LeftColumnBK

Virginia Tech Survivors Rally in Richmond for Gun Control

CNS-VT-Goddard
Colin Goddard (photo by Katherine Coates, Capital News Service)
RICHMOND – Armed with duct tape, Colin Goddard balanced on a chair to hang a screen so people could watch a film at the Richmond YWCA gymnasium.

Goddard appears to be fairly athletic. But four years ago, he was barely able to do one spin on a bicycle because of gunshot injuries he suffered during the shooting rampage at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007.

Goddard and others gathered in Richmond this week to share their thoughts about gun violence as “Living for 32” – a documentary about the Tech massacre – was screened at the YWCA.

Goddard was one of the people who survived when a fellow Virginia Tech student, Seung-Hui Cho, entered their classroom and began shooting. Cho, who had a history of mental health problems, killed 32 people before killing himself.

On the Web

To learn more about “Living for 32,” visit the documentary’s website.
Here’s what Colin Goddard says on the site:
“I will always believe I was in the right place at the right time – in class at 9 a.m. And despite the horror of that 10-minute experience, I survived as one of the luckier ones. For the 32 Hokies who were lost that day, and for the 32 Americans who are lost everyday on average in our country, I’ve decided to devote this time in my life to making a difference, so their memories might be honored and the damage to our society lessened.
“Many people say we can’t or shouldn’t improve the gun laws in this country. I’m part of the next generation; I reject that premise, and I say we can and should do better.”

Since then, Goddard and other survivors have become activists for gun control.

The film screening in Richmond was organized Monday by the Virginia Center for Public Safety. Colin Goddard’s father, Andrew Goddard, is president of the nonprofit group.
Gun control is the subject of debate in the General Assembly as the 2011 legislative session gets under way. It’s also a national issue after a gunman killed six people and wounded a dozen, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, in Arizona on Jan. 8.

Several bills before the assembly would relax existing firearms laws. Some would make it easier to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon, prohibit the state from restricting firearms or exempt guns made in Virginia from federal regulation. The Virginia Center for Public Safety opposes such measures.

The center supports bills that would provide more gun control. One measure, for example, would require criminal background checks before people can buy firearms at gun shows. Others would ban firearms from libraries, the Capitol and the General Assembly Building.

“They have to keep guns out of the State Capitol,” Andrew Goddard said. “We don’t want consequences.”

To underscore how lax existing laws are, Colin Goddard goes to gun shows and demonstrates that he can buy weapons with cash – and without an ID or background check.

The film screening at the YWCA drew an audience of concerned citizens and victims and survivors of gun violence.

Omar Samaha, a Virginia Tech graduate, joined Colin Goddard in presenting the film and answering questions from the audience.

Samaha’s sister, Reema Samaha, was killed during the Virginia Tech shooting. Samaha now works with Students for Gun Free Schools, a grass-roots campaign to ban concealed weapons from college campuses. The campaign was started in honor of Samaha’s sister.

“Students feel they need to carry because they don’t feel safe ... it is a variety of social issues,” Samaha said.

The film recalls events that happened nearly four years ago. For many in attendance, the emotions were as raw as if the ordeal happened yesterday.

Alex Evans was the chaplain for the Blacksburg police and pastor at Blacksburg Presbyterian Church. He was present the day of the shootings and said the film carried him back to the day.

“I felt a very emotional response,” Evans said. “But also very logical and practical. [Colin Goddard] is calling on us to improve our law and society.”

Goddard says he is not anti-gun; however, he believes society needs more control over violent weapons.

“Living for 32” will premiere at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah at the end of January and at Virginia Tech in February. Students can request the film to be shown at their university.

Comments  

 
0 #12 Guest 2011-01-24 08:35
"Goddard says he is not anti-gun; however, he believes society needs more control over violent weapons."

Translation:

Gun should only be in the hands of the government, the avg. law abiding citizen should have as little access as possible to guns.
Quote
 
 
0 #11 Guest 2011-01-24 08:32
;-)
You know how you can tell this is a propaganda?

If this was news they would mention that the anti-gun rights lobby showed up in Richmond on Monday forlobby day....less than 35 to 40 strong. Which sounds good, till you look at the fact that the same day at those that support out rights to self-defense. 500+ showed up to lobby for our second amendment protected rights to self defense.

Another way you can tell this is propaganda, describing Goddard as a activists for gun control. Truth of the matter is he is now a "PAID" lobbyist. As someone that is an activist for our rights, ie does not get paid, I find him being described as an activist a bit offensive.

Truth is, if Gollard got his signiture wish....the end of private sales of handguns...it would do nothing to prevent another Va Tech. The shooter did not get his gun via a private sale, he did have a background check.

Want to save lives, allow law abiding citizens to protect themselves. Do you know what the Va Tech did once cops fondly decided they had waited around for enough back up and made entry? He killed himself. he did not want a fight, he wanted to sitting ducks. What would have happen of once of the students or teachers that have concealed handgun permits had been able to carry that day and did, he would have run into that student, would have not wanted a fight, and would have killed himself sooner.

Understand this, YOU are your own FIRST RESPONDER! If they want to stay victims and never have the means to defend themselves, do be it! But, they have no right to infringe on your right to protected yourself. It is the most basic of human rights, the right to live and and defend your life.
Quote
 
 
+4 #10 Guest 2011-01-20 15:17
What little that I saw of the documentary, gun control laws were broken by some of the unlicensed sellers and the individuals who purchased those weapons (regardless of what they did with the weapons afterward). Before I give credibility to any more gun control legislation let's enforce the laws we have. Let's indict the known buyers and sellers who engaged in any illegal transaction portrayed in that documentary and punish them to the full extent of the law.
Quote
 
 
+3 #9 Guest 2011-01-20 15:12
This is why as Americans we have trouble with constructive discourse. My comments related to ammendments were reasonable...an d then someone jumps in with NUKES! REALLY?? FYI the supreme court has already commented on this very sort of thing. Although we may have free speech that does not give us the right to slander. Similairly, we may own a gun but we may not posess a NUKE. With regard to "Fully Automatics" those have been forbidden since the late 30's (You can get one made before 1986 I think if you have a number of licensces, approvals, registrations etc) and Semi-Autos have had varying degrees of regulation over the years. My point would simply be that if you outlawed every gun today, the only people with guns would be criminals and government officials. I don't think I want to live in that country.
Quote
 
 
+3 #8 Guest 2011-01-20 11:49
Quoting concerned in toano:
I can only make the age-old argument that the Founding Fathers could not have imagined what "arms" would come to mean. Could they have imagined fully automatic or even nuclear arms? If we want to strictly interpret the Constitution, we should read "arms" as only those weapons that were available when the 2nd amendment was passed.


This is as illogical as limiting the first amendments' free speech rights by allowing all news reporting media to use only the one-copy-at-a-t ime printing presses available in the 18th century.
Quote
 
 
-6 #7 Guest 2011-01-20 09:01
I can only make the age-old argument that the Founding Fathers could not have imagined what "arms" would come to mean. Could they have imagined fully automatic or even nuclear arms? If we want to strictly interpret the Constitution, we should read "arms" as only those weapons that were available when the 2nd amendment was passed.
Quote
 
 
+5 #6 Guest 2011-01-19 16:50
Their is a logical reason for the numbering of the ammendments. In order to guarantee the freedoms in the 1st ammendment. It is necessary to maintain the rights established in the 2nd ammendment. We can certainly tinker with reccommended training and requirements for conceal permits and hunting licensces and safety courses. But we must be very careful when we start approaching the idea of altering or infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Quote
 
 
+5 #5 Guest 2011-01-19 15:50
With Spring approaching, I look forward to women exercising their rights to bare arms. 8)
Quote
 
 
-6 #4 Guest 2011-01-19 15:34
Quoting citizen:
Many of us who advocate for gun control aren't anti-gun, just like Mr. Goddard. We simply want greater control over assault weapons and society's easy access to them and to mega-clips of ammunition. We do not at all see this as a slippery slope that in any way compromises our Constitutional rights.


The Constitution guards our right to arm ourselves so that we might keep a tyrannical government from threating all our rights. In this regard you advocate limiting my constitutional right to acquire and use arms I believe give me power to protect myself from any force illegal threatening me.
Quote
 
 
-5 #3 Guest 2011-01-19 11:27
Many of us who advocate for gun control aren't anti-gun, just like Mr. Goddard. We simply want greater control over assault weapons and society's easy access to them and to mega-clips of ammunition. We do not at all see this as a slippery slope that in any way compromises our Constitutional rights.
Quote
 

Add comment

WYDaily invites you to join the community conversation. We expect civil discourse here. Personal attacks on others, indecent language and bad manners in general are unwelcome.


Security code
Refresh

Talk of the Town

Talk of the Town