The US Constitution guarantees a free press, not a responsible one. Our forefathers knew what they were doing. If you're unhappy with coverage the best way of showing that disapproval is to turn it off. The networks will notice.

Having said that, I don't believe coverage of this story has been disgusting and obscene, although elements of what Cho did were disgusting and obscene. One of the responsibilities of television in a time of tragedy is to hold the hand of a grieving nation and I think we did that pretty well.

You won't see much more of the Cho pictures. I think they were important at first to show people just how mentally ill he was. Everyone who chose the air them was well aware of the need not to glamorize his actions.

It is much better to err on the side of making information available to the public than trying to withhold it because we think you shouldn't see it.

As to Lauri's question about why he was able to buy, not one but, two guns, Virginia law only denies gun purchases to those who have been involuntarily committed to an in-patient mental institution. This was not the case with Cho. So as far as Virginia was concerned he could by guns.

There is also federal law which trumps state law. Under federal law, Cho might not have been able to purchase guns. But Virginia would have had to report Cho's mental condition to the federal data base. It did not because Virginia does not participate in the federal data base.

The Supreme Court ruled, when it struck down parts of the Brady Bill, that requiring states to submit this type of information to the federal government amounts to an unfunded mandate. Since no money is provided for the states to comply, they don't have to comply. Virginia doesn't.

Perhaps some gun laws will change but I'd bet they won't. As we have seen, it is very difficult to restrict gun sales in a country that has the right to bear arms written into its Constitution. Thanks. Tom.