The post on the Virginia Tech rampage drew thousands of visitors from Canada and the UK and a few from Australia yesterday, thanks to Google listing my blog among two others for searches on “Virginia Tech.”
Some of those visitors expressed condolences, while others used the tragedy as an opportunity to rant about gun ownership and possession in the U.S. and how banning guns would solve the problem of violent crime. Not only is that untrue, but it sounds downright un-American to me, no offense to the foreigners.
I just don’t understand that kind of thinking. Like locks on doors, gun control works for honest, law-abiding people. Just ask D.C. residents. But the nature of a criminal is to commit crimes, that is, break laws, and laws against possessing and owning guns will prevent honest and law-abiding people from possessing and owning guns, not criminals. The logic is so simple a child can follow it. What’s wrong with so-called adults?
I don’t need fancy studies and statistics to tell me that gun-toting thugs would think twice about mugging or attacking someone if they believe the person might be armed. In a state with concealed carry laws, the chances probably are greater that a random person might be packing.
In her latest column, Michelle Malkin draws a parallel between universities disarming students physically and intellectually. She’s right on the money, especially on the intellectual issue. American universities were once places where students could engage in rigorous debate, no matter how controversial the subject matter. College is supposed to teach people how to construct sound arguments and defend their views.
But these days, if you look at somebody funny, you’re in trouble. Because of the oversensitivity of so-called minorities, spirited debate and discussion are essentially muzzled. That is, unless you’re trashing America, Western Civilization, and the “dead white males” who built it. Pampered saps just can’t dig the irony.
Anyway, Michelle begins:
There’s no polite way or time to say it: American colleges and universities have become coddle industries. Big Nanny administrators oversee speech codes, segregated dorms, politically correct academic departments and designated “safe spaces” to protect students selectively from hurtful (conservative) opinions — while allowing mob rule for approved leftist positions
Instead of teaching students to defend their beliefs, American educators shield them from vigorous intellectual debate. Instead of encouraging autonomy, our higher institutions of learning stoke passivity and conflict-avoidance…And as the erosion of intellectual self-defense goes, so goes the erosion of physical self-defense.
Indeed. I don’t know if our foreign visitors will return, but I’m opening this post to a “debate” on gun control. If you don’t care either way, feel free to discuss “debate control,” the dumbing down of America’s universities so minorities won’t get their feelings hurt. The juxtaposition may seem strange, but I see similarities.
Update: I like this from “mlfoley’s journal” - “I often disagree with her (but read her anyway to get news tidbits, information and a look at “the other side”) but La Shawn Barber hits the nail on the head about the cries for gun control after the Va Tech tragedy.”
Contrary to popular belief, I don’t need to be surrounded by admiring people who agree with me. Civility is my only requirement. I hear from people who disagree with most of my work, yet, they’re compelled to read for various reasons. If you want to express disagreement in the comment section with something I wrote, pretend you’re speaking to me face-to-face in my living room.
Resources:
- Google News on VA Tech and gun control
- The Failure of British Gun Control (PDF), by Clayton Cramer
- GunCite - links pro and con
- Gun Control Debate - Yahoo! Full Coverage
- People don’t stop killers. People with guns do
Currently I am not a gun owner, but I support every law abiding citizen’s right to own one. I will be a gun owner in the very near future though. I think it is laughable for “visitors” to this country to question the way our society is setup. If you don’t like it, feel free to return to your country of origin.
Comment by Jfuller — 04.18.07 @ 8:21 am
LaShawn, I thought Big Lizard had an eloquent post on the contrast between the 75 year old professor who spent the remainder of his feeble body heroically thus saving some students and hypothetical people who could have rushed the shooter but did not: Link
I will instruct my 18 year old son tonight that it would have been his duty to rush a shooter.
Comment by levi from queens — 04.18.07 @ 8:22 am
As a gun owner I just do not think the best place to have weapons is a college campus. Students are on average the age 18-24 in a high pressure environment. Some students use alcohol and drugs to relived the stress, not the best place for a large number of fire arms. The College I attended had an on campus armory, no guns were allowed in the dorms or classroom buildings. Can colleges do things like install heavy metal doors on each classroom and require that they be locked during class, or even have automatic locking devices in case of an emergency. If trained police have a hard time identifying plain clothes officers in a high stress situation what would happen to a minimally trained gun owners all have their guns pulled trying to stop the shooter? Giving everyone a option to carry a gun is a simple solution, to bad we live in a complex world.
Comment by Uncle Ruckus — 04.18.07 @ 8:43 am
I do not own a gun, but I joined the NRA out of principle. Don’t you think it’s strange that people don’t want 18 year old college students to own a gun, but these same 18 year olds can fight and die in Irag, Afghanistan, and the Balkans?
Finally, I find it interesting that the usual suspects, such as Rosie O’Donnell, don’t want “us” to protect ourselves with guns, yet they have no qualms about hiring bodyguards who pack heat. Of course, these are the same folks who want us to ride a bike instead of driving an SUV, while they tool around in their Gulfstream jet. You see, it’s because they’re “better” than we are.
If all celebrities and politicians give up their own guns, and disarm their bodyguards, then I’ll take them a bit more seriously. Or maybe they can buy “gun-offset credits,” to soothe their collective consciences.
Comment by Kim — 04.18.07 @ 9:04 am
I think the time has come where America is becoming recognized as an unsafe place to live, work, and study. This latest massacre is a timely opportunity to teach responsibility, gun ownership, awareness, strength of character, civic duty and weapon skills to the uninitiated.
It should be every parent’s responsibility to buy themselves a gun, and their children guns. Then train themselves and their children in armed combat/self-defence.
I know the ‘Swiss model’ is unpopular here after the last ‘gun’ discussion. I suppose the decision rests with parents. Maybe faculty staff (at all levels) should be trained in weaponry and carry at all times? This would minimize the chances of any aspiring gun rampage becoming ‘lengthy’.
Just a thought.
My thoughts and sorrow are with all the friends and family of those killed in Virginia Tech.
My wrath is with all those who profit from the event.
Regards,
John
Comment by JohnD — 04.18.07 @ 9:08 am
The Appalachian students managed to subdue a shooter just fine with their own guns. The Pearl, Mississippi teacher managed to stop the school shooter by grabbing his own gun. I don’t know what’s so hard or complicated to understand about that.
I think some people just have a cartoonish idea that shooters are so superhuman that they won’t be deterred by someone shooting at them, as if the bad guys are all Superman and will have the bullets bounce off of them or something.
In my youth, we knew how to use guns before we were teenagers. No one died, because we weren’t taught to be stupid, and the adults in our lives did not expect us to be. They expected us to have sense enough not to play with guns or fire them in anger or even threaten to. I’d say that since kids younger than 13 have the sense and maturity to handle guns respsonsibly, then anyone in college should, too. If they can’t they should stay home, as other things in college will freak them out too much for the poor babies to handle it.
The Simpsons had an episode where Homer and Marge were “possessed” by guns and wanted to shoot everything. It seems to me that some people really think that’s exactly what happens, and so they want to restrict people from having guns. It’s ridiculous.
Comment by Tyrian Purple — 04.18.07 @ 9:17 am
I’m getting tired of the whole “law-abiding citizens vs. criminals” idea. Way too black and white. Most of these shooters were law-abiding citizens prior to their shoot-em-up. How many women are dead because their law-abiding husbands went a litte nuts? Guns just make it too easy, imo.
Comment by CJ — 04.18.07 @ 9:31 am
CJ, their husbands have other problems. No one just “snaps,” they have warning signs. The type of guy who kills his wife is typically abusive, BTW. We should ban men from having fists so they don’t just go nuts and beat their wives to death before we ban guns.
Comment by Tyrian Purple — 04.18.07 @ 9:45 am
I think the people talking about “we shouldn’t arm all these young and foolish college students” are setting up a straw man argument - no one is suggesting such a thing (except the sarcastic ones who feel colleges should issue M-16’s to all incoming freshman).
The suggestion is that students and teachers who ALREADY HAVE concealed carry permits be allowed to carry on campus. This is the sub-group that is over 21 and has taken the time, trouble, and expense to obtain both a weapon and a permit - and in most cases, training and practice to go with it.
These are, on the whole, the kind of people you would WANT to be armed when something like this happens - and in places that are NOT ‘gun-free’ zones, they provide far more security and risk.
So, these folks can just spare me the visions of routine raging shoot-outs in the Chem 201 lab, O.K.?
Comment by Parker — 04.18.07 @ 9:59 am
La Shawn,
I am so glad you wrote on this subject. I saw an informal poll on an ABC site yesterday that highlights the response to those who are screaming more gun control as a result of this VT incident. As of this morning more than 88,000 have responded to the poll with more than 70% saying NO when asked, “Do you think this incident is a reason to pass stricter gun control legislation?” Link to Poll
Many gun control activist might ask, “What if this guy never had access to a gun?” That is a fantasy question in my opinion. The better question was asked by Michelle Malkin, “What if just one student in one of those classrooms had been in lawful possession of a concealed weapon for the purpose of self-defense?” How many lives would have been saved?
CJ, You said that “Most of these shooters were law-abiding citizens prior to their shoot-em-up.” I think “Most” is a strong word in that sentence, but many shooters certainly can go into a shoot-em-up rage with the confidence that the law is currently on their side in regards to making sure that no one else will be armed.
Comment by Hank Osborne — 04.18.07 @ 9:59 am
Just to expand on the warning signs bit–Cho, the killer, had plenty. His own professor wanted him in counseling. Cho stalked women, which I thought was against the law. Always before these events you get warning signs, which are tragically ignored. Maybe what we should do is educate people enough to act when they spot these signs, not insist on a fairy tale that being helpless will help when they decide to kill.
Comment by Tyrian Purple — 04.18.07 @ 10:00 am
I own a 9mm and have a CCW (carry concealed weapon) permit. To qualify for the permit, I attended training which included when use of the weapon is legal and much more, as well as actual firing of the weapon at a firing range. I work at a university, where there is a sign on every door to every building that guns are not allowed on campus. Like Virginia Tech (and probably most, if not all, universities) we are a well-documented safe place for a criminal with a gun.
Each comment I have read this week only mention students when addressing the idea of legal guns on campus. Why not allow those people (probably mostly staff) with a CCW permit carry, if they wish? There is a lot of responsibility attached to that permit. Since it is concealed, no one would ever see the gun, unless it was being used to save a life. Perhaps have those who want to participate register with campus police?
I had a brief conversation with another staff member yesterday. When I mentioned the signs on the doors, etc., she said she didn’t want guns on campus and something about accidents. I guess 30 dead is better than someone shooting themselves in the foot. I understand some are afraid of guns, or don’t like guns. Okay. Just be honest about your personal aversion. Lack of guns in the hands of law-abiding, trained people do not make you safer when a killer is loose.
Comment by Gloria — 04.18.07 @ 10:06 am
I have a friend in the U.K. who has a decidely anti-gun view, and, at least for now, the statistics in the U.K. back her up. Their gun crime per capita is miniscule when compared to ours. But I say that only as a way for us Americans to at least understand where they might be coming from in their inability to understand why gun ownership is so important to us.
The major difference, I believe, is that while European nations, particularly the U.K. are almost homogenous in their culture, America’s multiculturalism can make for a situation ripe with conflict and misunderstanding. Further, the U.K. is fairly isolated and can really only be influenced by essentially like-minded nations in the rest of Europe. America, on the other hand, with 5 times the population of the U.K., lots of money and lax border control is the perfect target for drug trafficking and other criminal activities migrating north from South and Central America. The U.K. is a difficult place to smuggle guns, whbile the U.S. is not. So right there you have a major difference in situations that makes it completely unfeasable to disarm the vast majority of the public and leave them to the mercy of heavily armed criminals.
Comment by Gabe — 04.18.07 @ 10:18 am
First, my prayers go out to the victim’s families as we all should pray for a better America.
The crazy liberals are at it again. Using a tragedy to promote a political agenda. I say play their game! The more the lib’s push to restrict our freedom, the more sane minded people should push to expand our “constitutional rights” to bear arms. (ie. law-abiding citizens can carry “where-ever” you go- school, grocery shopping, the ballpark, recreational park, church ect..)
I not only consider myself as a law-abiding citizen, I am a law-abiding citizen. In the face of unjust law it is not only the right but the duty of good men to resist such law. Therefore I carry my gun where-ever I go! Be that as it may, if just one of those student who were caught cornered and defenseless, had a gun to protect himself, many lives could have been saved.
As a law-abiding citizen, I’d rather the authorities catch me with my piece, than a crook to catch me without it!
Comment by Neolibertarian — 04.18.07 @ 10:18 am
La Shawn, you nailed it. I have a survey on “packing” over at my site.
Comment by Pauli — 04.18.07 @ 10:18 am
I guess you can say that I am one of those “foreign visitors” that just doesn’t get it. I think that there are some valid points being made for carrying a gun, but then it comes down to quality of life.
I can’t imagine the quality of life when one has to conceal a weapon to go to class. But maybe this is what it has come down to in America. Maybe it’s more about the American culture than about gun control.
Comment by Paige — 04.18.07 @ 10:25 am
Another point to consider for those who quell at the thought of an armed populace: a friend of mine is a former Army Ranger. He notes that, in the Army when people are just living on base and going to work, there is a culture of restraint. That is so because EVERYONE is armed and that is a huge deterrent to anyone who is thinking about running amok. It seems to me that the gun laws are obeyed by law abiding citizens and not crazy people. Wouldn’t it be better if the ‘good guys’ so to speak were armed as well? The police cannot be everywhere.
Comment by Kim — 04.18.07 @ 10:41 am
I don’t believe any gun control law short of an out right ban would have stopped this tragedy. One of the weapons was leagally purchased from a gun shop about 40 miles from the campus. And the perpetrator was a adult with no prior offenses as far as I know. But since we are talking about Gun Control in general …
The mantra of gun rights advocates have always been that criminals “will always be able to get guns.†LaShawn stated as much in her post when she said:
…gun control works for honest, law-abiding people.
My question is this: Where do criminals get their guns come from? They are not smuggled in like weed or heroine. They are not made by back alley gun smiths. No they are brand name items “Smith & Wessonâ€, Colt, and Glock.
So these weapons MUST originate from the legal primary market and somehow find their way into a secondary black market. If my assumptions are correct wouldn’t it be safe to say that curbing the number of weapons in to the primary market will have the effect of reducing the number of weapons flowing to criminals? Are my assumptions correct, or am I off my rocker? If off my rocker please tell me why.
Comment by BH — 04.18.07 @ 10:48 am
With regard to “debate control”, I don’t see it this way. I see it as Americans paying careful attention to what they are saying and taking responsibility for that as well.
Diversity is what makes America great, and I don’t understand why Americans don’t appreciate this fact. In France, we like to believe that we are a color-blind society, but we’re not. France would love to have the type of diversity represented in your political and social ranks.
We don’t have a Condi nor an Obama. We love the direction Americans are going when comes to diversity. And if it means putting in measures to insure the continued progress—then so be it.
I am curious as to what period (dates) most Americans felt the country was at it’s best?
Comment by Paige — 04.18.07 @ 10:49 am
Whenever I read about all the new visitors to your blog, I think about some of us who’ve been around for a while, before you were a “superstar”
Comment by mj — 04.18.07 @ 11:03 am
Paige & Gabe,
See my comment which address the quality of life versus gun & other violent deaths @#169 here
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2007/04/17/virginia-tech-rampage/#comment-88946
When it’s all said and done, Europe is not so pretty compared to us in overall death rates.
If someone has links to real global stats, year by year, that compare gun vs other means of violent deaths, I’d like to see it. The more detailed/exhaustive the better.
However, I fear such stats aren’t likely to be found, since governments have varying classifications.
As noted before, Europe has issues with classifying and diligently pursuing honor killings by Islamic residents. Italy, Germany, France and England come to mind.
If the governments refuse to classify the deaths as murder, then there is no need to prosecute for murder, hence the problem goes away & the Islamic community won’t go into a rage — so goes their pretzel logic.
Comment by Andy — 04.18.07 @ 11:09 am
Kim,
I would hate to think that having an armed populace is the only deterrent to people “running amok”. If this is the road we’re going to travel down, I don’t know if this will be the same country. I really don’t know how I feel about this. I also don’t know the stats on legal guns in regards to accidents, crimes of passion, etc.
Any info on this?
Comment by Angel — 04.18.07 @ 11:13 am
mj, you said it!!!
I’m still waiting for MSNBC to wake up and give her a gig. I hear they have a few open hours in the weekday mornings. Replacing a white liberal racist with a black conservative anti-AA — won’t the Justice Brothers just be tickled to death!?!
Comment by Andy — 04.18.07 @ 11:17 am
#18 “If my assumptions are correct wouldn’t it be safe to say that curbing the number of weapons in to the primary market will have the effect of reducing the number of weapons flowing to criminals?”
With respect, that hardly makes sense.
Reducing weapons in the ‘primary’ market, as you call it, reduces the number of legal weapons to law-abiding citizens. i.e. reduces the capacity for self-defence. Are you going to decide who is ‘worthy’ of access to guns?
And - ‘reduction’?
Who do you propose would decide who can and can’t have access to a gun for self-defence? BH, please, your considered answer to that?
‘Reducing’ the number of guns on the ‘primary’ market’ will not affect hard-nosed criminals.
They will get theirs anyhow. See illegal drugs for comparison.
Regards
JohnD
Comment by JohnD — 04.18.07 @ 11:22 am
#21 “Europe has issues with classifying and diligently pursuing honor killings by Islamic residents. Italy, Germany, France and England come to mind.”
Andy, do you have links/references for that fact please, it interests me greatly, being from the UK.
Regards,
John
Comment by JohnD — 04.18.07 @ 11:27 am
Paige-
We Americans certainly have our problems and our culture is in decline, but it seems that France has it’s own set of problems with your muslims in particular.
Also, it should be noted that this guy wasn’t a U.S. citizen.
Anybody see the convocation yesterday? Buddha, Allah, Dalai Lama all given mention by their respective adherents. But alas, the true King of Kings not mentioned once. When a culture is emabarrassed by the One who made it great, the end cannot be far away.
Comment by Ross — 04.18.07 @ 11:28 am
Paige, controlling thoughts might seem sensible to you, but please don’t forget your LePen. Our own LePen failed to get even 1 percent of the vote because people have an outlet for their views. I fail to see how suppressing speech you disagree with does anything to prevent people from thinking what they will and acting on it, it just means that extremists will get more attention than they ought to. Even as a protest vote that was just ridiculous.
There is a vast, deep chasm between taking responsibility for what you say and suppressing speech you disagree with. Suppressing speech you disagree with is unAmerican. You argue and debate ideas, good or bad, and may the best argument win. This may just have to be one more thing you don’t understand while you take care not to dress a certain way while strolling through a banlieue (I’ve always wondered how the equation would change if the girls wearing the headscarves to avoid gang rape could get their hands on a gun. Has no one there ever tried this? Why not?)
The best times in America depend on what you’re talking about. I like this time well enough, but then, I live in it. I don’t like that people have become so passive that they just sit there and let someone kill them, and I despise the forces that made that mentality a virtue in the minds of so many.
Comment by Tyrian Purple — 04.18.07 @ 11:30 am
Batyah,
In response to your previous comments from the last post, i would like to say that the person above (BH) has got it in one. As i said in one of my first messages, a solution would be to stop manufacturing these weapons and the ammunition that goes with them, and you will see a reduction in gun crime. It only takes a bit of common sense. It may be a gradual decrease, but it will happen. And yes there will be a “black market” but with supplies to criminals lessoning and tighter control of the borders, it’ll be far easier to control. It’ll take years, but it could be done.
Amanda, Cambs, UK
Comment by Amanda — 04.18.07 @ 11:36 am
John, is the UK that much of an island?
The Kurdish women’s rights site keeps track of honor killings. Right there on their news page the first story they cite is about a girl named Banaz whose father and uncle are on trial for her “honor” killing, is right at the top. The site claims the London police did a lousy job of helping her when she asked for it. I don’t know myself. See here
http://www.kwrw.org/
They link to a petition called Justice for Banaz,
http://www.petitiononline.com/banaz/petition.html
In Germany, Spiegel has this article:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,344374,00.html
In America it was news when a German court said that a woman can be beaten by her husband (they were Muslims) because the Koran allowed it.
http://www.stophonourkillings.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1435
If you read the link it says this is not the first time a German court has decided that way.
Another German paper also reported on killings in Sweden, Britain, and Germany.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1244406,00.html
None of this made the news in Britain?
Comment by Tyrian Purple — 04.18.07 @ 11:52 am
I wonder what might have been different if the college authorities who had recommended that he get counseling had been able to discuss those needs with Cho’s parents. The college didn’t enforce the observed need, and didn’t follow up on it. I’m not suggesting that they should have, but certainly it’s now evident that _someone_ should have. If the college is “in locis parentis”, then maybe it should have. If the student is an adult, then as a civil body, maybe the college should have authority to _require_ counseling if enrollment is to continue.
On the other hand, if parents are paying the bills, maybe they’re entitled to know that the most important young person in their lives needs help.
Comment by suek — 04.18.07 @ 11:57 am
Ross, I saw the convocation, and I certainly saw the diversity of names that was used, especially in the young girls’ speech. I listened to hear GOD quoted, but it never came. We have trod down the wrong path a long time, and He is going to let us continue, to our detriment.
And, you made a great point. This guy was not a citizen of the US, although he had been here since 1992. But, I believe moreso his problems stemmed from a mental health problem - they are saying as much on TV now. I don’t know what a school’s responsibility would be, once they determined they have a student such as him with a problem. Evidentially, (I haven’t heard) he must not have been on his medication, since they seem to think this was pre-meditated. He bought one gun a month or so ago, and he left notes. I wonder if his parents had any knowledge of his actions, or were they in denial of his problems.
Comment by Barb — 04.18.07 @ 11:57 am
IMHO, keeping guns completely out of bad guys hands is not just impractical, it’s impossible. Had Cho been legally barred from owning a gun (i.e. convicted for stalking), he could have obtained one from the black market.
Even if one could destroy the 150-200 million guns in the US, black-market gunmakers in Pakistan and the Philippines could have demand for new guns met entirely within a couple of years.
The problem isn’t the legal gun supply.
Comment by Kentucky Packrat — 04.18.07 @ 12:03 pm
The only people on a military base in non war zones that have weapons are the Military Police. In the Military you are taught endlessly about your weapon. Which I think Tyrian Purple pointed out he was raised around guns, having a weapon and respecting it takes years of training to really respect and understand the power one has with a weapon.
There is a major difference between a criminal and a person with a mental illness. This kid showed warning signs he was troubled but the dots were never connected. That is the first step in security identifying people who need help and getting them help. To often we treat cries for help as just quirky behavior.
Having a weapon is such a small part of security to turn this into a debate about gun control is petty and does not serve the victims of this tragedy any justice the their memory.
If I were a security consultant and advising a College. I would first recommend massive improvements in the communication system, email does not cut it.
Install bullet resistant self locking doors on all classrooms.
Install video surveillance systems to reduce campus blind spots to keep officials better informed.
Beef up the metal health services on campus and training for campus staff. We all know the high rate of depression and anxiety on college campuses.
Then I would visit who in addition to campus security should carry weapons.
There is no magic formula to solve the problem.
Comment by Uncle Ruckus — 04.18.07 @ 12:04 pm
OT******* “John, is the UK that much of an island?”
No, I know about ‘honour killings’, and I care very much about the danger of not prosecuting them as murder, hence the links request. Thanks.
**********
Back on topic, Amanda, the UK is very different than the US although the ‘gangsta’ part of American culture is gaining a larger foothold in inner-city areas, it’s still, on the whole, hardly comparable with, say, Baltimore.
Comment by JohnD — 04.18.07 @ 12:22 pm
#13 Gabe wrote, “America’s multiculturalism can make for a situation ripe with conflict and misunderstanding.”
Gabe, that’s being absurdly diplomatic, don’t you think? People don’t just shoot each other impulsively because they misunderstand each other’s cultural mores. (”What the hell is that on your plate? Tortilla my a**! We eat bread in this country!” BANG!) The bad people, from all races and walks of society, use guns to intimidate and kill because it gives them power over others. It has nothing to do with cultural misunderstandings.
Amanda and BH, stopping the manufacture of guns would do nothing to stem gun violence, unless you are willing to wait about 200 years for the current gun supply to rust out and become unusable. A lot of law abiding citizens would be dead by then. A gun shortage created by halting manufacture would only make guns more precious and hardened criminals more determined to obtain them.
I agree that crime is out of control, though frankly, I don’t think you Brits and Europeans have anything to brag about. At least my husband can wear his kippah (skullcap) in America anywhere without fear; we have been told by our British and French Jewish friends to NEVER WEAR ONE under any circumstances, anywhere in Britain or France, any time of day or night. Pretty disgusting if you ask me. So pardon me for not considering your national example worthy of following. I don’t think you quite have a handle on tolerance or crime control.
Arthur Mann, the murderer who shot his girlfriend to death in the CNN complex, was a hardened criminal, already a murderer, who had served only four years of a 10 year sentence!! THERE is a large part of the problem. The heinous fiends who kidnapped, raped, tortured, mutiliated over a two day period, and then murdered Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome used a gun to get the victims out of their car, but employed all manner of weaponry in their torture and butchery. I think they would have found a way to torture and mutilate and murder even without a gun. I urge everyone to google the names of the victims and learn about this horrible crime and ask yourself why you haven’t heard about it. (If you are dealing with a depressive or anxiety disorder, I caution you not to do so, however. It took me two days to recover my daily functioning ability after reading this story.) Why does the media refuse to report on it? Ask yourself if the races were reversed, if you’d be hearing about it 24/7. We heard ad nauseum about 3 white boys, a black stripper prostitute, and a rape that never happened; but we have yet to hear about Channon and Christopher. The fiends who murdered these two had served prison terms and were let out of prison early. Why?
THE PROBLEM IS PEOPLE, NOT GUNS. By people, I mean not only those who commit crimes, but also those who perpetuate a crime pattern (bad parents, bad role models, violent media), and those who are lenient on crime (our entire judicial system). Perhaps the critical difference in mentality between Americans and Brits/Europeans/Aussies on this gun issue is that at heart, we believe that people, not inanimate objects, are responsible for crime. By gun control advocates’ logic, considering the number of homes that own firearms in America (about 50% of the population), we should all be murdering each other nonstop! In fact, we should all be dead by now, but we’re not. Why? Because the majority of people who have guns are responsible gun owners. I would be very interested if the statistics buffs among us would pull up the stats on what percentage of the gun owning population commits crimes involving guns. I’ll bet it’s pretty small.
I mentioned before and I’ll throw it out there again: you have a serious issue in Scandinavia, Britain and Europe with Muslim crime. The victims may be non-Muslims or Muslim women as is the case in honor killings, which are on the rise. Knives, gasoline & matches, and bludgeons are killing a lot of people in your neck of the woods. Better restrict those items quick!!
Comment by batyah — 04.18.07 @ 12:34 pm
Tyrian,
You are not quite accurate when it comes to Le Pen. In fact, if you look at his political platform, his shares the same views as the people in your republican party. For example, opposition toward immigration, homosexual marriages and abortion. And he often speaks of the return to the “old” France and the spirit of patriotism. Ideas clearly associated with republican party, not the democratic party.
The best way to sum up French politics as compared to American politics is that our “right” is your democratic party, and our “left” you guys would consider socialism. So if you want to speak about Le Pen, you are actually talking about a man that would fit well in the american republican party.
And I never painted France as some kind of Utopia, but the fact remains that no other European country, despite its problems and strict gun laws, has the type of mass killings and crime that America has.
But I’m not here to say one country is better than the other. In fact, in my second post, I praised America and its diversity.
Comment by Paige — 04.18.07 @ 12:35 pm
The juxtaposition may seem strange
Yes.
Comment by Shade — 04.18.07 @ 12:35 pm
One small caliber handgun under lock in a classroom available to a prof. could have saved numerous lives. Just last year, a bill that would have allowed students and employees to carry a concealed weapon on campus was rejected by the states General Assembly.
At the time, Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker said he was happy to hear of the bill’s defeat, according to the Roanoke Times.
“I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus,” the Virginia Tech spokesman said.
Another thing, and I think this is alluded to in an above post, why didn’t one male in all this time try to be a hero and take this guy out from behind. There had to be a time when his back was turned and vulnerable. Risky? Yes, but that’s what makes an act heroic.
I’m not saying that I would have acted this way myself as none of us no what we would do in a situation until we face it ourselves. In fact, I could see myself playing dead or jumping out the window. But, I can’t help to think that in a different time there would have been at least a few who would have coragously risked all to take him out.
Comment by Ross — 04.18.07 @ 12:43 pm
Paige, but we don’t have “youths” (that’s French for “Muslim,” for those who don’t know) setting 100 cars a night on fire in multiple cities all at once, nor do our police hide in their stations, refusing to enter the riot areas to deal with the problem! We also don’t have a spate of honor killings among our Muslims, at least, not yet. And Jews don’t get beat up nearly as often here as they do in France.
By the way, isn’t LePen a rabid antisemite?
What else have you got?
Comment by batyah — 04.18.07 @ 12:45 pm
Oh, and our non-Muslim women aren’t voluntarily donning the veil in order to avoid rape by the Muslim “youths.”
Comment by batyah — 04.18.07 @ 12:46 pm
John D,
Reducing weapons in the ‘primary’ market, as you call it, reduces the number of legal weapons to law-abiding citizens. i.e. reduces the capacity for self-defence.
It also reduces the supply of guns to the illegal gun market. While I don’t have stats for it, it is pretty well known that most weapons that end up in the hands of criminals, got there through straw purchases. By simply putting a limit on how many guns a person can buy at one time, in a given period. I have to produce my vehicles for inspection every 2 years where I live. How about every 5 for guns.
Are you going to decide who is ‘worthy’ of access to guns?
And - ‘reduction’?
The law has already decided that. I can’t think of a single state that lets a felon poses a gun.
‘Reducing’ the number of guns on the ‘primary’ market’ will not affect hard-nosed criminals.
They will get theirs anyhow. See illegal drugs for comparison.
Sure it does but limiting the avenues that he can obtain a gun.
Comment by BH — 04.18.07 @ 1:10 pm
Paige, I hope this isn’t a case where “all on the right look alike.†When I said our closest analogue to Le Pen got less than 1 percent of the vote here, I was being literal—which should tell you something.
Your LePen says France is for the French only, but our Republicans don’t object to foreigners in general. The right in America is concerned with immigrants coming legally, but they don’t mind legal ones at all—that’s why America has so many. In fact, the American right typically objects to foreigners being hyphenated Americans “Just be American, not Something-American.†I think it’s because we don’t tie nationality to ethnicity. Another blogger once pointed out that Superman is uniquely American in that an alien from another world is regarded as an American hero by the audience. I don’t know of any right-leaning people who want no foreigners at all, everyone just wants them to assimilate.
Your LePen may be dismissive of the Holocaust, calling it a “detail of history,†but a presidential candidate who did that here wouldn’t stand a chance, certainly not in the Republican party, since we’re comparing them.
LePen wants only French people to get jobs; the American right wants immigrants to get jobs PDQ (pretty darn quick). Not the same at all.
No, when I said suppressing speech leads to extremism, it’s because when you’ve decided that only “bad†people would say things you disagree with, then the extremist get more attention than they ought to. When instead you debate ideas you think are “bad†rather than demonizing the one who holds them, you can get a rational response. In America it’s acceptable for Muslim women to wear headscarves. We don’t need to ban them here, and part the reason we don’t is because it’s acceptable to criticize someone who wants to wear a veil for a driver’s license photo, rather than saying that those who object are evil fascist racists who should never be allowed to speak their opinions. You get it? That ability makes it harder for extremists to get a foothold, and the loss of that ability in colleges and the like is not something to be welcomed or applauded.
Don’t have hard feelings, Paige. I will be late in responding if you write back, because I’m at work and I am not allowed to have fun right this minute.
Comment by Tyrian Purple — 04.18.07 @ 1:40 pm
While I do not in any way believe the Second Amendment limits the right to carry arms only to them, perhaps it is time to revisit the concept of the “well-regulated militia.” If you haven’t figured it out, when the bad guys or bad times come, nobody is going to take care of you (think FEMA, border security, 9/11, or what’s going to happen with Social Security and with the Islamic sleeper cells). Too many government people are only interested in protecting their jobs, not us. We need to protect ourselves. Why just do it solo with concealed carry permits? Isn’t it time for grassroots organization for protection under, say, the local sheriff’s department? A few years ago when a crazy man threated the lives of me and my family and burned down my son’s home, the sheriff’s deputies — bless them — said “When he comes around again, you know what to do.”
Comment by Mike — 04.18.07 @ 1:48 pm
A quotation which should be of interest to, but probably will be ignored by, those foreign gun control proponents:
“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
–James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
Comment by RedBeard — 04.18.07 @ 1:53 pm
For those who might be interested…
http://www.gunowners.com/
Comment by suek — 04.18.07 @ 2:06 pm
Where is the apology and offer to resign from Virginia Tech associate vice president Larry Hincker who was instrumental in blocking concealed carry by those on campus? His unbelievable arrogance about this issue shows his limited ability to think in any manner. All those tragic deaths are to be laid at his feet.
Comment by Kitty Crane — 04.18.07 @ 2:16 pm
I am a gun owner.
Yesterday I joined the NRA!
Comment by Rick — 04.18.07 @ 2:17 pm
#43 Isn’t it time for grassroots organization for protection under, say, the local sheriff’s department?
That’s called a Pose. Some states still have those.
Comment by BH — 04.18.07 @ 2:46 pm
Despite the co-opting and twisting of the term by some lunatic groups, the concept of the posse comitatus is still very much alive, and should be utilized more often. It’s based upon the idea that the county sheriff is the primary law enforcement officer, more important than any federal officer, and can deputize citizens to fulfill needs for additional manpower as needed.
Comment by RedBeard — 04.18.07 @ 3:04 pm
Attorney General Roy Cooper continues to take action to protect the citizens of North Carolina:
Cooper Announces Task Force on Campus Safety
Raleigh — Two days after a gunman shot 32 people before killing himself at Virginia Tech, North Carolina’s attorney general announced a task force to study next steps in campus safety.
The task force will address three issues, Roy Cooper said: Guidelines for campus lockdowns, guidelines for identifying potential shooters and guidelines on better communication with students during an emergency situation.
Cooper said that safety measures that are in place or that will be in place in all University of North Carolina system campuses include a card-access system into all dormitories, alarms for open doors, surveillance cameras and monitors and a hard look at e-mail, phone and sound systems to communicate with students.
Source: http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1279035/
Comment by Tate — 04.18.07 @ 3:16 pm
Criminals can steal guns. My sister’s boyfriend has a CHL here in Texas. My sister doesn’t like him to bring guns into the house, so he leaves them in his locked truck. His truck was broken into one night, sitting in front of our house. The handgun and ammo were taken. He then borrowed another weapon from a friend. Again, the same thing happened. How someone knew he kept a handgun in his truck, I don’t know. The boyfriend’s truck is white. My father, since the guns were stolen, bought a white truck. His truck was also broken into (but there was no gun to steal). The boyfriend notified authorities of the robbery and the serial numbers from both. Right now, I don’t think he has a gun, but he will be purchasing another. If my sister wasn’t so paranoid about guns, these two never would have been stolen…
Comment by Miss Ladybug — 04.18.07 @ 4:08 pm
#30,
VT would have to be careful how they handled Cho as far as counseling. The ACLU and the Liberal press would jump all over that one. In today’s america, non citizens have just as many rights as full citizens.
Comment by dexybet — 04.18.07 @ 4:19 pm
Beef up the metal health services on campus and training for campus staff. We all know the high rate of depression and anxiety on college campuses.
========================
Totally agree that society, schools, etc failed completely in helping Cho, and he really was in trouble.
and this is another excellent point:
==================================
Takes more than “pull the student aside and talk about stuff”. This requires training. When mentally ill students are pulled to the side they feel singled out and they feel they are being picked on. I don’t know the answer, but that’s why there are professionals.
==================================
I felt so nauseated at some of the verbiage and vicious sensationalist language that (ahem) “serious” major papers around the world used, that I had to stop reading the news.
Sex sells, and monsters sell just as well. So, if this young man happens to be a human being, just throw that fact out the window and bring in the monster language.
Society prefers now to embark on a fireworks-exploding hate-Cho-fest, instead of looking at all the help and diagnosis failures along this young man’s path.
In exactly the same way that society continues to do the same thing to millions of other troubled kids who are out there now, suffering the same indifference, cruelty, and irresponsibility that is the hallmark of any negligent, sick, violent society.
Until these kids pick a gun, and go on a rampage, that is, because apparently this is the only way anyone then bothers to realize they exist. Even if they continue to be denied their humanity thereafter.
How many massacres do we need until people realize that Cho-hate-fests and pro-active prevention/aide measures are at the opposite extremes of the spectrum?
alessandrab
http://alessandrab.blogspot.com
Comment by alessandra — 04.18.07 @ 4:39 pm
I haven’t heard anyone speak of the affect Cho’s actions has had on his own family. How can his family face the families he has murdered? I feel sorry for his family as well as the families of the people he hurt.
Comment by dexybet — 04.18.07 @ 5:05 pm
#28
We can’t even keep illegal drugs and illegal aliens from coming over our borders, and you think we should now add illegal guns to the list of things we can’t control?? I don’t think so.
Comment by Miss Ladybug — 04.18.07 @ 5:28 pm
Boys, Guns, and the Stress of School…
What we discovered was… my parents were right. DS#1 made “guns” using his thumb and first finger. Or with Legos. Or by eating a right-angle into a piece of toast. By the time he was old enough for Cub Scout Day Camp, he had a set of cap guns. At Da…
Trackback by The Mad Tea Party — 04.18.07 @ 5:39 pm
So, they wanna ban and confinscate guns.
Uh huh.
Worked quite well in Rwanda, eh? Oh, wait. Those weren’t really massacres….after all, they only used machetes, not guns, right?
Let’s make this clear. VT campus was already under a gun-ban. See how well that worked?
Evil people have always preyed upon the weak and defenseless, guns or no.
Making it easier for them is not the right thing to do.
Jim
Sloop New Dawn
Galveston, TX
Comment by Jim — 04.18.07 @ 6:19 pm
Copied from the other post:
What good is a gun to protect you, when your neighbor has the exact same means of protection. You can’t fight fire with fire. I think it’s time to wake up our nation and re-evaluate what will make a better world. It might just be me, but I do not believe a better world includes civilians walking around with guns…
Comment by Mimi — 04.17.07 @ 5:38 pm
Okay, let’s say I have a gun and my neighbor has a gun. Let’s also say we are both law-abiding citizens. Absolutely no harm will come from both of us owning a firearm.
Now, let’s say I have a gun and my neighbor has a gun, but my neighbor is also a criminal. If my criminal neighbor who has a gun knows or suspects I also have a gun, how likely is he to come over and start trouble? Not very likely.
Now, let’s say my criminal neighbor has a gun, but he knows I do not own a gun, and my criminal neighbor covets what I have and decides to come over and take it by force. Someone is going to end up hurt, and it will most likely be me because I have no means to effectively defend myself.
Then-Governor Bush signed Texas’ Concealed Carry Law on May 26, 1995. A report by the National Center for Policy Analysis five years later shows that those licensed to carry a concealed weapon are significantly “less likely to a commit serious crime than the average citizen:
Texans who exercise their right to carry firearms are 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for a violent offense.
They are 14 times less likely to be arrested for a non-violent offense.
They are 1.4 times less likely to be arrested for murder.
Also:
The right to carry may also be affecting Texas’ crime rate in a positive way. Texas had a serious crime rate in the early 1990s that was 38 percent higher than the national average.
Since then, serious crime in Texas has dropped 50 percent faster than for the nation as a whole.
Murder rates have dropped 52 percent, compared to 33 percent nationally.
Rapes have fallen by 22 percent compared to 16 percent nationally.
More data here: Texas Concealed Handgun Association
I haven’t been able to locate current data for Texas, but responsible citizens who are licensed to carry a concealed weapon DO NOT contribute to increased crime.
I did find this, though, about the DC gun ban law being found unconstitutional. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) was quoted as saying “The District of Columbia enacted the Firearms and Control Regulations Act in 1976 that banned handguns and required rifles and shotguns to be registered and stored unloaded and either locked or dissembled, giving it the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Prior to the gun ban’s implementation, the murder rate in the District was on the decline. Following the ban, the murder rate began to rise while violent crime was decreasing nationally. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports for 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available, the District of Columbia led the nation in violent crime.â€
So, don’t tell me the solution to gun violence is banning guns.
Comment by Miss Ladybug — 04.18.07 @ 6:32 pm
We can’t even keep illegal drugs and illegal aliens from coming over our borders, and you think we should now add illegal guns to the list of things we can’t control?? I don’t think so.
Lady Bug,
We already control them. Only a licensed dealer can sell a fire arm to the general public. And each and every weapon is given a unique serial number, that ID make model and manufacture. Each purchase is recorded and reported to ATF. The problem with illegal guns is what happens to the gun next? Does it go to the home a law abiding and responsible citizen of is it passed off to someone who by law not should even be allowed to own one?
Comment by BH — 04.18.07 @ 7:39 pm
BH~
I was responding to the person who said we should outlaw the manufacture of firearms in the US. If we did that, guns would not go away - guns would be added to the list of things smuggled into the country, mostly over our southern border. This has nothing to do with the sale of legal firearms. I’m not really worried about the person who legally purchases a firearm. I’m worried about the person who acquires one “off the books”…
Comment by Miss Ladybug — 04.18.07 @ 8:25 pm
Florida concealed weapons permit holders number about 350,000. One has been convicted of a homicide. If the U.S. population as a whole behaved as well as the pistol-packing Floridians, the U.S. would have the lowest murder rate in the world. So much for the emotionally-driven but factually flawed argument that the availability of firearms causes crime.
Comment by redbeard — 04.18.07 @ 8:38 pm
Gabe Said: “I have a friend in the U.K. who has a decidely anti-gun view, and, at least for now, the statistics in the U.K. back her up. Their gun crime per capita is miniscule when compared to ours. But I say that only as a way for us Americans to at least understand where they might be coming from in their inability to understand why gun ownership is so important to us.”
SteveDinMD: Your friend in the U.K. might be interested to know that while gun crime is much lower there than in the U.S., overall violent crime is in many cases much higher in the U.K. For example, I understand that home invasion attacks, which are quite rare in the U.S., are many times more common in the U.K., where intruders are confident that their intended victims are defenseless. Also, when studying U.S. crime statistics, one should be aware that incidents of violent crime tend to be highly concentrated in a relatively few discrete areas. Excluding crime statistics from the most violent 5% of U.S. ZIP codes, the U.S. suddenly becomes among the safest, least violent countries in the world. Among European countries only Switzerland is safer, and it is arguably the most heavily armed society on planet Earth — by law, practically every Swiss home is equipped with at least 1 fully automatic machine gun.
Comment by SteveDinMD — 04.18.07 @ 9:04 pm
BH Said: “I don’t believe any gun control law short of an out right ban would have stopped this tragedy. One of the weapons was leagally purchased from a gun shop about 40 miles from the campus. And the perpetrator was a adult with no prior offenses as far as I know. But since we are talking about Gun Control in general …”
SteveDinMD: Despite mainstream media reports to the contrary, the Virginia Tech gunman’s weapon purchases were all ILLEGAL. He was under the care of a psychiatrist at the time of the shooting — judging from his having been prescribed anti-depressant medication — and in December of 2005 had been involuntarily committed by a judge because of his apparent pschotic behavior. When applying for a weapon purchase in the State of Virginia, the purchaser must declare under penalty of perjury that he is not ineligible to purchase weapons by reason of mental defect. The VT gunman so declared, which means that he LIED on the application, thus making the purchase ILLEGAL under Virginia law.
Comment by SteveDinMD — 04.18.07 @ 9:18 pm
Anyone who thinks banning the manufacture of guns will help has never read a history book, but clearly ought to. Guns pre-date mass manufacture. They pre-date factories. If Henry Ford had never invented the assembly line, you’d still have guns. I don’t know if gun grabbers have ever heard of the 15th and 16th centuries, but they might want to take a look at what kind of weapons we had then. They might be surprised. I guess the next step is to not teach science so that no one knows how to make one, either.
People need to accept that Bruce Li is atypical, and Buffy and Xena aren’t real, which means women confronted with rapists need guns. Forcing people to become victims just because you can’t cope with your irrational fears is just plain wicked. Might doesn’t make right, but if you want that society, I urge you to read history books to get a sense of the consequences. If that’s too hard, watch the history channel.
By the way, in gun-free Japan the mayor of Nagasaki got shot by a gangster just the other day.
I don’t know how many know of a place called Bath in Michigan. A man there, in 1927, made Cho look like an utter amateur when it comes to school massacres. He took out 45 people (38 were kids) and wounded even more. Didn’t shoot them, either. Good luck preventing mass murder by banning self-defense.
Comment by Tyrian Purple — 04.18.07 @ 9:27 pm
Until these kids pick a gun, and go on a rampage, that is, because apparently this is the only way anyone then bothers to realize they exist. -
alessandra
That’s a crock of unsubstantiated conjecture!
In fact, student after student said that they reached out to this guy who rebuffed every person in his path. Plenty of folks acknowledged his existence, but it appears that HE is the one who failed to acknowledge the rest of humanity.
Comment by jb — 04.18.07 @ 9:28 pm
Cho was NOT involuntarily committed. The judge opted for voluntary counseling, which Cho apparently agreed to do. Since it was voluntary, that is why nothing showed up on the background check when he went to purchase the guns. Had the judge made it involuntary, he would never have been able to (legally) purchase those weapons.
Comment by Miss Ladybug — 04.18.07 @ 9:37 pm
Miss Ladybug: News reports have consistently reported today that Cho was INVOLUNTARILY committed, but released at a later date after the attending psychiatrist determined after a period of observation and evaluation that Cho wasn’t a threat to himself or others. Perhaps these many news reports are wrong. Perhaps not. I don’t know. All things considered, his weapons purchases were legally suspect, to say the least.
Comment by SteveDinMD — 04.18.07 @ 9:47 pm
I think this is absolutely appropriate…. Go Judge!!!
Durham Judge Keeps Gun in Court, Law May Make it Legal
Durham — The “No Concealed Handguns†sign on the courthouse door in Durham doesn’t stop Judge David LaBarre from keeping a gun behind the bench.
“I have a little derringer, five-shot derringer,†said the judge, who presides over Domestic Violence Court.
LaBarre has a permit for the gun, but he is breaking the law by having it in the courtroom, according to the Durham County Sheriff’s Office.
But sheriff’s officials said they have no intention of telling him it’s illegal, because it’s his courtroom.
The gun-toting judge might not be breaking the law for long. State lawmakers met Wednesday to debate legislation that would allow judges to carry concealed handguns in the courtroom.
As of late Wednesday, House members were one step away from approving the bill and sending it to the Senate.
Rep. Walter G. Church, Sr., D-Burke, is one of the bill’s sponsors.
“This is more of a security measure,†he said.
While LeBarre has never fired the gun in the courtroom, he said he has felt threatened occasionally.
In Northampton County last year, a defendant grabbed a deputy’s gun. He shot a deputy before an officer shot and killed him. But would judges having guns improve courthouse security?
“Not necessarily,†LeBarre said, but, “It might improve my own security.â€
Source: http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1279604/
Comment by Tate — 04.18.07 @ 10:23 pm
Isn’t it sad that everyone feels the need to quality that shooter’s actions by calling him mentally ill, or psychotic.
Why is everyone so afraid to label an evil, just that EVIL.
To pathologize it, to put a medical term to it, is trivializes the whole thing.
Perhaps it’s because EVIL requires a moral judgment, something that many are too afraid to engage in. It’s much easer to speak in medical terms and talk of illness. –That way someone like John Hinckley Jr. gets released and can go live high on the hog.
The Bible says nothing about psychiatric treatment for EVIL. It doesn’t say we are supposed to medicate it, either. It does say we are supposed to expunge it, kill it, and completely erradicate it. And that would indicate arming ourselves with, gasp, guns.
The DSM-IV doesn’t list Evil as one of their codes, unfortunately. The Psychiatrists, and the rest of the Mental Health community don’t believe evil exists, and simply coddle, babysit, and spoonfeed shooters such as this one.
They aren’t going to protect us. So it’s up to law abiding citizens, yes–with guns to protect our own selves.
Comment by Glamchild — 04.18.07 @ 11:04 pm
SteveDinMD~
The news I’ve been watching (Fox News Channel) is reporting the judge decided against commitment and instead made his counseling voluntary, and that is why it didn’t show up on the background check when he went to purchase his gun. Michelle Malkin’s site is reporting the same thing: he wasn’t actually committed (someone who works as a Special Justice in Virginia emailed MM the applicable law).
Comment by Miss Ladybug — 04.18.07 @ 11:06 pm
We talked about this in school today (I go to a local community college) when one of my professors mentioned that there is a heated debate happening among the faculty because they have decided to allow our security guards to carry guns. The professor wouldn’t say which side he was on, but from what I do know about him I’m willing to bet he is okay with them carrying. Personally, I don’t see the point of having security guards who aren’t armed, and though I would obviously hope they were an unnecessary precaution, you just never know what’s going to happen anymore. It would be lovely if we lived in a world where that level of security wasn’t needed on a college campus, but sadly, we don’t, and we haven’t for some time. I myself don’t like guns and won’t own one or have one in my house, but that’s my choice. I know lots of people who own guns, abide by the laws, use them for the purposes for which they were made (hunting or collecting), and would never dream of using them for criminal purposes. I don’t know all the ins and outs of the gun laws we already have, but I tend to agree that more gun laws are just going to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to purchase guns–criminals will just continue to get them from other criminals. I don’t have a problem with having to register a gun or to have a 2-day waiting period or whatever it is, and I would guess that someone who doesn’t need it quick, fast, and in a hurry wouldn’t have a problem with it either. Guns are weapons, made specifically for killing (animals or people) and as such should be regulated, but not banned for law abiding citizens and people (like campus security guards) whose job is to protect a certain population.
Comment by Griz — 04.19.07 @ 12:20 am
Miss Ladybug: I watched Fox also. Within the past two hours they reported Cho was involuntarily committed. MSNBC broadcast the same, but their website now refers to it as “voluntary.” There seems to be a discrepancy. As to his mental health issue not showing up as part of his background check, two different “experts” attributed that to medical privacy laws, but that could be pure speculation. Cho has also been characterized both as a “Permanent Resident Alien” and as a “Non-Resident Alien.” These are incompatible. I didn’t believe aliens of any kind were permitted to own firearms in Virginia, but would be shocked if Non-Resident Aliens were allowed. At any rate, there seems to be a great deal of mis-information out there. We need to definitivelyh establish Cho’s alien status and the circumstances of his mental health confinement. Then we need to establish just who may and may not legally own firearms in Virginia. In particular, we need to establish what constitutes a disqualifying mental impairment.
Comment by SteveDinMD — 04.19.07 @ 12:23 am
SteveD~
Agreed.
Comment by Miss Ladybug — 04.19.07 @ 12:29 am
Paige @#36, “And I never painted France as some kind of Utopia, but the fact remains that no other European country, despite its problems and strict gun laws, has the type of mass killings and crime that America has.”
You haven’t been paying attention. Why should the type of mass killing & crime matter? Am I more deader if someone shot me vs knifed or bludgeoned? How about if I gassed myself in a closed garage?
It doesn’t matter how you depart this world, it matters why and in that respect, most European countries are not “safer” than the US. You probably have already learned by now that if you should see a gang of Arabic/north Africans running your way, to get out of their way, don’t stare at them and certainly don’t even think of doing anything to stop them.
UN stats developed by the International Epidemiological Association report that the following countries lead the US in total violent deaths per 100,000: Portugal, Belgium, Mexico, France, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Brazil, Finland, Slovenia, Hungary & Estonia all surpass the US, ranging from a rate of 18.95 per all the way up to 70.76. That was back in the early 90s and I’m pretty sure it hasn’t gotten any better since.
Google “International Epidemiological Association 1998 study of gun deaths” if you want more.
Comment by Andy — 04.19.07 @ 1:05 am
There is a huge and amazing difference between how people of my generation view guns and those under 65 do today. For example…
I just do not think the best place to have weapons is a college campus. - Uncle Ruckus
We had guns on college campus, in high school, and even in grade school when I was a kid. It was quite common in most of the US - except in larger cities. Almost everyone had a guns, in their homes, in their cars, at work - and yes, at school. I had a rifle or shotgun (unloaded) in class in high school, as did many others, during various hunting seasons. Teachers had guns in their desks, in their cars and trucks - and often went hunting or plinking with us. No one ever experienced any kind of problem with guns in any school I was in from first grade through college. If a madman had began shooting people in any of the schools of my day, he would have been very dead - very fast.
Guns just make it too easy, imo. - CJ
Crime was almost non-existent in my part of the country (southwest, several states) because most people were armed. Guns didn’t make crime ‘too easy’ - they prevented crime almost absolutely.
I can’t imagine the quality of life when one has to conceal a weapon to go to class. - Paige
There was nothing in the world wrong with our ‘quality of life’ - in fact it was positively idyllic. Sure, there was crime in the big cities - and much gun crime. But the gangsters of yor didn’t dare poke their noses and machine guns into rural small towns - the ‘heat’ there was just too hot.
…what period (dates) most Americans felt the country was at it’s best? - Paige
Of course I’ve seen a lot of history - from the middle of the second WW to today, so I’ve a tendency to compare what was with what is around me today, and I’d say the 40’s and 50’s were when America was at its greatest… and having been in Europe then, I’d say that after the war was when Europe was near its best. It’s been downhill in the US and the ‘EU’ since… as socialism has radically altered the entire world. Socialism isn’t ‘dead’ - nor is it even close. It is as evil as Communism, if not more so.
Thanks, Gabe, Mike, JohnD, RedBeard, Jim, Miss Ladybug and…
I like this time well enough, but then, I live in it. - Tyrian Purple
As a law-abiding citizen, I’d rather the authorities catch me with my piece, than a crook to catch me without it! - Neolibertarian
for providing perspective on this thread.
I enjoyed everyone’s comments.
Comment by Ron C — 04.19.07 @ 1:11 am
The following countries lead the US in total violent deaths per 100,000: Portugal, Belgium, Mexico, France, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Brazil, Finland, Slovenia, Hungary & Estonia all surpass the US, ranging from a rate of 18.95 per all the way up to 70.76. =Andy
Andy;
That’s quite a revelation, particularly given the impression that is promulgated throughout the world. Thanks for the info!
Comment by jan — 04.19.07 @ 7:13 am
Where do criminals get their guns come from? They are not smuggled in like weed or heroine. They are not made by back alley gun smiths. No they are brand name items “Smith & Wessonâ€, Colt, and Glock.
An excellent question. A significant number are stolen. At one point, a source of stolen guns in DC came from…are you sitting down? good, the DC police evidence locker.
As for your idea that guns aren’t smuggled in like weed or heroin, no not now. There’s not enough profit in it. Once it gets to the appropriate price/benefit ratio, you can bet that guns and ammo will be smuggled in.
Let’s face it: currently we can’t keep drugs or people from coming accross the border. What makes you think that guns (and worse) won’t follow?
Comment by I R A Darth Aggie — 04.19.07 @ 9:03 am
I’m not really worried about the person who legally purchases a firearm. I’m worried about the person who acquires one “off the booksâ€â€¦
Miss LadyBug,
So am I. Straw purchases is how most guns are acquired illegally.
Comment by BH — 04.19.07 @ 9:06 am
Notice that other massacres in U.S. history have dropped down a memory hole?
Could it be because in nearly all the cases, the perpetrators were DEMOCRATS and the victims were blacks and Republicans!
Calling the VA Tech shooting “the worst massacre in U.S. history” is terrible revisionism
Comment by ModernConservative — 04.19.07 @ 10:04 am
I R A Darth Aggie,
I think that the logistical challenges to smuggling guns are enough disused smugglers from doing it in mass. At least in the beginning of a truly comprehensive control program. Also what kind of weapons are you going to smuggle INTO the US. Some of the finest weapons are already made here. And we are talking about a market that is used to a quality product. Are they (meaning criminals) going to accept 20 year Russian AKs, when they are used to better?
You do have a fare point that much of the guns acquired by criminals are stolen. But I don’t think that is as a reliable source of weapons as straw purchases.
Comment by BH — 04.19.07 @ 10:58 am
#75 Ron C, I agree! I was taught how to shoot a shotgun at 11, a .22 rifle at the local YMCA, shot at a range at the summer camp I went to the next year. My high-school had an indoor rifle range; hard for people to imagine today. I’ve been a shooter for 41 of my 52 years, and disturbed individuals like Cho wouldn’t have gotten very far in my day. More guns=Less crime.
Comment by Tom Bosee — 04.19.07 @ 11:09 am
Tom, my high school was the same. Had a rifle range in the basement, and one of the history teachers was the faculty sponsor. No gun trouble whatsoever in the student body of over 4000 kids.
Now, what is different today? Hint: The guns are pretty much the same today as they were then.
Comment by RedBeard — 04.19.07 @ 11:25 am
Ron, Tom, RedBeard, ditto!!!
Comment by Andy — 04.19.07 @ 11:29 am
#75 Ron C, “We had guns on college campus, in high school, and even in grade school when I was a kid.”
I had the same experience regarding guns in and around school as you did and I will be turning 50…tomorrow.
My 12 year old son hunts every afternoon after school during hunting season and he was given a compound bow for Christmas.
In recent years, our town has had two known serial killers and a small group of uncivil evacuees from Katrina evacuees that caused an ordered lockdown in our downtown area. We also had one woman murdered by the DC sniper(s), but at the time it was attributed to one of the serial killers. Those events have sharply driven up gun sales and gun training locally.
Comment by RaLph — 04.19.07 @ 11:31 am
JohnD @ #25. Unfortunately, I don’t have links. This is stuff that’s been out there for years and years, that I’ve picked up here and there.
I imagine if you google it, you’ll find them and more.
I read a paper for instance that a white German girl was raped in Karlsruehe a few years ago by a gang of muslims and the muslim leaders claimed she deserved it for insulting Islam.
Since I heard it while travelling, I never got the rest of the story beyond the fact that the law decided not to prosecute, igniting a political backlash.
Did that particular girl get justice? I don’t know, but it also came out that this was not rare and policy had been to quietly drop investigations. Which means the MSM are complicit in maintaining the green wall of silence.
This is but one example. Seek and ye shall find it abundantly.
Comment by Andy — 04.19.07 @ 11:46 am
#85 JohnD
Muslim perpetrated rape is epidemic all across Europe now (well, I think the Italians don’t put up with that nonsense, but France, Germany, Holland, Norway and Sweden are dealing with it).
A little off topic but for anyone who wants to learn more about Islamic evil and be up to date on the latest news across the world, try Robert Spencer’s JihadWatch and DhimmiWatch, as well as Debbie Schlussel, and the always wonderful Little Green Footballs.
Comment by batyah — 04.19.07 @ 12:45 pm
Thanks Batyah, I’m aware of those websites.
Regards,
JohnD
Comment by JohnD — 04.19.07 @ 2:22 pm
I never really felt unsafe whenever I was out “on the economy” when my father was stationed in Germany. However, things have changed a lot since we left for good in July 1990…
Comment by Miss Ladybug — 04.19.07 @ 2:37 pm
Miss Ladybug, that was before they found empowerment. The joke used to be that Berlin was the 2nd capital of Turkey.
The MPs/SPs knew well that nothing but trouble happens when when young GIs and turks cross paths, especially in discos.
As a kid, I felt safe there. As a young adult, I felt safe, even down in “Turktown”, provided I didn’t act the fool. At that time, the biggest threat to society were the punks (relatively harmless), then skinheads (just don’t let them catch you alone). But I also knew to not stand out as the “Ami”.
However, after 9/11, the change was palpable. In broad daylight, I wasn’t alone in avoiding multi-kulti areas where we used to roam freely at night.
Comment by Andy — 04.19.07 @ 3:43 pm
I found the following link at instapundit.com regarding gun crime in Britain after the gun ban and the people who are setting up do-it-yourself gun factories.
Gun crime spreads ‘like a cancer’ across Britain
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,2763,1056412,00.html
Comment by RaLph — 04.19.07 @ 4:24 pm
For those advocating reducing access to legal guns, be aware that guns can be MADE in a fairly primitive machine shop. They won’t be the quality of a Glock, but they’ll work just fine.
Plus, bullets can be made much easier. When I was a child, I used to sit and watch a friend’s father, who was an avid hunter, make his own bullets. He poured molten lead into a plaster form he had made himself from “store-bought” bullets, and carefully filled copper shells, which he had also made, with carefully measured amounts of gunpowder, which has a widely-known composition. It could have been a case of a man who knew what he was doing making it look easy, but it looked like something that could be done by anyone who can smelt fishing sinkers.
This is something that can be done on your back porch, never mind a machine shop. And it’s a widely-known skill in the US. This kind of “do-it-yourself” hunter is pretty common in the US.
There’s no way to outright “ban” the existence of guns in the US… that would be a useless attempt to produce Fantasyland.
Comment by mamapajamas — 04.19.07 @ 5:26 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp
This is an amazing story and very moving as Suzanna watched her parent’s execution. I heard her tell it yesterday. She was a Texas State Representative and a radio talk show host and “good with a gun.” She told Charles Schumer during a hearing on the “assault weapon” fight, that she didn’t need those guns for hunting, she needed them to protect herself from people like him; in response to his question as to why people needed these guns. At the time he was waving an AR-15 in the capitol hearing chamber.
Suzanna Hupp: Luby’s Massacre Survivor and Advocate for Concealed Carry
On October 16, 1991, Hupp and her parents were having lunch at the Luby’s in Killeen. She had left her handgun in her car to comply with Texas state law. When George Hennard drove his truck into the cafeteria and opened fire on the patrons, Hupp instinctively reached into her purse for her weapon, but it was in her vehicle.
Comment by jan — 04.19.07 @ 6:18 pm
Andy~
I was in Augsburg. When we were there during my high school years (moved back there Sept. ‘86), I never went out to the clubs off base, but I know classmates did. One of the popular ones was eventually designated as “no go”, but I’m not sure if that had any affect of the high school kinds.
Comment by Miss Ladybug — 04.19.07 @ 8:21 pm
Just look at Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and tell me we have to ban guns! Look at the innocent faces of those kids that were killed! Look at the faces of those kids that were wounded! Look at the faces of the grieving parents! TELL ME WE NEED TO BAN GUNS!
Comment by dexybet — 04.19.07 @ 8:25 pm
Sorry but I feel helpless. I have a 7 year old daughter that I have to release into this society of craziness.
Comment by dexybet — 04.19.07 @ 8:32 pm
TELL ME WE NEED TO BAN GUNS! - dexybet
The people who want to ban guns are either:
1. Deliberately attempting to weaken society and increase crime - allowing them to further control society to ‘make them safer.’ In other words they are dangerous political (usually leftist) manipulators that use fear to maintain and gain more power. In fact, they are criminal in that they know that they endanger society, and do so intentionally.
or
2. Woefully ignorant - foolishly believing that banning guns will somehow make them safer while it has been shown repeatedly that it makes them much more vulnerable.
The safest place in the world is where everyone has immediate access to the tools needed to defend themselves and others.
The most dangerous place in the world is anywhere people are denied immediate access to defensive tools.
A gun is a tool of civilization, nothing more and nothing less. Without such tools freedom and safety can not exist.
Comment by Ron C — 04.19.07 @ 9:30 pm
Oops!
Effects of restrictive licensing of handguns on homicide and suicide in the District of Columbia
CONCLUSIONS. Restrictive licensing of handguns was associated with a prompt decline in homicides and suicides by firearms in the District of Columbia. No such decline was observed for homicides or suicides in which guns were not used, and no decline was seen in adjacent metropolitan areas where restrictive licensing did not apply. Our data suggest that restrictions on access to guns in the District of Columbia prevented an average of 47 deaths each year after the law was implemented.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/23/1615
What do you make of that data?
Comment by Igor — 04.19.07 @ 10:19 pm
Hi!
Someone mentioned earlier “International Epidemiological Association 1998 study of gun deaths†which I found online. From that post one might conclude that firearm death rates are higher in some European countries than in US. What was not told is that in fact US rate (14.24 per 100 000) is eight(!) times higher than in comparable Western European countries. The rates in some small and poor Eastern European countries may be higher due to chaos and lawlwssness of transitional period from restrictive communist societies to free-market economies.
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/214.pdf
Comment by Igor — 04.19.07 @ 10:58 pm
Maybe Mr. Cho’s reported delusions regarding his poor treatment were not as delusional as some ‘interested parties’ may have us believe. (A couple of observations from way out in left field.)
“You had a hundred billion chances and ways to have avoided today, but you decided to spill my blood. You forced me into a corner and gave me only one option. The decision was yours. Now you have blood on your hands that will never wash off”. - Cho Seung-Hui. He also uses terms to describe those around him as “brats†and “snobs†and also mentions acts of “debauchery†and “hedonistic†behavior.
What follows is in no way intended to imply Mr. Cho’s unfortunate victims are necessarily the stimulus for his malicious/irrational/insane (?) act, however a number of interesting comments have been made about Mr. Cho by those who ‘knew’ or where acquainted with him. It is their possible influence on Mr. Cho’s state of mind prior to (and perhaps during) the shootings that intrigues me.
So why would one be led to think he may have been more provoked than is immediately obvious? What strange media events and reported opinions have contributed to my questioning of how ‘gripped by evil’, as one person put it, was he?
The first thing I found astounding was the interview on CNN with the two ‘roommates’/“suitemates†John and Andy. I mean why would these two guys be up in a formal ‘analytical’ interview with CNN’s Truckman of AC360 virtually before the victims were even cold and I assume before they had even been interviewed by the police?
I particularly find the following exchange/s - statements a bit unnerving… “ANDY: The one [girl] down the hall, I got the girl’s screen name and kind of told her — I I.M.’d her and told her this guy, you know, he’s messing around with you. Here’s his name. And you shouldn’t — kind of ignore him and just stay way from him. 
Then the other time the cops responded again and Seung became upset about that and he had told me that he might as well kill himself. And so I told the cops that and they took him away to the counseling center for a night or two.â€(1)
To me this guy could be seen as potentially fencing Seung in and not letting others (the girls) deal with or even perhaps develop a relationship with Seung. At best I see him a busy body and at worst… well I don’t know… to my way of thinking if he had concerns he should have reported them to the authorities and not taken the vigilante action he seems to have taken.
Some more from “ANDY: I’m trying to think of the craziest incident with him. I guess it was his face file. He had a — called it Question Mark. And he told me that that was his brother. And he had gotten my cell phone number from when we used to invite him to dinner and stuff. So he called me on a couple instances talking and saying he was Question Mark. And I remember one night I finally just got completely tired of it [hadn’t he only called twice] and I’m like, Seung, the act’s up, you know, you need to stop this. And he was like, this isn’t Seung, this is Question Mark, being real — insisting on that. I knew he had to be in Cochran. I went through all the lounges in Cochran and — not that many, but I finally found him on the — I think it was the…

TUCHMAN: Cochran, the residence hall? 

ANDY: Yes. I found him on the third floor in one of the study lounges and the lights were off. And the moment I walked in, he hung the phone up and acted like everything was normal and denied that he had been on the phone with me.â€
My question is why go scouring the building, why not just hang up and address the issue when you next meet in your shared accommodation?
A bit more of the CNN Tuchman-Andy-John interview where they are discussing that after a few drinks Seung has confessed to having an imaginary super model girlfriend… “TUCHMAN: And were you guys amused by this or — or ‘weirded out’ by it? 
ANDY: More amused. You know, you think this guy is pretty crazy. †(2)
Amused eh… hmmm I don’t understand how this guys difficulties loneliness and apparent craziness should be amusing to another obviously ‘well adjusted’ caring human being. Maybe it’s an American cultural, macho thing of some sort.
What about the female recipients of his unwanted attentions? According to Virginia Tech Police Chief Wendell Flinchum as quoted in the Seattle Times Newspaper (3) “the two women that complained to campus police that they had received calls and computer messages from Choâ€â€¦ “considered the messages ‘annoying’ not threatening.â€
Again my question again is, if Seung was not seen as threatening why was our friend ANDY so active in warning another women about him.
And what about his teachers… The International Herald Tribune reports… “a professor of creative writing, the poet Nikki Giovanni, refused to let him stay in her class because his writing was ‘intimidating’ and he frightened other students.†The paper hardcopy version quotes Ms. Giovanni as telling him ‘that he needed to change the type of poems he was writing or drop her class’. Is this the sort of ‘arrogance’ Cho is/was complaining about?
What’s the big deal, lots of art and even regular kids video games are pretty black and violent and art reflects society so why ostracize Seung?
Also in IHT’s Asian hardcopy edition it states that Charlotte Peterson (a previous student in his British literature class) is reported as saying that when “Mr. Cho wrote a question mark as his name on a document “even the teacher laughed at himâ€. (4) Most of us don’t like to be laughed at particularly by powerful authority figures. This teacher if the claim is true should be disciplined severely, now, before he/she or can have a chance of possibly contributing to the delinquency of another minor.
Oh again back to Ms. Giovanni… according to ‘news.AOL.com’ Giovanni said she considered him (Mr. Cho) “mean” and “a bully.” (5) This seems to conflict with the statement by one of the luckier students that escaped who said he was physically weak and could not open a classroom door being held shut by a small female. I guess the bullying by Mr. Cho Seung-Hui must have been mental bullying, similar perhaps to what he was also perhaps receiving from those around him.
The Jakarta Post of April 19th reports that Ian MacFarlane a former classmate of Seung’s states that he thought on hearing of the carnage â€