From Fox News:
BLACKSBURG, Va. — A gunman who reportedly shot and killed one person on the Virginia Tech University campus in Blacksburg on Monday has been taken into custody, according to police. A state government official told The Associated Press that at least one person was killed and another was injured in a shooting incident at the West Ambler Johnston residence hall early Monday morning. Officials told the AP there are seven to eight additional casualties.
"Police have one shooter in custody and as part of routine police procedure, they continue to search for a second shooter," the school's Web site read Monday. "All people in university buildings are required to stay inside until further notice. All entrances to campus are closed."
UPDATE: CBS News is now reporting that 17 students are being treated for gunshot wounds. They need our prayers.
UPDATE: News sources are now reporting that 22 people are dead and 20 more have been injured in the shooting
UPDATE: CBS News is reporting that the death toll is now up to 30.
UPDATE: The latest from MSNBC.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
Remind me again why it's so important to have so many guns available to so many people?
Well, for one thing, maybe if just one faculty member had a gun, he or she could have stopped this lunatic and saved 20 lives.
John, do you honestly think that someone who is willing to kill people is going to think, "hmmm, gee, I'd like to kill some people but but I can't do it because it would be illegal for me to buy a gun."
Former Washington DC Democratic, liberal mayor Marion Barry even recently advocated allowing Washington DC residents to purchase guns because he finally realized what the NRA knew all along: When guns are outlawed only outlaws have guns. Its not just a cute slogan. Its gospel truth.
Because if a handful of the students were armed the count would be 3. Or 5. Or 10. But almost certainly less than 20.
This blogger has made a good argument on just that exact thing John:
The High cost of gun control
So you're saying that everyone should carry a gun around, just in case? If you want to turn your city into the Wild West feel free, but I think I'll pass.
Look, I'm not saying all guns should be banned (although there is no need for any private citizen to own certain types). But why they're so easy to get ahold of, and why there are so many, is beyond me.
By the way, lest I be seen as callously using a tragedy to make a political point, that's not my intent at all. It's precisely because I care so much when I hear about things like this that I get so upset.
John,
I don't think you're being tacky. Any time a tragedy like this occurs, the natural question is, "What could we have done to prevent it?"
However...
I've heard the "Wild West" argument so many times, I'm think I'm going to roll around on the floor for a moment. *rolls around on floor*
Okay, now that I've got that out of the way, I'd like to point out that this argument has never, ever materialized. Just 5 years ago, before Minnesota enacted a "shall issue" law for "concealed carry" (carrying a concealed handgun), opponents of the measure screamed there would be blood in the streets, shootouts, and a return to the wild west.
It's been 5 years since I saw that meeting first hand and heard the outrageous claims by state democratic congress people. So far, there have been ZERO instances of that happening. In fact, those people who have sought and received the concealed carry permit have a far, far, far lower rate of crime than the standard population (the Star Tribune made quite a bit of noise about the first and only CC permit holder to have his license revoked). Interestingly enough, those willing to take on the responsibility of carrying a firearm also appear to be model citizens.
That's worth thinking about.
Well, John, we agree that guns should not be banned. We also agree that there is no need for private citizens to own certain types of guns (fully automatic assault weapons).
But I'm not sure why you think they're so easy to get. People have to have undergo a background check and a waiting period just to own a gun.
Then there are further requirements if you want to carry.
The only way guns are easy to get is if you buy them illegally, and passing more gun laws is probably not going to stop those who are selling them illegally anyway.
Robert, my wild west comment was meant to be more hyperbole than argument - mainly because I'm not sure we'll get anywhere having an all-out debate on this issue. I'm mainly trying to understand how gun advocates respond when tragedies involving guns happen. I think I can at least consider myself informed now.
The only way guns are easy to get is if you buy them illegally, and passing more gun laws is probably not going to stop those who are selling them illegally anyway.
But promoting a culture where people own (and carry) as many guns as possible also makes them easy to get, one way or another (because they are so common).
So John, to understand this correctly, where a person abuses a freedom and commits a crime the right answer is to take away that freedom from everyone?
No, Kevin. When one person abuses a freedom, I think what a shame it is and move on. When 68% of all murders are committed with guns, I start to think that maybe there's something wrong here. (And, if you'll read the entire discussion, you'll see I'm not promoting the banning of all guns.)
John,
That just isn't logical. Do you think the gun some how forced the individual to commit the crime? Do you believe that by removing the instrument the heart will decide not to commit the crime? If a person strikes you, do you find yourself angry at the hand or do you focus on the heart of the person who commanded it?
The solution is not to strip the protection away from the innocent. It is not promoting a "gun culture" to allow others to own firearms. What does a “gun culture” mean anyway? I believe it is just a phrase the chronically uninformed use when trying to make us gun owners sound like some sort of loons.
No one tells their kids to go out and shoot people who upset them. Gangs, thugs, and hooligans are not going to stop their activities because they can't legally acquire a firearm. If you want studies, I'll present you with information showing that when you remove guns from law abiding citizens that crime rises. I can show you studies that when you introduce concealed carrying, crime drops. I can show you that in European countries where they’ve outlawed guns they’re having an increase in gun crime while it is reducing in the United States.
The simple fact of the matter is we need to address the problems that promote a culture of violence. We need to help these kinds of people to find outlets that do not involve violent acts of aggression against their fellow man. Remember, Cain did not need a gun to kill his brother Abel. He needed only the wickedness in his heart.
…and for the record, I’m one of those guys who would allow the purchase of fully automatic weapons with the requisite background checks. The point of gun ownership was never to feed your family, but to give the people the ability to defend themselves should a tyrannical government ever rise again.
Robert, I don't think you're being logical either. Basically your argument is the tired old "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Fine, technically that's true. But a gun sure does make it easier, doesn't it? Honestly, would you rather have someone come after you with, say, a knife or a gun?
The simple fact of the matter is we need to address the problems that promote a culture of violence. We need to help these kinds of people to find outlets that do not involve violent acts of aggression against their fellow man.
I can agree 100% with that statement.
Robert, I don't think you're a "loon," and I'm not trying to make you sound like one. (Although, your last statement that fully automatic weapons are necessary in case "a tyrannical government ever rise[es] again" reeks of paranoia...) Like I said, I raised the issue in the first place to discover how gun supporters rationalize their views in light of tragedies like this one. Now I know.
John,
The argument is true (guns don’t kill people, people kill people); that’s the point. Just because you’re tired of hearing it doesn’t make it any less valid.
Honestly, would you rather have someone come after you with, say, a knife or a gun?
How about neither? Why are we debating the means of being attacked when the concern should be over the attacker? To turn your question around, if you were being attacked, which would you rather have to defend yourself? A firearm is one of the few defensive options we can give the elderly and women against larger, stronger adversaries.
In your link, you failed to point out that guns only make up 28.4% of all the serious crimes (murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults). Logically, if you remove guns you don’t remove the crimes. You simply shift the focus to another weapon. Again the heart, not the hand, controls the actions.
Governments, not private citizens, are responsible for most massacres in our history. History tells us that every single time a government becomes tyrannical they disarm the populace first. If the citizenry is unarmed, it makes it much easier to assume control, enact insane policies, and conduct mass murders. I confess that I believe the likelihood of our government getting to that point is unlikely, but I do think it’s naïve to believe that it could never happen to us. History bears witness to the fact that democracies can and do get overrun by nut jobs who do things like that.
Alright – here are a few facts for you:
* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day (Northwestern University School of Law - Dr. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz). This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives (by accidents, suicides, and homicides - National Safety Council).
* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker (Dr. Kleck's study).
So – to wrap up this post:
* Gun control actually increases crime
* Guns actually prevent crime in the hands of the citizenry
* Guns need not be used to kill to defend the individual
* Criminals don’t bother with background checks or legal methods of acquiring a firearm
* Gun usage is in the minority for violent crimes
Fine, you can repeat your cliche if you want. But you have to admit that, while someone has to pull the trigger, a gun makes killing easier to kill as many human beings as possible and as quickly and efficiently as possible.
In your link, you failed to point out that guns only make up 28.4% of all the serious crimes (murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults). Logically, if you remove guns you don’t remove the crimes. You simply shift the focus to another weapon. Again the heart, not the hand, controls the actions.
I don't see that statistic in my link - did you find it somewhere else? Even if it's true, it's misleading - the more types of crimes you include, the more it will go down. Include all crime, and it will go down even more. There are simply many crimes where a gun is less likely to be used. But the fact is, when someone wants to take the life of another human being, a gun is the weapon of choice 68% of the time. That's two thirds. Doesn't that even make you stop and think at all? As for shifting the focus to another weapon, I'll repeat: if the hate is there, but the most efficient means is not, it's a lot better situation.
But despite my statements to the contrary, I think you're pigeonholing me as someone who wants to ban all guns, and that's not the case. If we're going to continue the discussion, what I'd really like to know is why certain guns/weapons need to be available to any civilian. (Even Dennis seemed to agree with me here, so I can't be completely wrong. :) Why do civilians need armor-piercing bullets? Why do civilians need fully automatic weapons? You can only kill a person once! I'm sorry, but your vague claims that the government might come after you some day just don't hold water with me. How many innocent people have to die because of these weapons just to make a few paranoid gun fanatics feel better? How can someone who claims to be "pro-life" be in favor of these weapons being so available to civilians?
John, more people die in automobile accidents every year than are murdered. Should we ban automobiles?
If alchohol was found to be involved in many of the murders and other violent crimes should we ban alchohol?
Kevin, those aren't equal comparisons. For one thing, we do place restrictions on both automobiles and alcohol. For another, their sole purpose is not for killing, as it is with guns. A great deal of good comes along with the risk of driving. While potentially dangerous, cars weren't invented for the sole purpose of taking a life. (I'll let others debate whether or not alcohol has a greater good. :)
Fine, you can repeat your cliche if you want. But you have to admit that, while someone has to pull the trigger, a gun makes killing easier to kill as many human beings as possible and as quickly and efficiently as possible.
You can stick your head in the sand, but you have to admit that, while someone has to pull the trigger, a gun makes defending yourself against a much larger assailant possible. How would you expect someone in their 70’s to defend themselves against someone in their 20’s?
I don't see that statistic in my link - did you find it somewhere else?
If you click on the graph for the raw data, you’ll get a table of information. What you’ll see is that violent crimes (classified as Murders, Robberies, and Aggravated assaults) indicates that firearms are the minority.
Doesn't that even make you stop and think at all? As for shifting the focus to another weapon, I'll repeat: if the hate is there, but the most efficient means is not, it's a lot better situation.
Yeah, it does make me think. It makes me think that there are far too many unarmed victims. I don’t understand how you can look at the data and convince yourself that restricting firearms is even remotely the answer. The empirical evidence shows that as you reduce the number of armed citizens, the amount of crime increases. Doesn’t that even make you stop and think at all?
If we're going to continue the discussion, what I'd really like to know is why certain guns/weapons need to be available to any civilian.
Did I say that? Did I say that any civilian should be able to purchase a firearm? I believe in certain restrictions on the second amendment just like there are restrictions on the first. However, I just happen to believe that honest citizens have a right to usage of firearms without laughable restrictions on cosmetic functionality.
I'm sorry, but your vague claims that the government might come after you some day just don't hold water with me. How many innocent people have to die because of these weapons just to make a few paranoid gun fanatics feel better?
My turn around question in response to you is, “How many people have to die because of a lack of firearms (self-defense) just to make a few people who are frightened and uninformed feel good about themselves?”
How can someone who claims to be "pro-life" be in favor of these weapons being so available to civilians?
I believe I’m being fully consistent. Firearms help 80 times more than they hurt. 80 times! For a pro-life person, I am protecting the rights of an individual to defend themselves rather than become a statistic in the violent crimes chart.
How can you claim to be for the poor or the underprivileged yet deny them the one means of protecting themselves that gives them a chance against a larger or armed (knife, gun, or otherwise) assailant?
For another, their sole purpose is not for killing, as it is with guns.
With all due respect, that’s really uninformed. None of my handguns have ever been used to kill someone. Their “purpose” is to that which I assign them. Most of my firearms were designed for and utilized for target shooting. Guns don’t only have to be for killing; many are designed specifically for target shooting (which is fairly expensive). Could they be misused? Yes, but then so could a nail gun or a claw hammer.
Robert, we're going to have to draw this to a close at some point, since we're starting to chase our tails. (I also hope you're not as upset as the tone of your most recent post indicates - I do appreciate the discussion.) As is usually the case with the really good discussions we have here, it would be easier (and more fun) to discuss in person, but this format prohibits a full discussion at some point.
Rather than get bogged down by my rebuttals of every detail (which I could do, but it would only serve to further our "circle"), I'd like to focus on a potential area of agreement. You wrote:
I believe in certain restrictions on the second amendment just like there are restrictions on the first. However, I just happen to believe that honest citizens have a right to usage of firearms without laughable restrictions on cosmetic functionality.
Would you mind elaborating on this statement? What restrictions should there be? Does an "honest citizen" need to own an automatic weapon or armor-piercing bullets? If so, why? They're not used for simple self-defense, which is the crux of your argument for gun availability.
Again, thanks for the discussion. I'm glad you appear to be a responsible gun owner - I wish they were all like you.
John,
I just find it so terribly disappointing how many people are so fully uninformed about firearms that they make vague statements about “armor piercing rounds” and automatic weapons as though they were the norm. They have never been nor would they be likely to be.
Let’s start by explaining a few things that I really, really object to before I go about explaining what restrictions I would place on the second amendment.
The myth of “armor piercing rounds” or “Teflon” coated rounds.
Gun banners usually throw this myth out there as though gangs of thugs used armor piercing bullets regularly. That is patently false. To start with, not all body armor is created equally and it depends on the armor as to what it protects. They are rated in levels and dependent on several things to determine whether a bullet will penetrate (i.e. distance, velocity, point of impact, etc).
Gun banners (either knowingly or unknowingly) mislead people into believing that ammunition such as “Teflon coated rounds” were specifically made for armor piercing. This also incorrect. In fact, their real usage was for target shooters who expend an enormous amount of ammunition during practice. The idea was to reduce the wear on the barrel allowing the enthusiast to shoot a gun longer before accuracy was reduced due to barrel wear. Additionally, the less abrasion of the round down the barrel causes less airborne particles – which is nice in enclosed shooting ranges. Finally, it was a safety issue because teflon coated rounds had a tendency not to ricochet.
So, do I believe in limiting “armor piercing rounds”? I’d probably vote “no” because I have yet to see a bill that addresses the realities of bullets rather than sensationalism. By voting yes, some of them are written so poorly that I could end up outlawing low caliber hunting rifles simply because of high velocity rounds (a .22 can be a high velocity round).
The myth of Automatic Weapons
First, these weapons are VERY expensive and EXTREMELY difficult to obtain. They have never been the weapon of choice for criminals. Even on the illegal market, their cost and usage makes them prohibitive.
For a civilian to purchase an automatic weapon (even when they were fully legal), you needed to pass multiple background checks, explain why you wanted it, submit to registration of the weapon, and wait up to a six months to a year for approval. It’s a far, far cry from purchasing a standard semi-automatic weapon. For criminals to go through that process to use a full-automatic registered weapon in a crime – it’s ridiculous. They’d be better off purchasing it illegally.
The truth is, automatic weapons are seldom used in crimes. They’re just not practical if you’re a criminal. They’re costly, hard to get, and easy to track.
Gun banners usually talk about automatic weapons and then proceed to try and ban semi-automatic weapons because of their lack of knowledge. They focus on a small, small segment of the market because (I believe) it’s part of their overall strategy of scaring the public and pushing for a larger ban against all firearms.
When politicians come at firearms restrictions, they seldom talk to knowledgeable people. Instead, they demonize people who are in a prime position to help them craft laws to reduce crime and improve safety (e.g. NRA). It’s frustrating because of all the good work the NRA has done to help improve safety for children (Eddie Eagle) and for helping to craft good laws that protect people.
So – with that understanding, I’m prepared to talk about restrictions on firearms.
I think it’s realistic to say:
* Felons lose their right to gun ownership.
* Background checks should be performed at a national level
* People with mental health problems should not be allowed to purchase until they’re completed with treatment
* Outstanding restraining orders should prevent you from purchasing
* Must be 21 to purchase any firearm or ammunition
* Firearm safety should be taught to children (Eddie Eagle program)
Restrictions specific to features and functionality of firearm I’m far more critical of. I’d have to see specific wording before I’d be on board.
With all that said, I think it’s a fair question to ask, “What rights are you willing to give up in the interest of safety? Not just in the second amendment, but in all amendments?”
I personally am tenacious about giving any ground on any amendment which is why you’ll see me flip sides to fight Democrats or Republicans if I think they’re violating the Constitution. I think too many people pick favorites and allow the amendments to be violated when it doesn't affect them personally.
Gun banners (either knowingly or unknowingly) mislead people into believing that ammunition such as “Teflon coated rounds” were specifically made for armor piercing.
I don't care what they were made for, I care what they can be used for.
[Automatic weapons are] costly, hard to get, and easy to track.
Now, isn't that because there are restrictions on them?! Aren't you proving my point for me?
With all that said, I think it’s a fair question to ask, “What rights are you willing to give up in the interest of safety? Not just in the second amendment, but in all amendments?”
A similar question I would pose: are you at least willing to admit that violence is a price we pay for the freedom to own guns?
As for your list of restrictions, now that we've taken everything to the most basic level I guess we've found some common ground. Maybe that's the best way to wind this down.
I don't care what they were made for, I care what they can be used for.
In that case John, you’ve got a long, long list of items that need to be on your ban list. Speaking specifically of “Teflon” rounds, they are no better at penetrating body armor than any other round. If you read the link I posted, you’ll understand that penetration of body armor has to do with the caliber, velocity, and type of vest. “Cop killer bullets” and “Teflon rounds” are just political speak. I’m sure you can find plenty of people who have never touched a firearm who’ll tell you that this ammunition is capable of piercing solid steel, but that is not true!
But your belief in that is EXACTLY what I’m talking about when I cite the uninformed public. They likely believe that these bullets are “armor piercing” as though they’re somehow special over full metal jacket, lead core rounds. They’re not. As I tried to explain, this is the problem with the uniformed politicians making laws rather than working with the NRA (whom they’re too busy demonizing). They don’t know enough to regulate the product. They’re just interested in feel good politics.
Now, isn't that because there are restrictions on them?! Aren't you proving my point for me?
I just said above that I do agree with certain restrictions.
A similar question I would pose: are you at least willing to admit that violence is a price we pay for the freedom to own guns?
I disagree. However, maybe you’d be willing to recognize that as we reduce ownership, we increase crime. Reduced guns = increased crime. Increased guns = reduced crime. That’s what the numbers show no matter how much some people would like it to be otherwise.
As for your list of restrictions, now that we've taken everything to the most basic level I guess we've found some common ground. Maybe that's the best way to wind this down.
Perhaps so. :)
In that case John, you’ve got a long, long list of items that need to be on your ban list.
Except none of those other items were made exclusively for killing. (Oh, right. And target practice.)
I’m sure you can find plenty of people who have never touched a firearm who’ll tell you that this ammunition is capable of piercing solid steel, but that is not true! But your belief in that is EXACTLY what I’m talking about when I cite the uninformed public.
I'm not that ignorant.
If you read the link I posted, you’ll understand that penetration of body armor has to do with the caliber, velocity, and type of vest.
OK, if you want to get that technical, why do we need bullets of that caliber and velocity? Can't you kill a mugger with another caliber weapon?
By the way, I have no doubt that you see me as ignorant about guns (and I'm happy to admit that I've never owned one). But some of my questions aren't just rhetorical arguments - I'm genuinely asking in the hopes of learning something.
Except none of those other items were made exclusively for killing. (Oh, right. And target practice.)
How about knives? Bow and arrow? Swords?
I’m going to take it, you’re not much of an Olympic shooter enthusiast…
OK, if you want to get that technical, why do we need bullets of that caliber and velocity? Can't you kill a mugger with another caliber weapon?
Firearms are like any tool they have different sizes and types for different purposes. If a person is wearing a light level protective vest, a simple hunting rifle would penetrate because of the low surface area and high velocity. In the case of handguns, many vests are pretty effective against them because they’re slower velocity than rifles and larger in surface (striking) area.
So, let’s say you’re carrying a standard .45. It travels at speeds of anywhere between 800 to 950 fps depending on the load. Now a .45 has fair amount of recoil, and back in WWII, it was the common sidearm for the US Army. I own one and it’s really a joy to shoot. Using a full metal jacket round, it will not penetrate most body armor despite being a “big gun.” It looks and sounds scary to the novice.
However, if you refer to Pinnacle Armor’s ballistics chart, you’ll see that this large caliber handgun requires one of the lowest level body armor to defeat. If you follow up the chart you’ll start seeing that it takes a lot bigger type of body armor to defeat rifle rounds. Why? Well, their rounds are smaller and the velocity is higher (around 3000 ft/sec).
While there are some special types of ammunition for machine guns (.50 cal anti-ordinance or anti-vehicle) weapons, these would make for poor self defense weapons. They’re either too big and bulky to carry around (they’re often vehicle mounted) or they’re used in a specific sniper rifle applications. Again, they’d be pretty horrible for self-defense though due to weight and length. Plus, in self-defense instances, I prefer low velocity, low penetration, controllable, and high-energy dispersing ammunition. The goal is to hit your target, transfer all the energy from the round to your target, and not have the round penetrate and exit the target or travel through walls.
So, to answer your question, you can’t really just “get rid” of high velocity rounds because then you’d be outlawing hunting rifles. Obviously rifles are used to shoot targets at distance (where handguns can’t reach). Additionally, rifles are needed when hunting because the thick hide on certain animals can’t be penetrated with lower speed smaller rounds.
Banning “large caliber” weapons is pretty impractical because they’re not particularly threatening. You can change the ammunition, but like guns they’ve got their application. If you go to a sporting good store and pick up a box of ammunition, you’ll be able to read what they recommend the ammunition for.
Are you beginning to see why it’s so dangerous to have uninformed politicians making policy? They wouldn’t know the first thing about the application of the ammunition, the firearm, or which components are necessary. Historically, these anti-gun politicians have made horrible laws that impact the cosmetic functionality of a firearm (such as pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun) or absolutely nothing (like Teflon coated rounds). They have no interest in getting it right. I feel their real objective is just banning firearms all together. So, they’ll piecemeal together bad law and try to harm gun owners enough that we just give up arguing with them.
It’s sort of a squirrelly deal too… because as they enact more restrictions on firearms, the crime rates rise… they use that as a justification for more restrictions and the rates rise…
Quick point of interest - many vests are incapable of deflecting a knife blade. Higher level vests insert plates to help protect against knives. Knives are very dangerous to officers because they cut the fibers of the Kevlar vest and go right through, whereas the bullet's blunt striking force disperses amongst the fibers.
I just have one more thing to say, before my stomach can no longer handle talking about this.
Here is what the government knew, through various means, at a minimum, about the shooter before all this happened:
a) He was "an imminent danger to himself because of mental illness" (per a Virginia judge in 2005)
b) "Police twice investigated Cho in the fall of 2005 after female students complained about his contacts with them"
c) He had "spoken of suicide after a run-in with police," which a roommate told police.
Dennis stated earlier that "[p]eople have to have undergo a background check and a waiting period just to own a gun." There was no waiting period with either gun that he purchased. And the half-assed, "about a minute" background check that the shooter underwent (presumably twice, since he had two guns) turned up nothing despite the issues listed above. Explain to me why this is enough (and, some would say, too much of a limitation on their "rights")?
John,
I’m curious what you think changing gun laws would have done in this instance. What specifically would you have changed?
a) He was "an imminent danger to himself because of mental illness" (per a Virginia judge in 2005)
My understanding was that they couldn’t get a doctor to sign off on committing him or forcing him into treatment (heard that on the radio this morning - ABC News). Mental health is considered by current gun laws. However, if he’s not being treated and hasn’t been committed because a doctor won’t agree to it – what are you going to do?
Wouldn’t the more sensible thing be to look at our laws regarding mental health and forcibly committing patients? Seems to me that some people are just looking for a reason to blame something other than the individual.
b) "Police twice investigated Cho in the fall of 2005 after female students complained about his contacts with them"
They didn’t press charges and the police had nothing to hold him on. Consequently nothing went against his record. Are you suggesting that we make laws that prevent people from owning firearms simply because someone made accusations? If that were the case I could just call the police about you and have your rights removed.
Try applying that to the first amendment. I say you’re spreading incendiary speech and advocating people blow up buildings. Police investigate but the people making the accusation are unwilling to testify and there is no other evidence of wrong doing. So, they take away your right to speak publicly, write pamphlets, or participate on blogs. ;)
c) He had "spoken of suicide after a run-in with police," which a roommate told police.
That in and of itself is insufficient cause to deny someone their rights. Are you suggesting that someone have their rights revoked simply because of depression? How long would you revoke them? Under what circumstances would you deny him his legal ownership?
There was no waiting period with either gun that he purchased.
Not true. He had to wait 30 days to purchase the second gun. Besides, this guy had planned this for months. Do you seriously think a 7 day, or 30 day, or 90 day waiting period would have made the slightest difference?
The ONLY thing I think might have done some good is that we loosen the laws allowing the courts to commit mentally disturbed people. If they had been able to do that, it would have been on his record and he would have failed the background check.
However, assuming this guy… who planned this all out… had chained the buildings shut and then used a truck full of fertilizer or propane? Instead of 32 murdered, how many would have been killed? You’re still hung up on the weapon and not on the person. As long as you focus on the symptoms and not the disease, you’ll never treat the illness.
Sometimes you have to recognize that this is not the norm. This doesn’t happen every day (thankfully). No gun law in the world is going to stop some kook from killing a lot of people if he decides he’s going to do it.
However, if someone had been armed and able to carry, maybe less people would have died.
Seems to me that some people are just looking for a reason to blame something other than the individual.
I absolutely blame the individual. But I also blame the system which allows someone so disturbed to walk into a store and walk out with a gun a few minutes later. (The "waiting period" you refer to isn't what I meant - that meant in Virginia someone can only purchase one gun per month. They can still walk out with it the same day.)
I would also say that, taken in combination, the things I listed indicated a serious problem. Individually they may not have - which is why some one-minute check is not adequate.
No gun law in the world is going to stop some kook from killing a lot of people if he decides he’s going to do it.
I understand that. But we can at least reduce some of the means that make it so easy.
However, if someone had been armed and able to carry, maybe less people would have died.
Are you really suggesting that college students should be able to have weapons on campus (as I've heard so many others say this week)? Regardless of the other problems that raises, college campuses are notorious for irresponsible behavior and binge drinking. Is that really a good mix?
The "waiting period" you refer to isn't what I meant - that meant in Virginia someone can only purchase one gun per month. They can still walk out with it the same day.)
John, what’s the difference with that and buying the gun and waiting a month? In both cases you have to wait. The time of the monetary transaction is irrelevant. In no case would it have made one iota of difference.
I would also say that, taken in combination, the things I listed indicated a serious problem. Individually they may not have - which is why some one-minute check is not adequate.
How long does it take to run a database query? If none of the offenses were recorded, then no amount of additional time would have made any difference.
SELECT * FROM CrimeDB WHERE GunBuyerSSN = ‘999-99-9999’;
No rows returned.
I suppose we could request the database wait 5 days before outputting no rows returned. Unless you change the laws regarding mental health, it would not have made any difference in regards to the firearms.
Again, you’re focusing on the symptoms, not the disease. If you changed the law to say that the court could have committed him, then the query would have returned a violation preventing the purchase. Heck, he’d probably still be in a psych ward and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But… if you don’t record it, it can’t be flagged.
I understand that. But we can at least reduce some of the means that make it so easy.
Please tell me what it is you would have changed. I’m unclear how you would have flagged a violation that would have prevented a gun purchase. Would depression be enough so that going to a psychologist is enough to take away your rights? Would a simple accusation be enough? Do we leave it up to the gun store? Perhaps we give the ability to deny your rights to an agent on the phone? Maybe the best course of action is record all this information in a central database controlled by the government after assigning us a central ID (wait – you think the ACLU might have problems with that?).
Or does it make more sense to look at the only area that really could have made a difference (in this particular case) and address how we handle mental health?
Are you really suggesting that college students should be able to have weapons on campus (as I've heard so many others say this week)?
If they’re over 21, have completed the requirements and training for the concealed carry permit holder test, and they comply within the requirements of that permit, than yes. Before you answer – do you have any idea what sort of requirements go into being a permit holder? Do you know the consequences for violation? Also, do you believe that the difficulty in obtaining a permit would lead to in an increase in crime/violence or that the simple fact that someone can carry will increase crime/violence?
Robert, I'm going to let you have the last word. We're still going in circles, and we're both getting frustrated.
As a means of wrapping this up, we should remember why we're discussing this in the first place. CNN has put together information about each of the victims. I would encourage everyone to read at least some of them to remember what we've lost.
Post a Comment