I am stunned.
Edit:
Virginia Citizens Defense League President James Van Cleave -
Excerpts from Van Cleave's e-mail with the subject title: "VA-ALERT: Gun-control claims lives at Virginia Tech""As most of you know VCDL has been pushing hard to change Virginia law to allow college and university students with concealed handgun permits to be able to carry a gun on campus for self-defense. ... We could not get the bills out of subcommittee."
"The General Assembly turned a deaf ear to allowing college and university students to be able to protect themselves and here we are today :-( "
"ENOUGH OF ELITIST BALONEY FROM COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES!
If just ONE of those victims had been armed, this most probably would have turned out very differently".
This will never end.
12 comments:
I kept hearing last night that the shooter was a 6 foot, 24 year old Chinese man. So I started worrying that it was you...glad to find out it was not...
On a serious note, the gun control laws (or lack thereof) in this country are a disgrace...by the way Bush, thanks for letting the assault weapon ban expire 2 years ago.
DA
He was that tall? Although to be honest, I have been pretty grumpy. Just not THAT grumpy.
And yes...I think the gun control laws are beyond disgraceful. But not as much as those who are now saying that the solution is MORE guns, not less.
I'm still not clear on why people think that it's a fundamental right to be wield the power to kill anyone and everyone at will.
...I actually can't figure out why I'm reacting so badly to this event, but I am....
I am the same way...I read this idotic editorials saying (paraphrasing), "if the VA legislature had just passed the law (debated last year apparently) that college students could carry concealed guns on campus, then this tragedy could have been prevented." http://spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11306
So let me get this straight...Many people (including college students) are depressed, distressed, have anger issues. But instead of preventing all individuals from buying guns, we should arm everyone! That's great, now instead of having to worry about the isolated individual who plans a mass killing, I now have to worry about every potential nutbag around me who could snap at any moment w/ their concealed gun. Yeah, that makes sense.
Also, who is to say that even if students carried guns, that this would have been prevented? He came into the classroom and just started shooting...tough to pull out a gun to protect yourself when someone attacks you from behind.
I love the argument..."well, if we make guns illegal, only criminals will have them (just like drugs)." The problem w/ this argument is that guns (especially high powered ones) are much more dificult to manufacture than drugs. Any idiot w/ a fertile field can grow plants that yield drugs (i.e., cocaine in Columbia, poppy seed in Afhangistan). But I would guess that if we took most guns off the market (and in the process shut down most large corporate gun manufacturers), it would be extremely difficult for the average street criminal (or wannabe physco) to get his hands on high powered guns--after all, these are high technologically advanced devices. And guns aren't like drugs in that people are not physically addicted to guns. Thus, there would not be the demand level for guns that drugs create thereby reducing the incentives to create an underground manufacturering process of high powered weapons (and reducing any incentives to continually design higher and higher powered guns). People would have to simply go back to settling disputes/anger issues w/ fists/knives, etc.
One final argument I must address. This is the argument that if someone is determined enough, they will find a way to kill a lot of people even if they could not get their hands on guns (i.e., bombs, etc.). This may be true but how would carrying a concealed gun help protect you from a bomb anyways? Answer: It would not.
I swear, every single argument for more guns/less gun control can be so easily refuted, it is ridiculous--public policy, constitutional, or otherwise. I won't drag this on by going into the constitutional issues right now, but do you want originalism? I will give you originalism? I will agree that you can have your guns under the 2nd Amendment if you agree that the term "arms" should be construed under the meaning as it was used when the Constitution was written...As such, you can keep your 1790 circa musket (but nothing more)!
I am also Pissed that the Democrats are too scared to push this issue.
DA
I think that's by far the most impassioned thing I've ever witnessed from you.
I am going to respond to your post after I finish up some of my work tonight, but I just want to say that I think I'm actually glad the Democrats aren't pushing this issue immediately. I mean, I feel almost strange going straight to politics after something like this...and I actually don't think it's the appropriate or effective time for the outcry. It just seems too political, cynical, and inhuman.
I hope and think that Americans will start to make more noise, and then the Democrats will finally be able to voice their opinions about guns. The grass roots groundswell effects seem to be working for other "liberal" causes, ie. global warming, and maybe...just maybe the loss of 32 lives will one day be the reason that we don't have to lose tens of thousands of lives per year in the future. (CDC 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.)
But then again, if Columbine, and the ability for high schoolers to get shotguns and semi-automatics, couldn't even re-enact an assault weapon ban, what will?
I actually did not mean that the Democrats should jump on the gun control issue right away-they clearly shouldn't. But my problem is that I don't believe they will at all. Even with this tragedy, the issue is a political loser. (I hope I am wrong by the way).
DA
I must of course differ with both DA (who is impassioned about this, suprising me as well), and also ADM.
Both of you seem to feel that the populace cannot be trusted with guns. To quote “I now have to worry about every potential nutbag around me who could snap at any moment w/ their concealed gun. Yeah, that makes sense.” Personally, I trust the people. To quote Jefferson “Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1) Those who fear and distrust the people . . . . 2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe . . . depository of the public interest.”
I guess this leads us to the point, which can we most trust, the government or the people. By taking away the right of the students to carry guns on campus, the students were forced to put their lives in the hands of the Virginia Tech police. And we saw how effective they were.
Furthermore, there exists no correlation between the amount of guns in society and the crime rate. For example, if one looks at Switzerland, pistols are delivered to all citizens, and long gun purchases are unregulated, except to children and the mentally handicapped. Yet Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. The same goes for Israel. Even in the United States there exists a correlation between the lowering of the crime rate, and an increase in gun ownership. Between 1937 and 1963, handgun ownership rose by 250 percent, but the homicide rate fell by 35.7 percent.
When I am at home, I have a carry permit, and often carry my gun. I have the training and ability to use it. Banning guns on campus, makes it easier, not more difficult, for the kind of violence we saw at Virginia Tech. It hasn’t been adequetly explained how Cho Seung-hui was able to purchase his guns, and keep them in his dorm room in violation of U.S. law (the purchase), and Virginia Tech campus law (the storage). Suffice it to say, Caeser Beccari’s words come to mind, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.”
I want to be able to protect myself, not have to rely on others to do it for me. It made it far easier for Cho Seung-hui to do what he did, with his illegally purchased guns, because his fellow students, who sought to have guns through legal channels, were unable to protect themselves. He was able to inflict the most amount of damage with the least risk of armed resistance. Indeed, students with carry permits (which require training), likely would have had a deterrent effect as well. Who would you rather entrust with your life, the police or yourself? I want to be able to protect myself.
Forgot to sign the above post - SJ
I just want to start with one point. Maybe I'll respond to the rest later.
Sure. I want to be able to protect myself. I would prefer, however, to not have to protect myself against some asshole with a gun by having to pull out my OWN GUN while I'm in the process of being shot. That being said, I'm still not clear why self-defense requires the level of deregulation that accompanies the pro-gun movement, ie. gun shows, assault rifles, etc. Or even a new set of technological innovations that allow self-defense without all of the collateral damage. Let's try an example...and the clouds will part and the angels will sing as our future global policy pours forth from my soul...
All the Fucking Guns you'd ever want + Rubber Bullets:
I'm not clear why we couldn't just have all the guns that we want for protection, and then, say, enact a complete ban on lethal lead bullets, and replace them with, say, rubber bullets. You want to protect yourself against a lunatic with a gun? Whip out your glock and fire off several (dozen if you like) rubber bullets into the guy's ass ("Pop a cap" if you will), and I think you've just adequately protected yourself. And if that's not enough to protect yourself, you can always carry a crow bar or a bat to beat the shit out of the guy while he's on the ground.
And I'll tell you what. If I get into a murder-suicide sort of mood, faced with the possibility of storming a room and getting shot with real bullets and knowing I'd die pretty instantly, or storming a room where I would be met with a hail of rubber bullets that would fucking hurt, and then result in a massive crow bar beat down, followed by prison ass-rape and humiliation as the guy who went down in a hail of rubber bullets...which one would I choose?
Obviously the crow-bar doesn't belong in there. But it might assuage the loss we feel when we can't simply kill people and tear their bodies to pieces super-easily in such a brutal and uncontested manner as if they were helpless.
I happen to agree with you. I would prefer not to have to protect myself by pulling out my own gun. That was the point of my above post. These people are going to be able to get guns regardless. Even if guns are entirely outlawed, they’ll still flow over the border, just like drugs do. Indeed, Cho Seung-hui procured his guns illegally. Faced with the option of protecting myself and having the police on my side, or sitting there and waiting for the police to get their act together to accomplish something, I choose the police and I (Sting’s advice to the contrary).
Your point about rubber bullets is a good one, which I will comment on when I have time to do some research on the subject (i.e. Thursday night Real Estate Law.)
SJ
A few responses to SJ:
"It made it far easier for Cho Seung-hui to do what he did, with his illegally purchased guns, because his fellow students, who sought to have guns through legal channels, were unable to protect themselves."
Actually, everyone has said that Cho purchased the guns legally. See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/17/48hours/main2697124.shtml
"I want to be able to protect myself, not have to rely on others to do it for me."
Let me pose a hypothetical:
If you and I are walking down the street (w/ handguns on our belt) and someone comes out of the ally pointing a gun at us, would we even have a chance to use our guns for protection? Unlikely. And if we tried, our chances of getting shot are probably much greater than they would have been if we did not have the guns in the first place.
Sure, there are scenarios where having a gun may help to repel an attack-I don't deny this. But my argument is that all of society as a whole would be safer if guns are made less available. And here is evidence to back up this argument… In 1993 the murder rate was 9.5 per 100,000 people. That equates to roughly 24,500 murders. Sixty-nine percent of those were by gun, or roughly 17,000. Only 19% of those murders occurred during a felony. That means 13,770 murders occurred because of other reasons, the top one being an argument. One can make the assumption that the majority of these murders were not premeditated and instead occurred during a passionate moment when one or both parties were not thinking clearly. Had a gun not been available, those 13,770 non-crime related murders would have been greatly reduced. Eliminating guns will not end crime, will not even change our violent society but it would change the parameters in a lot of situations where a murder didn't have to happen. Your right, people kill people, but a gun certainly makes it all that much easier to do so...
"Furthermore, there exists no correlation between the amount of guns in society and the crime rate."
Actually, there are many such correlations (though you cherry picked a couple of countries that are outliers....Isreal cannot really be used as an example as it is essentially a military state...The US (at least not yet) does not have numerous military check points as we are more wide open and have not experienced suicide attacks. In other words, Isreali's are so worried about attacks from their neighbors (and are fairly wealthy as a whole) that regular street crime has not been a problem...totally different situation from the US. I don't know much about Switzerland but I imagine that it is a very small country that again can't really be compared to the US.
So let's compare us to the European Union as a whole (which is much more apples to apples). The US has the highest related gun deaths among all industrial nations (and it is not even close). The European Union w/ 100 more million people have one-tenth the amount of deaths from firearms as we do....
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/forum/docs/sept04lemaire.pdf. And it is no surprise that their gun laws (as a whole) are much more stringent than ours.
"I guess this leads us to the point, which can we most trust, the government or the people. By taking away the right of the students to carry guns on campus, the students were forced to put their lives in the hands of the Virginia Tech police. And we saw how effective they were."
You are really starting to sound like Bush here but I will take the bait…You're damn right I don’t trust the people. And you apparently don’t either-that is why you are in favor of concealed weapons law. We just disagree on how best to protect ourselves from the people. So you really want every college student (and every person) to carry concealed weapon? Imagine if everyone was carrying around a hand gun. How many would be misplaced, fired off accidentally, used when they really should not have been, etc.? I don't care how well trained people are, these things will happen if more people have guns. Simply look at the numerous gun deaths in this country that did not relate to street crimes and erupt spontaneously (domestic disputes, etc.). How many of these deaths would be prevented if individuals did not have the ability to acquire hand guns? The logical answer is that many of the deaths would have been prevented.
But in reality, you and I both know that no matter how lax our gun laws are, most people (unless this country turns into an Israel-type military state) will not carry concealed weapons. There is not one person I know that carries a concealed weapon or even has a weapon at home (other than rifles for hunting purposes)…And I am from Nebraska! Explain to me how this will or has produced such a great “deterrent” effect to criminals or the occasional lunatic? It will not and has not. As evidence: MO's concealed weapons law has not reduced crime. See http://www.gunguys.com/?p=745. Of course I am grateful that most people do not carry concealed weapons---but the more we allows such laws to prosper, the more guns we put in society, and the greater chance they will be misused.
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.”
I already addressed this conclusory argument through the drug trade example showing the dissimilarity between drugs and guns (i.e., if hand-gun/assault weapon production in this country is reduced substantially, there will not be an inherent black market demand to replace them like drugs which are physically addictive; moreover, even if such a demand was prevalent, it is much more difficult to manufacture/develop technologically advanced weapons unlike the production of drugs). I am not denying that it would be impossible for a criminal/prospective psycho to acquire hand guns/assault weapons if they were banned in this country. But unlike drugs, making such arms illegal would reduce corporate production of them thereby reducing the total number of such arms available and making it much more difficult for them to do so thus significantly contributing to the overall safety of this country.
Even if you dismiss all of my arguments w/ conclusory statements and conjecture and truly believe that everyone should be armed to the teeth for protection, why not at least support reductions in the ammunition capability of firearms? Why does one need the ability to fire off 20 uninterrupted rounds to protect themselves? They do not. These weapons are designed to kill numerous humans-rapidly, effectively, and repeatedly. There is no reason why anyone would need such firing ability to protect themselves. Also, why not support background checks for guns sold at trade shows? This is how the Columbine killers acquired weapons-but yet there is still this large loophole in the law (and 40% of all guns are sold through such trade shows).
Finally, I just want to point out that you already support certain types of gun/arms control. For instance, I am certain that you do not advocate the ability of individuals to acquire shoulder-filed missiles or bazookas. So the only question is, where should we draw the line? I submit that it should be drawn much more narrowly than it is today for the protection of all of society.
DA
One response to ADM:
"I'm not clear why we couldn't just have all the guns that we want for protection, and then, say, enact a complete ban on lethal lead bullets, and replace them with, say, rubber bullets. You want to protect yourself against a lunatic with a gun? Whip out your glock and fire off several (dozen if you like) rubber bullets into the guy's ass ("Pop a cap" if you will), and I think you've just adequately protected yourself. And if that's not enough to protect yourself, you can always carry a crow bar or a bat to beat the shit out of the guy while he's on the ground."
F'''n hilarious!
DA
Ha! Thanks. I liked that one myself.
And I basically agree with you DA, so there's nothing I need to say except "Yeah!" as I stand behind you while you face off.
...although I am curious as to what you think about an actual rubber bullet proposal.
And...one more point: Let's just go ahead and redirect the bulk of the drug war, particularly the war on cannabis, and direct that towards gun control (19 billion in 2003).
(and a little less seriously..then tax the shit out of legalized weed. And then people will be too high to kill each other.)
Post a Comment