Collegiate Times

Eric Thompson did follow all proper procedures. Guns purchased online are shipped to a Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealer who then performs a background check before the customer may take ownership of the weapon. The reason Cho was able to purchase his weapons was due to a loophole in Virginia's laws regarding what information is reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. (Involuntary outpatient vs. inpatient mental health treatment.)

So this guy should close up shop because a couple loons bought guns from him? That's a bogus argument - it's like saying that General Motors ought to close up shop when someone gets hit by a car. The whole idea of his visit was specifically to be provocative - it is dangerous to allow the discussion on gun control to be dictate purely by people who assert that only the victims of gun violence ought to have a voice. You can't ever control how people will respond to a given event - and this gentleman wasn't brought here to incite riots, he was brought here to offer an alternative viewpoint on an important discussion. The fact that people were offended isn't actually relevant in any way at all.

"Even if he followed all the proper procedures and required background checks in selling his guns, he must feel some sort of responsibility for the shootings on both campuses." Why should he feel some sort of responsibility? He followed all applicable state and federal laws. Should the U.S. fork manufacturers feel some sort of responsibility for Rosy O'Donnel being fat? Whatever happened to people being accountable for their own actions?

Thompson did nothing wrong, and it is interesting to hear how he is dealing with the unfortunate fact that he sold gear legally to people who ultimately used it to do evil. I don't understand the notion that "coming to Tech was just uncalled for, especially given his history." What history? A history of doing nothing wrong? As I understand it, his purpose wasn't to explain himself, but rather to lend his perspective in the wake of his unfortunate linkage to these events.

I'm curious as to whether or not any members of the editorial board actually attended Mr. Thompson's visit. If they did, I think they would see that he was a very reasonable person, concerned about the facts that even though a gun dealer follows all applicable laws, there are still cracks in the system. The editors would know that Mr. Thompson is upset that we have thousands of laws regulating firearm sales, possession, and usage, yet they go unenforced by the lawmakers who throw the laws into place. His visit did not "rile up student masses", as is evident by the fact that last night's meeting was exceptionally peaceful. The editorial board is certainly entitled to its opinion, as is anyone else, but I hope that they took the time to attend Mr. Thompson's lecture and hear what he had to say before writing him off as one of the 'bad guys'.

So many things wrong with this editorial. He's not just selling guns for reduced cost to college students, but actually to anyone for the next two weeks. College student or not, if you care about yourself, your property, and your loved ones, then head to www.gunsatcost.com and save some money on the only security you can count upon. Just wanted to say thanks to Eric for the visit and for promoting self defense in a world full of helpless whiners.

It is also important to note that Mr. Thompson didn't exactly sell the weapon to Cho directly. Cho ordered the firearm through Mr. Thompson's website, and then the firearm was transferred to the Roanoke pawn shop where Cho had to pass the background check and pick up the gun. Thompson never had face to face contact with Cho- I wanted to make that clear, because this article implies that Thompson actually handed the weapon over to Cho. Additionally, Larry Hincker's statement implies that Mr. Thompson was irresponsibly handing out firearms to anyone, just to make a buck, which isn't true- I expected better of our university officials. I was able to spend a few hours after the talk with Mr. Thompson along with other SCCC members and he came off as a guy genuinely concerned with safety on campus- he certainly was no "attention seeking" monster. The editorial board needs to do more research before it writes (but whats new?), such as attend the talk itself.

Yes, no one in any way connected to the shooting, who although he did nothing wrong, is considered controversial and offensive by the Virginia Tech spokesman and the editorial board. Would you people be so rude if Cho's mother wished to speak at Virginia Tech and shared your grief over the situation? Would she have to blame guns for your approval? Would you condemn her if she blamed herself for the ordeal but nonetheless believed that students should be able to protect themselves? What's really offensive to you people? People associated tangentially to Cho, or simply your ridiculous distaste for guns? Where was the outrage when the Brady Campaign organized protests on the 16th in the same area that students were mourning? All I said was essentially, "Well, uh, we'd appreciate it if they'd move to a different location on campus, and they need to file a permit." Oh, protesting and exploiting victims is okay for you people when it's done by the Brady Campaign but when a gun dealer simply wishes to speak to 200 students on campus there's outrage. Mr. Hincker and the editorial board are the worst of hypocrites.

Of course Hinkler says it is wrong. He is willing to bet the lives of the students at the drop of a hat. Just how many have to die on your alter of political correctness and your agenda of gun control Mr. Hinkler? With 2.5 MILLION defensive uses of guns each year in America, Guns SAVE Lives

Thank you, CT, for restoring my faith in you. I agree 100%.

Apparently the author of this editorial has lost sight of one of the most important values in this country; personal responsibility. According to him, the burden of responsibility lies not with the person who commits the action. The author here would rather have you believe that instead of taking blame yourself, you can blame the grocery store that sold a kid bleach and chemicals to make a pipe bomb when he blows up his school. Or you can blame the restaurant that sold your fat uncle a greasy hamburger when he has a heart attack, even though he already had a history of high cholesterol. Personal responsibility has been lost in this country and it will be the downfall of our society if people like the author have their way.

Was the editorial board even present at the speech last night? From the sounds of it, I'm gonna say no.

The Ct gets all up in an array when a dealer tries to respectfully address the situation not on or the week of the anniversary but no one says anything when the Brady campaign protests ON THE DAY of April 16 across the nation. So why is it ok for the Brady campaign to protests on a day of remembrance and its not ok if Mr. Thompson wants to talk to students about firearms a week after?

CT Editorial board. I'd like to know which one of you was present last night, and what you saw that qualified as being "riled up." Otherwise, on behalf of responsible gun owners on campus, I must demand a retraction and apology.

One would think that the CT editorial board fits perfectly in VT admin's back pocket. Give me a break. As I posted on the news article regarding Thompson's visit, the emotions being expressed are unfounded and ridiculous. This editorial is the CT's official rant. They say, "we feel that he had little explanation to offer our community at this point in time." What exactly does this editorial offer our community? Just looks like more unsupported propaganda to me.

One of the things that's often brought up in this debate, and something I think needs to be addressed is the line "I wouldn't feel safe if I knew people are carrying." You know what? I ALREADY don't feel safe, knowing that I can't carry. Why don't I feel safe? Because people at campus HAVE been mugged, raped, and killed. Because mass shootings HAVE happened here, and elsewhere. I would say I have far more justification to not feel safe than someone who is afraid of a permit-holder going on a rampage - which has never been shown to be the case. If we're so worried about people being able to feel safe, then what of my "right" to feel safe?

Phillip? I think you meant Steve.

I can't believe this man would come to our campus. I can't believe a student group actually invited him to come. Having a debate about CC is one thing, but inviting this particular person here is really insensitive. This definitely changes how I will view the student CC group from now on.

to those saying that the EB did not object to the brady campaign, you are wrong : http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/2008/04/09/editorial__april_16_should_be_for_remembrance

Ick - There's no reason for "this man" not to come to our campus. He did nothing wrong. Your complaining about a guy who didn't kill 32 people makes about as much sense as me saying "How dare Steger set foot on campus? His anti-gun policies killed 32 of our fellow Hokies! Allowing him to remain president of the university is really insensitive." Hey, how about the UPS driver who transported the guns from the warehouse to the store where Cho got the gun? Should we ban him from campus? How about letter carriers from the Post Office where Cho sent his package to CNN, after already killing two people, should we ban them? How about Master Lock (or which ever company he used), whose locks kept officers out of the building for crucial minutes. Ban Master Locks from campus!

Are you kidding?

"Are you kidding" doesn't solve anything. "Are you kidding" doesn't disprove anything or back up your point. If that's all you have to say, then your lack of a point or reason is duly noted.

You're an idiot - shut up. When you buy guns online, you may only pick them up from an authorized firearms dealer in VA. This means that Thompson was not required to perform background checks - that fell on the gun shop owner from whom Cho had to go to to get the gun. Also, are you going to say that CEOs and representatives of car companies aren't welcome here either? The cars they make are responsible for incidents in crosswalks here on campus.

Really insensitive, Ick? You are placing blame in the wrong place my friend. Now, if Cho were still alive and he wanted to come to campus and you felt that way I would agree. Thompson followed the law, as did the second dealer. I could understand if you were upset at Cho falling through the "cracks" due to lack of reporting to the database by state agencies, but if you have a problem with NICS you should start lobbying states and feds to keep the system updated with critical info. This licensed gun dealer followed the law of the land.

In many ways this man's visit to the VT campus is ill-timed and inappropriate, but more than anything a university campus is a place for free speech and the exchange of ideas; that's how people learn and grow. A member of auniversity community should have the smarts to listen to speakers tell their side of a story, and destinguish what's honest and good from what's not appropriate for a civil society. I think we learn more quickly by hearing such speeches. Personally I feel like this guy is shrewd business man looking for some publicity and a marketing opportunity (college campuses where everyone can carry concealed weapons), and maybe to shed a bit of guilt, but if I don't have the chance to hear his voice and decide for myself how can I form a clear opinion?

OK, I'll make a point, and I'll do it without using a sting of false analogies like Kenneth: This guy is using our collective fear, anxiety, and vulnerability to sell guns on our campus. I know you don't think that's insensitive, but I think it is. We'll probably disagree about that no matter what kinds of creative posts are left here.

A good majority of Virginia Tech is mad that people want concealed carry on campus, but don't even consider making duck pond drive and the cage a four-way intersection? After someone was killed?? Does VT even care about the well-being of its students anymore? No, we should focus on more important things like expanding the baseball field...

Hey, Ick... Maybe if you tried to understand what people would say, you wouldn't think they are false analogies. So you say that he's trying to use our collective fear, anxiety, and vulnerability? How about you and those like you? You try to use fear, anxiety, and vulnerability to deprive us of our ability to carry on campus. Sorry, but the high horse doesn't suit you well.

That's exactly the kind of response I expected from you. Thanks!

You expected me to point out that you use the exact same techniques that you criticize others for? Well then why on earth do you do it?

what many dont understand is that carrying of firearms has been around for centuries. he ignores the fact that this right has only been restricted in recent times, and only based on what law-breakers have done. basing new laws on the people who break them shows the definition of insanity to prove true: "doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results." law-abiding citizens have a right to defend themselves from those with bad intentions, and some clearly don't get that.

Joel, I have the entire speach recorded. I'll put it online once I find a place to host it (its an hour long). Then you can form a more clear opinion.

Ladies & gents - the survey & quiz are up - 45 entries already! https://survey.vt.edu/survey/entry.jsp?id=1208998040655 Sorry to make you copy and paste, links don't work on the CT page.

I agree with the CT Editorial staff; he came to VT to get attention. Mr. Thompson actions shows that he is nothing more than a modern carpetbagger.

Right. Because it's inconceivable that someone who makes a living by selling firearms might also have a pre-existing dedication to the right to self-defense, and might be willing to stand up for that right. After all, the big, bad gun lobby can't stand on principle. On the other hand, you, the "caring" types are just in it for the betterment of the world, no matter how many innocent lives your anti-gun crusades claim. Give me a break.

So guns don't kill people, people kill people, but anti-gun laws kill people? Didn't know paper was deadly. Anti-gun laws don't kill people, people who break anti-gun laws kill people. That little phrase goes both ways.

Want a kit-kat bar Ken?

Chris, excellent point, though there is a subtle difference. Anti-gun laws don't kill people, but they do threaten to leave people defenseless so those who break the law can kill people (since their enforcement is often not possible). This is the "outlaw the guns and only outlaws will have them" cliche.

Well I can say that guns, as a lethal weapon (Defense or Offense), threaten lives as well. And I am in no way trying to have no guns in this world, just don't want them on campus.

Agreed. So in its simplest form, the question is: do we threaten lives by allowing all people to have life-threatening tools, or do we threaten lives by disallowing law abiding people from having them? Of course, as with prohibition, I'm sure many law abiding folks would choose to disregard outright gun bans, thus turning them into law breaking citizens. So there's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison going on unless we track how many law abiders would choose to break a gun prohibiting law.

So what, exactly, is the difference between campus and the 'real world?' Is it the specter of safety the administration seeks to provide? The fact that there are people in some office somewhere that voice concern about your safety? I mean, we all like to think that our campus is safer than the world as a whole, but is it, really? It's kinda hard to claim that when it seems like every other email in my inbox comes from the VT or Blacksburg police departments warning me about the latest mugging, or robbery, or fatal car accident. There isn't any way to keep the 'real world' off of campus - so why contend that campus is anything BUT the 'real world?'

Chris, to clarify: I agree with your first sentence, certainly not your second.

I don't think I ever claimed that campus wasn't the real world. I think this campus gets along fine without them and I also believe there is no reason to have them. Belief is opinion and that is my opinion. Like I said, I don't want guns on campus, but have no problem with them off campus. Why is it that I always see you making false assumptions Kyle?

Chris, Kyle's point still stands. What is different about off campus that makes guns appropriate there, in your opinion? He is simply pointing out that there is really no difference between campus and off campus.

My assumption is, was, and always will be that campus is not the ivory tower so many seem to think it is. The point here is that, whether you say so explicitly or not, there is an implication that, by saying that guns are not necessary on campus but ARE necessary in some cases in the world, that campus is somehow divorced from the world. If that's not the case, then why is the delineation so clearly made by people who support the policy as it is currently written? And if it IS the case, why is it that we don't seem to be all that much safer on campus anyway?

Again assuming I implied they were necessary. Point out where I did.

Chris, the point is that you are actively against guns on campus, yet you don't care about any other area. Please stop tapdancing around with semantics arguments and tell us what the difference is, in your mind, that leads you to hold this double standard?

You know it isn't really easy to explain, I guess it is because I feel they have no place there, kind of like in a work place. How many businesses have rules against weapons on the premises? That is a serious question. I feel like a homeowner controls the rules in his house and streets are not really bound to rules like that and never will be. If a place like Wal-mart, say, decided to ban guns from their premises and put up metal detectors, they could do that and I would have no problem. It is weird to explain I know, but I hope that helps a little.

And that's the crux of the SCCC argument, Chris. I know where you are coming from - I don't own a gun, and I'm all about individual property rights. If you don't want guns in your home, ban them all you want. If you don't want them in the business you own, I'll campaign for you to have that right. But the fact remains that Virginia Tech is a public university, on public land, funded in part by public monies. Consequently, it seems reasonable to assert that the state, and not the school, ought to be able to dictate the policy regarding gun carry on campus. In this case, though, the state only APPROVED a policy handed to it by the BOV - and that is where so many people want to try and change it, and can do so. I'm not trying to have a semantics argument here, and I respect your position - it's just a question of who ought to have the authority to override the laws of the state. In this case, I'd claim that nobody but the state government has that right.

Kyle's argument is spot-on. But further, people need to present a case for DISarming those who wish to carry responsibly on campus for self-defense. We have presented the case for allowing permit holders (as opposed to the entire of-age public) and defended that for over a year now. The valid concerns that have been raised are being addressed; the rest are unsubstantiated arguments. So now, it's time to show why this incredibly responsible and able-bodied demographic, 21+ year old permit holders who are ALSO seeking a good life with a higher education degree, SHOULD be disarmed - show evidence that this is a bad thing and will cause more harm than good. The burden of proof should shift now.

Chris, thanks for clarifying. The problem at VT is one of inequity. If Wal-Mart and other companies ban guns, they ban ALL people from carrying guns. When VT bans guns, it only bans Hokies from carrying guns, whereas non-Hokies can carry all over our beautiful, public campus to their heart's content.

Just Stopped by to say hi, Thanks Worldship ups mac software

Keep Up The Good WorkRead Your Comment, Loved It bbw pantie hose free

This is the welcome page for the dietguidance.us Association web site.