I was in high school when John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo went on their shooting spree in Virginia.  One of my friends witnessed the shooting at the Home Depot.  Apparently, at one point, they parked their car in the parking lot of my high school.

The story affected people across the country, but none so much as those who were closest to it:  the victims, families of the victims, and families of the shooters were hit hardest.  And then, there were the rest of us, wondering where he would strike next.

Many students stopped walking home from school.  Those who did got jumpy every time a white van passed by (even though their car was eventually identified as a dark blue Corsica, the idea of a nondescript white van was initially suspected--and feared by locals).

It was the randomness of the shootings that was frightening, the idea that one moment you could be standing at a gas station or walking out of a store and next thing you know you've been shot.  It was, by definition, an act of terrorism.  I think we all breathed a sigh of relief when the snipers were caught.

There are questions about those shootings that will never be properly answered.  The perpetrators of such crimes are incapable of making other understand them, I think--and it is lucky, in a way.  How many among us would really understand the desire to shoot someone at all, much less many people, at random?

In the wake of shootings such as Columbine, the sniper attacks in Virginia, the Virginia Tech shootings and the recent massacre at Fort Hood, it seems to me that there is more and more fear of potential killings: as soon as one happens, we are waiting for report of another.  And they seem to be happening more frequently, and getting bloodier.

Is it that our nation's young minds are being somehow turned toward violence?  Are guns to accessible?  Can we blame drugs, alcohol, violent video games, workaholic parents, internet pornography, or global warming?

The number one trend that seems to link all of these cases is that the people who committed these crimes showed "warning signs" beforehand that nobody paid attention to.  Of course, not everyone who exhibits these signs will end up being a spree killer.  But take as an example the Virginia Tech shooter.  There were ample signs that he was disturbed, and one person who examined him called him dangerous.  Yet he was still able to purchase the guns and ammunition that he later used on his classmates.

One thing that I can say with certainty is that these killings could be at least put in check if there were more measures in place to make sure that these kinds of people do not get their hands on firearms.  It seems overwhelming to figure out how to make something like that happen: should people have to take a psych evaluation before buying a gun?  Should psychiatrists add a note to a file saying that someone is potentially dangerous?

All I know is that the right to bear arms was decided before automatic weapons were even thought of.  Perhaps in this age where destruction can be wrought so easily, there should be some new checks in place to try to make it a little harder.

photo credit: http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1102/102802muhammadjohnmalvojohn.jpg