Yesterday, the biggest stories on the news should have been the drenching Nor'easter that hit the East Coast and the results of the Boston Marathon.

Instead, the biggest headline is that of Virginia Tech, a school known primarily for its engineering programs and football team, has become infamous for something entirely different--the location of the deadliest mass school killing in US History.

As someone who has earned an M.Ed. in Higher Education and aspires to a life-long career working at, in, and for colleges and universities, I don't know what to think. I don't know exactly what counseling and resources were in place for students feeling overwhelmed and dealing with the usual ups and downs of college life, although I have a pretty good idea it is what most campus have on hand. With a campus of 26,000 students I don't know what the administration could have honestly done differently to disseminate information to the community, hopefully to prevent further killings across campus. The idea of a text messaging system is ludicious--any good student turns off his/her mobile phone while listening to a lecture, if they have/bring one at all. Not everyone has laptops. This rampage began with students already assembling and commuting to classes.

It is very premature at this juncture to judge the school administration who did the best they could with the limited information, time, and means they had. After all, a university is a place of learning. They shouldn't begin to resemble prisons with lockdown systems, metal detectors, and armed guards patrolling the place. I strongly believe that if all of the measures the pundits are currently rambling about were put into place, the same individuals would be complaining about the prohibitive tuition hikes that would be needed to fund such a system. Many students wouldn't be able to afford those costs--for those who can afford tutition hikes, they are many who can't, and silently do not enroll because they can't afford it. Wouldn't this scenario simply be allowing this culture of violence win? Closing the doors of a college--making it less accessible, dampening and altering the culture of what are often the most formative years in a young person's life--is that how we really want to address this tragedy? It would be the antithesis of what higher learning is supposed to be at its very soul.

Shame on those who use this to politicize their own agendas. Nothing angered me more, nothing...than this e-mailed reaction I read yesterday on the Internet:

Philip Van Cleave, President, Virginia Citizens Defense League:

"Subject: VA-ALERT: Gun-control claims lives at Virginia Tech
As most of you know VCDL has been pushing hard to change Virginia law to allow college and university students with concealed handgun permits to be able to carry a gun on campus for self-defense. ... We could not get the bills out of subcommittee.
The General Assembly turned a deaf ear to allowing college and university students to be able to protect themselves and here we are today :-(
ENOUGH OF ELITIST BALONEY FROM COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES! If just ONE of those victims had been armed, this most probably would have turned out very differently."

I don't know about you, but I think its pretty audacious and callous when the deceased have not even been dead 12 hours, their families haven't been notified yet(!), and Mr. Van Cleave begins blaming those who died for not having a handgun at the ready while they attended lectures and taught classes. Is that what the grieving need to hear in the immediate aftermath--is that the most productive use of the airwaves now?

Realistically, if a door swings open mid-lecture and someone starts shooting--how much accurate reaction time is there? Would everyone be of a Marine marksman level with their aim? If Mr. Van Cleave had his way, would not the deaths in this scenario be succeeded by everyday accidents, mishandling, mis-firing characteristic of those who do not regularly drill with firearms? What about the many (not all, but many) current sportsmen and sportswomen (hunting being a sport that is on the decline from past decades) who go hunting, sitting in tree stands while drinking beer; their growing up around guns hasn't made them immune to accidents. (I grew up in an region where hunting was bountiful and a major part of the culture. People regularly went hunting while drinking beer--I've heard plenty of near miss stories involving trigger happy or half-drunk hunters. Hell, even our own Vice President shot a man last year. Still, that's my best friend's choice of hobby and I'm fine with it.) Would you want drunk college students packing heat on Saturday nights while they are out carousing the streets? I sure as hell don't.

Why is Mr. Van Cleave blaming the victims? Shouldn't we, as a society, aspire to a weapons-free campus? Even when the task is daunting? Is the answer to this societal problem more guns, more violence to meet violence? I hope that's not where American life is headed. If that day comes where weapons are as necessary as the books a student carries, I will no longer work in higher education. I have no desire to keep a gun at my desk or in my bag--regardless of the gun laws past, present, and future--and I suspect many fellow Americans are likeminded. What is Mr. Van Cleave's suggestion for the shootings that occur at preschools, elementary, and secondary education? Does he want to arm 5-year-olds as well?

Frankly, I'd much rather live in an America where I don't have to view every countryman as a potential assassin. But I'm of secondary importance to any future family. I'll raise my kids where not only the freedom to bare arms is preached but responsibility to bear those arms is emphasized 5x as much (an emphasis that has fallen by the wayside as of late). I don't see how the right to bare arms for simple defense and sport is violated by a simple compromise to restrict access to automatic and semi-automatic weaponry and extensive screening. If you aren't a criminal, you have nothing to fear by the screening--its part of the responsibility of owning a gun. This is a realistic compromise for the betterment of society as a whole, not just one lobby.

I don't pretend that some evil intentioned individuals will get banned weapons---but geez, folks, do we need to make it easy for them? Is it not obvious to individuals that its much, much easier to kill people at a greater distance and in greater numbers than with knives, poison, cars, rocks, etc? Thirty-two people would not have died yesterday using any other weapon than a gun.

A University's responsibility is to keep its students, faculty, and staff reasonably safe. This includes a security presence on campus, encouraging students to take basic common sense precautions (a majority campus crimes occur when students don't lock their doors to their rooms, wander out at late hours, or leave valuable property lying out). Virginia Tech most likely had all of these in place--yet, it seems the media, parents, and some students will make them out to be the scapegoats. That is sad, because it will not even begin to scratch the surface of what is wrong here--a society that elevates violence to cult-status and continues in the 21st Century to attach a stigma to mental health disorders and seeking non-judgmental assistance. This is a nation that chooses a personal right for a minority of Americans to own automatic and semi-automatic weapons over a society-wide benefit--the safety and security of our own youth, no less. I desire that my elected officials start really examining their priorities--a greater priority for the relatively few to use a semi to shoot deer (not very sporting or a demonstration of good marksmanship, in my humble opinion) or to prevent disillusioned everybodies from obtaining weapons of this caliber and threatening the security of the group at large?

Even if the most extreme and imaginatve security measures are theoretically put in place at a cost of keeping tutition down, investing in academic programs, community outreach, student groups, and housing--I promise you that it will be breeched by a sick man wanting to do harm--especially as in this case, it was one of VT's own students. In my mind, I've run through every extraordinary(and currently probably non-existent) security system that could have been put in place--all had their own drawbacks and potentials for misuse, abuse, or the potential hazard of locking the killer in with his victims.

It over-simplifies the issue that says we need to take weapons from "the bad guys" and arm "the good guys." The bad guys are not easily identifiable--they do not walk around looking like Dr. Evil, The Joker, and Lex Luthor. Preliminary media reports and message boards suspected that it was perhaps a Muslim terrorist-type--but lo and behold, it was an Asian-American student! There is nothing like tragedy to bring out the most unimformed, bigoted, and frankly, unimaginative group of morons that make me ashamed to say we share citizenship with the same nation.

This killer, as heinous as his actions were, was not a vision of evil and malice. Before yesterday, he was most likely an overloaded and overwhelmed student who didn't get the help he needed for his mental problems by withdrawing from his peers. Would strict enforcement of existing gun laws have prevented this young man from obtaining rapid-fire firearms? No. Was there anything in this student's background that would override his constitutionally protected right to bare arms? Probably not, although I guess we'll find out.

We need to really search our soul and re-examine our priorities. I've made my decision--the gun lobby does not speak for me or to my most basic concerns---that forcing Americans to arm themselves against one another is the antithesis of brotherhood and would bring about the end of civilized society as we know it. I do not wish to live in the Wild West, and I suspect many feel the same way. The time has come for us to make known our priorities. If your priority is that you want to "hunt buck" with a semi--great, but let's have an accounting--a census of priorities. I suspect many will feel as I do.

Five years ago, I visited a class of 8-year-olds in a school outside Stockholm. One boy asked me in trepidation if students at American schools were punished by being shot. In my best Swedish, I told him that weapons are not allowed in schools, but sometimes people are angry and hurt and react in the wrong way. His embarassed teacher seconded that all nations have people who are sad and have problems. She was right. The X-factor in the States though is that we think that having a right to bare arms (even though a majority of us DON'T) supercedes what's best for the group. Already the criticism about our "gun crazed culture" is coming from India, Australia, and Japan. With a war already going on in the Middle East, and the world watching--what do we, as Americans, do? What is to be our global reputation, our legacy?