haas said. "I look at these bright young faces and know that there should be more."
Leave a comment 27 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
"event was met with just minimal opposition." And minimal attendance! "I stand here today to honor those lost." And then she laid down? "This is a political event not a commemoration of the victims." Painter is right.. "Haas noted that the nation needs to work to close the "gun show loophole,"" THAT is political! Go ahead, PEG, close the nonexistent loophole. And when crime changes NIL, what are you going to have to show for ALL this DISRESPECT to grieving students????
Reply to this Top
Also notice that the "lie-in" did not make it on the list of memorial services, despite involvement from victims families. Doesnt that tell you something?
Reply to this Top
How shameful! I quote from the April 15th article titled “Drillfield lie-in to be pushed back two hours.â€: “St. Onge added that she feels it would be wrong to push a gun-control protest on such an emotional day. "This isn't about guns," St. Onge said. "It is in other places, but not here. My main goal is to remember the people we lost. There are always people saying it's put on by ProtestEasyGuns, but it's not, it's done by me. I'll be holding a banner that says 'We are Virginia Tech,' not one that says 'ProtestEasyGuns.'"†But sure enough, it was just a gun-control stunt… No wonder there was little opposition. The self-defense supporters actually had respect for the day of mourning, while these clowns took advantage of an opportunity for an unopposed protest. I think we can all see why it’s called a “LIE-in.â€
Reply to this Top
Margaret Breslau is the owner of the Homebody store in Downtown Blacksburg. I guess if she does not respect the wishes of VT students then students should not shop at her store.
Reply to this Top
Just for kicks, I went to the Brady Campaign website yesterday. They had a memorial on the website- lots of sites did that. Then they ask for a $32 donation to stop gun violence. LAME. Gun control isn't a political issue or a public safety issue. It's an issue of civil rights. That's right, gun ownership is a RIGHT not a privilege. My mere possession of an object should not make me a criminal. It's not about stopping a school shooter. It's not about stopping a rapist. It's about my freedom to keep something in my closet that is not actually bothering anyone else. It's about my ability to stand up if the government begins to abuse its power. It's about the 2nd amendment serving as the teeth to enforce the rest of the Bill of Rights. Those who trade freedom for security deserve (and get) neither. Molon Labe
Reply to this Top
I just don't understand. If these people actually want to save lives why don't we punish criminals properly? And if you are worried about a criminal or psycho that is planning mass murder/suicide why don't they address the issue of allowing legal concealed carry on campus. It is obvious to the rest of us that student's trying to protect themselves with books, desks, and such won't stand a chance. But that is ok, all society wants these days is the illusion of safety.
Reply to this Top
Seth-- you ignorance is showing. They don't want to take away anyones gun. They want people to pass a background check. Are you afraid you wouldn't pass the check? What is the big deal if you have to wait for a day or two to get your gun?
Reply to this Top
There is not a law-abiding citizen in this country that has anything to fear from a background check. Only an extremist would oppose such a simple measure to protect public safety.
Reply to this Top
Cho didn't buy his guns at a gun show. He bought them at a store, and thus had a background check. So its not like it would have helped anyways. Also you do have to have an instant background check at a gun show when buying a gun, however it is less thorough.
Reply to this Top
To the anonymous poster at 9:38. They claim it is only about the guns shows - except that it never is. That is not their ultimate goal. The gun show "loophole" is just one of many steps towards a total ban on privately owned firearms. Think I'm crazy? Let me quote Sen. Diane Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it." If PEG and the Brady Campaign were only against illegal guns - then they would support, or at least be neutral on, allowing students to carry on campus. But instead they vehemently oppose allowing LAW ABIDING citizens the right to defend themselves. They aren't against illegal guns or "easy guns." They are against ALL GUNS.
Reply to this Top
To "Me" and previous posters: You have to go through a background check at gun shows. It is the exact same check you go though at a gun store. Cho passed this background check which he shouldn't have b/c of a crack in the mental health system, which has already been fixed. So what is the issue? What are we protesting about?
Reply to this Top
The fact is that he broke the law by bringing a gun on campus. He got it legally at the time. Criminals will always win since law abiding people will follow the laws while criminals will use us to their advantage.
Reply to this Top
"Criminals will always win since law abiding people will follow the laws while criminals will use us to their advantage." In that case, let's repeal all the laws against murder and assault and robbery, since only the law-abiding follow them anyway. Better yet, let's have no criminal laws at all, and just shoot those who trespass against us. And then, we'll be in an old Clint Eastwood movie. Sounds like a great idea.
Reply to this Top
You are incorrect. You do not have to pass a background check at a gun show, or to buy a gun from a private individual. And "Chris" you are paranoid.
Reply to this Top
I wish people would look stuff up before they made statements about law and history. You have to get a background check at a gun show. There is nothing special about being at a gun show that makes any exceptions to the law. Gun sales can legally take place between two individuals no matter where they are. I know this first because I've actually read the law, not read some newspaper article about it or listened to someone else talk about it. I have also bought firearms all three ways.
Reply to this Top
By "all three ways" I meant at a gun store, at a gun show, and between two individuals.
Reply to this Top
At a gunshow you must get a background check if you buy a gun from a public dealer such as a store owner, but if you buy a gun from a private dealer you do not need a background check.
Reply to this Top
Right - if you buy from a private dealer at a gun show, it's not treated any different (legally) than if you buy from a private dealer at his home. The notion of the 'gun show loophole' is really a misnomer - it's a 'loophole' which cannot possibly be closed without extensive (and unconstitutional) governmental involvement in all private transactions between private citizens. The fact that these transactions take place at gun shows is really of no consequence - it is no easier to get a gun at a gun show than it is anywhere else.
Reply to this Top
+1 to kyle minor. antis go after gun shows because there are the highest density of gun sales there, and they "look scary" when they show pictures on the news. these anti-gun groups morph themselves every few minutes when they take heat for their actions, and this lie-in was no different. memorial services took place throughout the day, and this was not one of them.
Reply to this Top
There are no public or private dealers, just dealers. If you buy from a dealer you are required by law to conduct a background check. The only time a background check is not required is between private individuals, whether that happens at a gun show or in your house.
Reply to this Top
Ok, you got me on semantics, Mike, but the terminology wasn't wholly relevant to the point - dealers have to perform background checks, whether the sale takes place at a gun show or at their shop. Individuals don't have any legal responsibilities whatsoever, although they can be held responsible for crimes committed due to the gun sale if they could be reasonably assumed to know that the gun would be used in the commission of a crime.
Reply to this Top
Kyle, my response was more directed at anonymous at 3:37 who seems to be under the impression that there are two different types of dealers. There are only liscensed dealers and private individuals.
Reply to this Top
OK, I'm going to leave this comment and not say anything more about it - then you can get on with the yelling at me, calling me names, etc. Handguns are made to shoot humans - whether in self-defense or while committing a crime. Sure, some people target-shoot and maybe kill groundhogs or other non-game "pest" animals with handguns, but at the base level, handguns are made to shoot humans. I say ban them. Or at least ban semiautomatics. It will cost a lot of money, and getting them off the streets will be difficult and perhaps impossible, but I think we should try. Certainly, people can keep their shotguns and deer rifles, and collectors can keep their Civil War revolvers. But really, it seems like worrying about loopholes is like treating cancer with aspirin. I say ban semiautomatic handguns. OK, commence yelling.
Reply to this Top
There are already background checks. I've been through many of them, flawlessly, might I add, Mr. Anonymous. Despite my flawless record, I would like to know the gun stores where I can buy a gun in 3 minutes, as I am a busy guy and am always there for at least half an hour. On the other hand, these guys aren't worried about fact or fiction, just pushing a bs agenda that ultimately affects my rights. All the "closing gunshow loophole" would really do is make someone pay a bunch of fees for inheriting their dad's hunting rifle. NOTHING else.
Reply to this Top
To the anonymous commenter 2 posts below: I applaud you for at least acknowledging that a ban on guns has to include an element of active enforcement to ensure that guns are eliminated. So many seem to think that passively enforced bans are good enough. You say that "we should at least try" to get rid of all guns. As you admit, it would be very costly and difficult to do this. The problem is that in the process of trying, we would be disarming those who are the most cooperative with handing over their guns. I'm guessing that's not going to include the violent criminals. Gun amnesty programs (whereby people can turn in illegally owned firearms, no questions asked, and walk out with cash) have been tried before and generally fail. I have not yet seen a strategically feasible (even before considering cost-effectiveness) plan to eliminate all weapons.
Reply to this Top
Would you feel better if people were only killed by Civil War Revolvers? Learn about a subject before spouting of someone else's misguided or ignorant theories. It makes sense to you to ban guns because you don't understand the whole picture. Guns save lives everyday. The guns used last year at Tech were purchased legally by a mentally ill person because the school administrators, his teachers, and the mental health officials involved with him did not want to stigmatize him by forcing him to get help when he was showing signs of needing help. Gun Free Zones are also target rich zones. You will bever remove all the guns from the streets, but you will disarm the law abiding citizens first. Criminals will hide their guns and be ale to operate with more confidence knowing that you and I are now unarmed. I wish for a day without violence, but until that becomes a reality, I am prepared to defend myself against those who would do me harm.
Reply to this Top
Because of the widespread use of digital technology, generating fake pictures has never been easier. Making fake photos of celebrities to impress your friends or doctoring media photos to alter public opinion is just as easy. Because image manipulation happens at the pixel level, detection is not as easy as it was before the digital era. Tricky fakes can be exposed by algorithms that detect discrepancies or statistical irregularities at the bit level. <a href="http://www.pskiller.com/">Photoshopped Image Killer</a> is such a good example of this kind. It's free.
Reply to this Top