Gary V. Powell, Author

I've delayed in commenting about the shootings at Virginia Tech for a couple of weeks because I needed time to process what had happened.

When all the media blur has cleared--much of which focused on the red-herring issue of whether authorities acted too slowly in response to the first shooting in the dormitory--two things become clear:

• The shooting was the random act of a disturbed young man.
• The shooting was in part attributable to the easy access afforded individuals in this country to semi-automatic weapons.

A Disturbed Young Man

Everything I've read, seen, or heard about Mr. Cho indicates that he was disturbed from early childhood. He had been referred for treatment and had received counseling to which he was unresponsive.

Arguably, the university could have done more. They could have expelled Mr. Cho or suspended him until he demonstrated resolution of the emotional issues that lead to his troubling writings, stalkings, and other bizarre behavior. But, quite likely, that would only have triggered an event sooner. Quite likely, that would only have moved Mr. Cho off campus--beyond access to potentially soothing and remedial influences, but not beyond the reach of his anger and frustration.

In my opinion, the University acted properly. Prior to the killings, Cho had engaged in troubling activities, but not activity that was illegal or activity that was forbidden by University code. To have excluded him on the basis of fear and suspicion would have been unfair and probably illegal.

Possibly, the University could have done a better job of monitoring Mr. Cho's on campus activities prior to the event,  given his history of disturbing activity. But the level of resources required to do so is forbidding and the idea of shadowing someone who is merely suspicious is repulsive. Such behavior by governmental or semi-governmental entities exceeds our notions of due diligence and fair play. It also denies respect to individual privacy.

Access to Weapons

Given that it is impossible to keep the Mr. Chos of the world off campus or effectively monitor their activities, one must question the unfettered access a person like this has to weapons of mass murder.

The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to keep and bear arms. The First Amendment guarantees citizens the right to free speech, but not all speech is protected. Speech that incites riots, is pornographic, or is libelous or slanderous is regulated.Similarly, the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, but does not prohibit policemen from searching an automobile if illegal contraband is in plain sight. A "penumbra" of Constitutional amendments creates a right to privacy that gives a woman rights in connection with her body and her choice about how to treat an unborn child. Yet, certain abortions are prohibited and in every state abortion is limited in the third trimester.

Like these other amendments, the Second Amendment is subject to interpretation and limitation. The right to keep and bear arms should not be viewed as the unlimited right to keep and bear weapons of mass destruction like the 9MM semi-automatic pistols equipped with high yield magazines that Mr. Cho so easily acquired.

The harm perpetrated byt Mr. Cho at Virginia Tech would have been minimized, if his access to guns had been more limited and if the kind of guns he could have acquired had been restricted.

If individuals who have been referred for mental health treatment were required to complete the treatment before acquiring guns, people like Mr. Cho would have limited access to weapons of mass destruction. If semi-automatic weapons like those used by Mr. Cho were prohibited (they used to be, but President Bush allowed the prohibition to expire), people like Mr. Cho would have to kill people one bullet at a time, rather than having the ability to spray 15 to 30 bullets into a classroom.

Guns don't kill people, people do. But people with guns are better equipped to kill people than those without guns. People with single shot pistols and rifles are limited in their abilities to kill people en masse.

Further limiting access to guns and the kinds of guns that people can legally acquire is the only real answer to containing the Mr. Chos of the world. 

Doing so does not offend the Second Amendment.