Brian Ross Gun Grabber Report Steps In It

Video Update: Police have identified the shooter as Seung Hui Cho, a permanent resident of the United States.

The gun grabbers are in full force already. The blood hadn’t even dried before Brian Ross and Dana Hughes released a pointlessly canned article that attempted to tie the expiration of the assault weapon ban with the murderous rampage of a yet to be identified psychopath. Typical of these “reports”, Ross’s Lapse of Federal Law Allows Sale of Large Ammo Clips fails to place any blame where it really belongs; on the shooter.

Likewise Ross and Hughes fail to connect the dots between the fact that none of the students were able to protect themselves in the politically correct “gun free” zone that gun grabbers had passed to “combat” Virginia’s concealed carry laws. This despite the fact that the Roanoke Times carried the following story on Tuesday, January 31, 2006.

Gun bill gets shot down by panel

HB 1572, which would have allowed handguns on college campuses, died in subcommittee.

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.

House Bill 1572 didn’t get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.

The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Gilbert was unavailable Monday and spokesman Gary Frink would not comment on the bill’s defeat other than to say the issue was dead for this General Assembly session.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.” [All emphasis mine]

Not a very prescient statement to say the least even though other examples exist to show that the presence of citizens with guns has helped cut short the sort of massacre that occurred today. But that doesn’t stop the gun grabbers from marching forward with their agenda despite facts that would otherwise get in the way. The Blotter report plays by the typical activist handbook:

High capacity ammo clips became widely available for sale when Congress failed to renew a law that banned assault weapons.

Web sites now advertise overnight UPS delivery of the clips, which carry up to 40 rounds for both semi-automatic rifles, including 9mm pistols, and handguns.

“High capacity magazines read extreme firepower and gusto. Stock Up!” is the headline of one of many gun shop Web sites.

Virginia law enforcement officials have not identified the weapon used in the shootings today at Virginia Tech, but gun experts say the number of shots fired indicate, at the very least, that the gunman had large quantities of ammunition.

“When you have a weapon that can shoot off 20, 30 rounds very quickly, you’re going to have a lot more injuries,” said Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

The comment section of the Ross report is a compelling read because it is almost 100% against the message that Ross was trying to mold the Virgina Tech shootings into. Here is a sampling.

• People such as Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence are basically idiots. The perp reported had a vest full of magazines; it doesn’t matter much whether the mags held 10 rounds or 30 rounds — he had plenty of ammo because he carried it. It takes only a couple of seconds to change mags.

  The real and obvious problem here is that VA Tech is one of those ridiculous “Gun Free” zones; hence, no one there was legally permitted to defend themselves. Contrast this situation with the one that occurred in Salt Lake City, where a Bosnian suffering from SJS was cut down by a bystander who was carrying his sidearm.

  Posted by: Henry Bowman | Apr 16, 2007 2:59:08 PM

• This is a horrible situation, without a doubt, but can we please, for once, blame the SHOOTER and not the gun? When there is a fatal car accident, we never blame the car. When there is a stabbing, we do not blame the knife. Let’s put the responsibility where it lies and not start saying that hardware is at fault. A highly defective person is at fault.

  Posted by: Joseph | Apr 16, 2007 3:02:23 PM

• For the record, the federal law that lapsed didn’t have any effect on the sale of high-cap magazines. Sales of existing magazines with capacities over ten rounds was entirely legal after the 1994 Act. What was prohibited was the manufacture of new magazines.

  Posted by: Jeffersonian | Apr 16, 2007 3:09:34 PM

• Lets stick to facts for a side story. This article implies that the person guilty of this used large capacity clips and assault style weapons. all unknown @ this time. As an earlier post stated - lots of small capacity magazines can sould like one large capacity. The Magazine size limit was no clips 10 or over could be manufactured for sale in the US. this didn’t stop the existing quantity to be resold.
  As to the description of spraying requires large capacity clips. Two handguns with 9 round clips would sound like 18 rounds going off rapidly. If the person was truely Spraying fire into classrooms then Large capacity clips were the least infraction. Automatic weapons as seen in hollywood flicks spraying fire downrange were banned in 1934 for private ownership. either the person had a license for the weapon (unlikely)or modified (in violation of the law) the weapon to fire automaticly.

  Again I ask to stick to facts and not jump to conclusions about what may have exasperated the situation to promote a political agenda.

  Posted by: glenn | Apr 16, 2007 3:26:18 PM

• The magazine size in this case is irrelevant, as the shooter had plenty of time and space to simply walk back and forth between classrooms. He could’ve used a WWI bolt-action rifle; it wouldn’t matter one way or the other. The real problem was the complete failure of the college administration to lock down the campus, as well as the students’ inability to respond to this murderer. If one a single one of those students had a concealed carry permit -the kind the college prohibits- the death toll could’ve been much lower. What a tragedy.

  Posted by: JohnS | Apr 16, 2007 3:26:30 PM

• The difference between University of Texas, 1969 and Virginia Tech 2007 is that students and police with their own, personal rifles were able to pin down the Texas sniper and stop his killing spree, while no one could lawfully be armed on the Virginia Tech campus–ergo, only the murderer was armed and was able to kill with complete impunity. Decent, law-abiding citizens, including those over 18, attending college must be allowed to defend themselves. No law passed in contravention of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the fundamental rights of every person to defend themselves should stand, nor should it be obeyed.

  Posted by: Ay Uaxe | Apr 16, 2007 3:29:21 PM

This is a very small sampling but it demonstrates the point effectively. If any blame needs to be placed it should be on the idiotic nature of gun grabbers who think that crime stops when legally abiding citizens can no longer carry weapons. I can’t blame gun grabbers for the actual incident but I can blame them for creating an atmosphere where criminals and psychopaths are emboldened knowing that nobody will have the ability to stop them when they go on a rampage. This is a national tragedy. When will people learn?

Read All The Webloggin News and Discussion concerning the Va. Tech Shooting:

• Va. Tech Shooter Identified, ABC Live Report - Update - Vid Presser
• Korean Born Va. Tech Shooter Was Dorm Resident, Serial Numbers Removed From Guns
• Virgina Tech Shooting Opens Up Gun Control Debate
• Breaking - Gunman Kills 32 In Virginia Tech Campus Shooting

Others: Michelle Malkin, Hot Air, JamieWearing Fool, CDR Salamander,