Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
If Only the Killer Had Better Firearms Training
The following information appears in a New York Times story about the Virginia Tech massacre (it's in my copy, but apparently not online), right before Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, complains that "Virginia's gun laws are some of the weakest state laws in the country":
Virginia imposes few restrictions on the purchase of handguns and no requirement for any kind of licensing or training. The state does limit handgun purchases to one per month to discourage bulk buying and resale, state officials said. Once a person has passed a background check, state law requires that law enforcement officers issue a concealed carry permit...However, no regulations and no background checks are required for purchase of weapons at a Virginia gun show.
It's hard to see how any of this is relevant to the case at hand. Assuming that Cho Seung-Hui did not have firearms training, does the Times think people at Virginia Tech would have been better off if he were more adept with a gun, or if he had been taught basic safety rules such as "always treat a gun as if it's loaded" and "never point a gun at someone else"? So far it's not clear whether Cho bought his guns at a store or a gun show, but there's also no indication that he would have failed a background check, assuming he avoided one.
The response from Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, is similarly puzzling. Helmke bemoans "how easy it is for an individual to get powerful weapons in our country." In what sense are the handguns Cho used, a .22 and a 9mm, especially "powerful"?
I guess we should be thankful that Helmke at least did not demand reinstatement of the federal "assault weapon" ban. After the 1991 massacre in Killeen, Texas, which until yesterday was the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, Sarah Brady, co-founder of Helmke's organization, said the attack showed the need for an "assault weapon" ban, even though the law, which focused on firearms with a militaristic look, did not cover the pistols used by the killer.
|4.17.07 @ 1:57PM|#
Cho Seung-Hui seems to have been trouble enough for his teachers to worry about him but there is nothing in his background that would have prevented him from buying a weapon had there been the "background checks" that Horowitz supports. The fact is no amount of gun control within the context of a free society could have prevented Hui from doing what he did. Given this fact, the gun control advocates have nothing relevant to add to the discussion. That of course will not stop them from standing on the dead bodies in hopes of getting some kind of political advantage.
|4.17.07 @ 1:58PM|#
I keep thinking about it and thinking about it and I'm
hard-pressed to conclude anything besides this tragedy was
unpreventable.
Sometimes it happens like that.
|4.17.07 @ 1:59PM|#
I don't recall where I saw it -- followed a link from a story on Google News -- but I saw a post with email from someone who claims to be the gun-store owner who sold the Glock to Cho in March. He said the paperwork was perfect. Also, that his store archives video for 35 days, and it was saved just before deletion. Apparently Cho was a legally resident alien who had lived in VA for 14 years, subject to no greater restrictions on gun purchases than any citizen in Virginia.
|4.17.07 @ 2:00PM|#
Once a person has passed a background check, state law
requires that law enforcement officers issue a concealed carry
permit.
They are either off a bit, or intentionally misleading. The
procedure in VA to get a CWP does include certified training and
fingerprinting, after the background check.
But, it doesn't matter. As stated, those facts are irrelevant to
this case.
|4.17.07 @ 2:03PM|#
Virginia imposes few restrictions on the purchase of
handguns and no requirement for any kind of licensing or
training.
This is not especially unique to Virginia. Many states do not
require training to simply purchase a firearm. Only the required
NICS background check and that the buyer fill out a Federal Form
4473 when purchasing through a Federal Firearms License holder.
(All commercial gun stores are required to have an FFL by the
feds.)
Once a person has passed a background check, state law requires
that law enforcement officers issue a concealed carry
permit...
It sounds like they're conflating a purchase permit with a
concealed carry permit. Easy to do for those in New York, where
you're required to obtain a permit simply to purchase a firearm.
Purchase permits are only required in a few states, and they are
not the same as a concealed weapons permit.
However, no regulations and no background checks are required
for purchase of weapons at a Virginia gun show.
Federal law absolutely requires that any gun dealer who holds an
FFL absolutely must vet any potential buyer through a NICS check.
The venue absolutely does not matter.
If a private party is selling firearms at a gun show, the
background check may not be a requirement, as it's left up to the
state to decide. Virginia may not have such a requirement.
Colorado, for instance, does.
Timothy|4.17.07 @ 2:04PM|#
If some kook wants to kill a bunch of people, he'll probably be able to do it. A propane tank from a regular old gas grill (the kind my dad used to send me to fill every weekend in high school) is basically an explosion waiting to happen: heat, spark, instant bomb. Are we going to ban gas grills?
|4.17.07 @ 2:06PM|#
It's hard to see how any of this is relevant to the case at
hand.
Is it? Once again we see how the easy availability of handguns
enables one individual to kill a lot of people. So discussing ways
to prevent such occurances in the future seems pretty relevant to
me.
|4.17.07 @ 2:08PM|#
"In what sense are the handguns Cho used, a .22 and a 9mm,
especially "powerful"?
Handguns generally aren't terribly powerful when compared to
rifles.
The .22 especially so.
Debates have been raging among law enforcement, ammunition
manufacturers, and other interested parties about relative
lethality of pistol rounds for years. For the most part it's all
just speculation and anecdotes.
|4.17.07 @ 2:09PM|#
Are we going to ban gas grills?
Or for that matter, fertilizer? Gun laws didn't seem to be an issue
for McVeigh & co.
Let's face an unpleasant fact: there isn't much anyone can do,
before the fact, if some nutjob is determined to kill people.
|4.17.07 @ 2:10PM|#
"Once again we see how the easy availability of handguns enables
one individual to kill a lot of people. So discussing ways to
prevent such occurances in the future seems pretty relevant to
me."
Please forgive me for feeding the troll.
1. Unless and until you can point to some form of gun control that
would have concievably stopped an otherwise law abiding citizen who
went bizerk from obtaining a firearm, the easy availability of
handguns had nothing to do with this tragedy.
2. Unless and until you can show how an outright ban would have
stopped someone as determined as this guy from obtaining a handgun,
the legality of guns in this society has nothing to do with the
tragedy.
This guy apparently took a while planning this. If it had been a
case where someone who had a CCW permit someone lost his temper and
shot someone with whom he was arguing, you might have a point. But
that is not what happened here. This guy was dead set on killing a
bunch of people and was very quiet about it and gave no warning
about doing it. Given those facts, no amount of gun control could
have stopped him.
|4.17.07 @ 2:10PM|#
"Once again we see how the easy availability of
handguns household chemicals enables one individual to
kill a lot of people."
All fixed.
|4.17.07 @ 2:11PM|#
"Debates have been raging among law enforcement, ammunition
manufacturers, and other interested parties about relative
lethality of pistol rounds for years. For the most part it's all
just speculation and anecdotes."
A .22 to the back of the head will kill you just as dead as a .45.
At close range with a determined shooter and an unarmed victim, I
don't think it matters much.
|4.17.07 @ 2:12PM|#
"...Sarah Brady, co-founder of Helmke's organization, said
the attack showed the need for an "assault weapon" ban, even though
the law, which focused on firearms with a militaristic look, did
not cover the pistols used by the killer."
The selling of newly-manufactured magazines capable of holding more
than ten rounds was outlawed during the time of the ban on
so-called "assault weapons." This included pistol magazines.
Transfer of ones that were already on the market was still
completely legal, and resulted in inflated prices for
magazines.
It also made possession of newly-manufactured magazines capable of
holding >10 rounds illegal. In other words, you could be thrown
in prison because a bit of stamped sheet metal or molded plastic
was made after a particular date.
Regardless, magazine capacity isn't going to be much of a deciding
factor in a mass shooting, unless the perpetrator is so stupid that
he is incapable of understanding how to reload.
tazman|4.17.07 @ 2:12PM|#
Hooked on Innuendo said: "It's hard to see how any of this is
relevant to the case at hand.
Is it? Once again we see how the easy availability of handguns
enables one individual to kill a lot of people. So discussing ways
to prevent such occurances in the future seems pretty relevant to
me."
Your right, but for the wrong reason. Virginia Tech (and a lot of
other schools) used to allow students to have firearms in the dorms
(my buddies who went to college in Montana used to hang the deer
they shot out the dorm windows) but, in accordance with the
anti-gun lobby, have banned students from having both guns and
knives on campus. If that ban wasn't in place, somebody could have
dropped this scumbag after the first shooting in the dorms instead
of letting him walk across the campus and killing 30 more. The
solution is more guns, not less. Check out this article on lew
rockwell that sums this up nicely:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/clarke1.html
Timothy|4.17.07 @ 2:15PM|#
JW: did you know you can make loose hydrogen out of tap water
and a car battery? Hell, I bet you could make A LOT if you rigged
up an electrolysis device to use the 220 circuit in your
house...
BAN DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE NOW!
|4.17.07 @ 2:15PM|#
Would the economic libertarians please explain to the 2nd
Amendment libertarians the concept of "margins?"
Sure, you can MacGuiver your way to blood and guts, but it's a real
pain the ass.
You know why the Army issues soldiers rifles and pistols instead of
propane tanks?
"You can kill someone with a hatchet" is the .22 caliber pistol of
anti-gun control arguments.
|4.17.07 @ 2:17PM|#
The only relevance to the case at hand is that it is the
ignorant and lying gun control advocates who bear near all the
responsibility for 29 of the 31 fatalities. (Yes, talking directly
to you Hooked)
If the 2d amendment were respected and preserved, most of the
ADULTS on the college campus would have been able to carry weapons
or have them stored in their quarters. After the first shooting in
the morning, he would have been 'detained' in one way or another by
fellow citizens.
This is a crystal clear, uncontestable proof that the police are
neither here to nor able to 'protect and serve' us; contrary to
their budget-expanding rhetoric. It is cold, clear testimony to the
lies and self-serving statist urges of those who would have us
surrender our right to defend ourselves on the basis of 'social
order'.
The true social order showed its face yesterday.
|4.17.07 @ 2:17PM|#
It sounds like they're conflating a purchase permit with a
concealed carry permit.
I think he just doesn't understand the "shall issue" CCW
license.
lunchstealer|4.17.07 @ 2:18PM|#
I guess we should be thankful that Helmke at least did not
demand reinstatement of the federal "assault weapon" ban. After the
1991 massacre in Killeen, Texas, which until yesterday was the
deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, Sarah Brady,
co-founder of Helmke's organization, said the attack showed the
need for an "assault weapon" ban, even though the law, which
focused on firearms with a militaristic look, did not cover the
pistols used by the killer.
I lose a lot of karma every time I say this, but I can never
resist.
Does the Brady foundation's opposition to 'assault weapons' and
high capacity or high caliber semi-automatics signal that they want
more people to use .22 caliber revolvers?
|4.17.07 @ 2:18PM|#
On the CBS "Early Show" this morning, Helmke or some other Brady rep (got the affiliation, not sure of the name) did call for the reinstatement of the assault ban. He was sharing the spot with a Luby's massacre survivor who's now a Texas state legislator arguing for the students to be able to carry.
|4.17.07 @ 2:19PM|#
What about shotguns Joe? Frankly if I put on my homicidal lunatic hat for a moment, I would think that it would be easier to do what this guy did with a couple of Browning semi-automatic shotguns or Remington pump action models. Yeah, they suck to reload but that is why would carry two. Can't think of a more devistating weapon at close range than a shotgun. Again, it is difficult to see how any gun control could have ever stopped this guy.
Edward|4.17.07 @ 2:20PM|#
Hooked on innuendo
You clearly don't understand the particular derangement peculiar to
this blog. Liberty, as opposed to discipline, duty, reationality
and countless other virutes, is the highest good and is to be
venerated above all else. Gun ownership the symbolic of all
liberty--a sacred right. The government--the embodiment of all
evil--wants to take all our guns away in order to enslave us and do
all manner of unspeakbale things. We need the guns to protect
ourselves from the government's criminal SWAT teams and assorted
do-gooders who want to impose things like universal healthcare on
us.
|4.17.07 @ 2:21PM|#
What about shotguns, John? What are you asking me?
I think the shotgun of anti-gun-ban arguments is, "They don't work.
People just guns off the black market."
Is that what you meant?
|4.17.07 @ 2:21PM|#
Wow, the trolls are really out today. Again Edward, please explain how any gun control measure would have stopped this guy? Until you do that, gun control has nothing to do with the argument.
|4.17.07 @ 2:22PM|#
The response from Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, is similarly puzzling. Helmke bemoans "how easy it is for an individual to get powerful weapons in our country." In what sense are the handguns Cho used, a .22 and a 9mm, especially "powerful"?
Jacob, as I noted
yesterday, the Brady Campaign folks spat forth that press release
before the news folks were even sure the shooting was over, never
mind exactly what guns were used. I am not defending the Brady
pricks mind you, just pointing out that they won't let little
things like 'facts playing out in real time' stop them from
lambasting the "gun lobby".
|4.17.07 @ 2:24PM|#
OK, I take it back.
I was going to see how far I could get away from advocating gun
control before you stopped asking me to defend it.
|4.17.07 @ 2:25PM|#
Here is a quote from the guy who sold him at least the
Glock:
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/223055.php
"Well, I'm screwed. They found a receipt in the gunman's pocket
indicating that he bought the gun from me in March. ATF is at my
shop right now. See you later, I'm on my way to the shop right
now."
[...]"Call BS all you like, but I just spent the last several hours
with 3 ATF agents. I saw the shooter's picture. I know his name and
home address. I also know that he used a Glock 19 and a Walther
P-22. The serial number was ground off the Glock. Why would he do
that and still keep the receipt in his pocket from when he bought
the gun? ATF told me that they are going to keep this low-key and
not report this to the tv news. However, they cautioned that it
will leak out eventually, and that I should be ready to deal with
CNN, FOX, etc. My 32 camera surveillance system recorded the event
35 days ago. This is a digital system that only keeps the video for
35 days. We got lucky. By the way, the paperwork for Mr. Cho was
perfect, thank God."
|4.17.07 @ 2:25PM|#
Edward, I'm beginning to understand it all to well.
For example, I just learned that I personally was responsible for
the shooting.
Now, if I were a libertarian I'd point out that everybody on the VT
campus was free to have attended school at a place where everybody
is allowed to be armed. Assuming the market provides for such a
place.
|4.17.07 @ 2:26PM|#
"You know why the Army issues soldiers rifles and pistols
instead of propane tanks?"
Joe, glad to know that the Army isn't in the habit of strapping
giant incendiary devices to the wings of their helicopters, or,
say, lobbing them at stuff kilometers away through a mortar.
No, the Army's all about just rifles and pistols, because stuff
that blows up and takes out a whole group of people is obviously
much less lethal than a rifle.
|4.17.07 @ 2:27PM|#
Here is a quote from the guy who sold him at least the
Glock:
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/223055.php
"Well, I'm screwed. They found a receipt in the gunman's pocket
indicating that he bought the gun from me in March. ATF is at my
shop right now. See you later, I'm on my way to the shop right
now."
[...]"Call BS all you like, but I just spent the last several hours
with 3 ATF agents. I saw the shooter's picture. I know his name and
home address. I also know that he used a Glock 19 and a Walther
P-22. The serial number was ground off the Glock. Why would he do
that and still keep the receipt in his pocket from when he bought
the gun? ATF told me that they are going to keep this low-key and
not report this to the tv news. However, they cautioned that it
will leak out eventually, and that I should be ready to deal with
CNN, FOX, etc. My 32 camera surveillance system recorded the event
35 days ago. This is a digital system that only keeps the video for
35 days. We got lucky. By the way, the paperwork for Mr. Cho was
perfect, thank God."
Are we supposed to feel sorry for this guy? He directly profited
from the deaths of 33 people.
|4.17.07 @ 2:28PM|#
John-It's ok, trolls need feeding too. Just ask joe.
They are either off a bit, or intentionally misleading. The
procedure in VA to get a CWP does include certified training and
fingerprinting, after the background check.
This is incorrect. For VA residents, the fingerprint mandate was
eliminated in 2006. For nonresidents, it remains. It's kinda silly,
obviously having his fingerprints wouldn't do anything in this
case, but people believe it holds some intrinsic value because the
All Powerful Oz knows or something. In mass killings, the guilty
are rarely on the run afterwards, they usually become part of the
body count.
Has nothing to do with the issue, as it deals with carry permits
not purchases, but wanted to correct the misunderstanding.
Transfer of ones that were already on the market was still
completely legal, and resulted in inflated prices for
magazines.
The good ole days, when someone would buy a Glock V 1.0 mag for $90
plus. Now, they're what, $15? Nope, $22 at one place online.
Haven't purchased any for a while.
To clarify one of mediageek's comments, standard capacity (some say
"hi cap"), as opposed to reduced capacity, magazines made after the
ban went into effect were stamped "LE Military Only" or words to
that effect, which is how someone knew they were "post ban"
magazines as magazines aren't stamped with a manufacture date.
They're kind of like collector items now.
db|4.17.07 @ 2:28PM|#
joe, I agree with you. Edward successfully characterizes only 2/7 of 1% of the arguments put forth on this blog relating to gun control.
Other Matt|4.17.07 @ 2:28PM|#
Are we supposed to feel sorry for this guy? He directly
profited from the deaths of 33 people.
No more than GM profitting when a drunk hits a pedestrian.
|4.17.07 @ 2:28PM|#
Would the economic libertarians please explain to the 2nd
Amendment libertarians the concept of "margins?"
Sure, you can MacGuiver your way to blood and guts, but it's a real
pain the ass.
You know why the Army issues soldiers rifles and pistols instead of
propane tanks?
"You can kill someone with a hatchet" is the .22 caliber pistol of
anti-gun control arguments.
You're missing the point joe, et al.
It's not that you can, but that people don't. And not
because it's hard.
I thought that you would have picked up on that with my comment
yesterday re 4000 lb. wheeled vehicles, but I 'spose not.
Lemme spell it out for the trolls, since dee-duction isn't a strong
personal skill: We're a peaceful people in posession of a good
sized fatality-causing arsenal, literally at our hands. With all
this lethal force at our disposal, you'd think the carnage would be
routine.
At least as far as the "man-as-savage" prols are concerned.
|4.17.07 @ 2:29PM|#
Oh, there is much we can do:
1. Outlaw private gun ownership.
2. Hold gun manufacturers responsible for crimes committed with
their products.
3. Supply guns to all police and security.
4. Implement strict curfews.
5. Institute random searches of private residences and
individuals.
6. Apply the death penalty to all those convicted of perpetrators
of violent crimes.
7. Dramatically increase the number of police officers
nationwide.
8. Etc.
Yes, there is much we can do, but the most important is to
surrender our freedom.
db|4.17.07 @ 2:31PM|#
Are we supposed to feel sorry for this guy? He directly
profited from the deaths of 33 people.
What?
|4.17.07 @ 2:34PM|#
tazman wrote: "Virginia Tech (and a lot of other schools)
used to allow students to have firearms in the dorms (my buddies
who went to college in Montana used to hang the deer they shot out
the dorm windows) but, in accordance with the anti-gun lobby, have
banned students from having both guns and knives on campus. If that
ban wasn't in place, somebody could have dropped this scumbag after
the first shooting in the dorms instead of letting him walk across
the campus and killing 30 more."
Interestingly, I heard a mother of a suriving VA Tech student
interviewed on the radio this morning (WPHT Philadelphia). She said
that the campus draws a lot of students from rural areas and that
therefore a lot of the students are into hunting and are
responsible gun owners. Which makes one wonder if things would have
turned out differently if the students had been allowed to have
guns on campus.
|4.17.07 @ 2:35PM|#
Are we supposed to feel sorry for this guy? He directly
profited from the deaths of 33 people.
What?
Stab at the guy that sold the gun, blaming him for the actions of
the purchaser. Similar to blaming the hot tub seller if I drown
someone in a hot tub.
|4.17.07 @ 2:35PM|#
"By the way, the paperwork for Mr. Cho was perfect, thank
God."
No, thank yourself. Those laws exist for a reason, and you followed
them.
JW,
Normal people don't kill people with propane cylinders, firearms,
or SUVs because they don't want to. But normal people aren't the
problem here.
Spree killers are the problem here, and they've shown a remarkable
consistency in their choice of firearms over gas tanks.
The Ref|4.17.07 @ 2:36PM|#
That's it. Everyone out of the pool. Reason editors: Would you please, for the love of dog, stop posting about this mess? No one, in any of these threads, has anything new or useful to say, and they almost instantly become cases of people howling past each other.
Kap|4.17.07 @ 2:38PM|#
Spree killers are the problem here, and they've shown a remarkable consistency in their choice of firearms over gas tanks.
Actually, joe, the individual who still holds the
mass-school-murder-spree record did use fire.
It was in 1927, in Michigan, the school handyman rigged the school
for arson.
|4.17.07 @ 2:39PM|#
Even if one accepts the notion that people should be denied an effective self defense tool, ostensibly out of a desire to increase public safety, why on earth would one be so deranged to think that highly motivated people in the U.S. could be prevented from obtaining easily manufactured, easily concealed, small pieces of metal, especially when several hundred million of such small pieces of metal are already in circulation?
|4.17.07 @ 2:40PM|#
But normal people aren't the problem here.
Spot on.
I just read his one act play on the smoking gun, interesting.
|4.17.07 @ 2:41PM|#
Stab at the guy that sold the gun, blaming him for the
actions of the purchaser. Similar to blaming the hot tub seller if
I drown someone in a hot tub.
No, I'm not blaming the gun owner for the shooting. I'm only
pointing out that he's got some blood money in his cash register
and can spare us the whining about bad publicity.
Other Matt|4.17.07 @ 2:42PM|#
Spree killers are the problem here, and they've shown a
remarkable consistency in their choice of firearms over gas
tanks.
You have joe, and you have "not exactly".
Biggest mass killing-arson of NY nightclub, 87 killed. Second
biggest-school bombing, Bath School, 45 killed. So it seems out of
the big 3, only one used firearms, the others used the equivalent
of your propane tanks.
It's not the firearm that's the problem, you just absolutely don't
want to see it, it's amazing.
|4.17.07 @ 2:45PM|#
Speaking of crazed killers and campus shootings, and how a
little training might play out. From a movie full of immortal
quotes comes this gem:
"Those two men showed what one motivated marine and his rifle can
do, and before you ladies leave my island, you will all be able to
do the SAME thing."
|4.17.07 @ 2:45PM|#
Normal people don't kill people with propane cylinders,
firearms, or SUVs because they don't want to. But normal people
aren't the problem here.
Spree killers are the problem here, and they've shown a remarkable
consistency in their choice of firearms over gas tanks.
Except when they don't. Last check, dead is dead.
I don't think you and I disagree much here, but evidently folks
like Hooked think that is exactly the problem.
Somehow, they believe, that on this one occasion psychopaths and
thugs will obey the rules of society.
|4.17.07 @ 2:46PM|#
Will Allen,
I made the point on another thread that if law abiding people
carrying guns to defend themselves is so dangerous, why do we allow
the police to carry guns? I would hazrd to guess that the typical
small towm police officer or campus police officer is just as likly
to shoot an innocent bystander as the average person. If it is
wrong for the average person to shoot back because of the danger
created, why isn't it wrong for the cops to shoot back? I guess the
sollution under that logic is to just run and hope the guy runs out
of bullets or commits suicide on his own.
|4.17.07 @ 2:46PM|#
Other Matt, Kap, thanks for the anecdotes.
Now, would you care to state the blindingly obvious truth about the
weapon of choice in the majority of multiple homicides, or is
playing dumb part of your religion.
Oh, and "Other Matt," what does the statement "But normal people
aren't the problem here. Spree killers are the problem here,,"
suggest to you about what I consider "the problem?"
|4.17.07 @ 2:47PM|#
"Spree killers are the problem here, and they've shown a
remarkable consistency in their choice of firearms over gas
tanks."
How is this freak any different that tweedle dee and tweedle dumb
who did the OKC bombing?
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|4.17.07 @ 2:48PM|#
I keep thinking about it and thinking about it and I'm
hard-pressed to conclude anything besides this tragedy was
unpreventable.
Uh - maybe if the school would have shut down campus after the
first shooting...
|4.17.07 @ 2:48PM|#
I blame S.W.A.T for the high body count...
Whats up with S.W.A.T teams just standing around while the shooter
was killing unarmed victims? I thought it was thier job to serve
and protect.. apparently thats not thier job, it seem thier only
job is to count the bodies.
I watched the same scenario unfold on TV during Columbine, the guys
with the guns, bullet proof vests, and bullet proof lexan shields
stood outside while the kids without any defensive means were shot
left and right.
Hey how about using some of those Special Weapons And Tactics to
actually attempt to neutralize the shooter??
You know whos responsable for not letting the death toll to climb
higher then 32 dead?? The shooter!!! He took his own life, imagine
how many more would have been dead had he not taken his own life??
Who would have defended those terrified kids locked up in thier
classrooms, Not the police, they were busy hiding behind
trees...
Yea yea, I know, its policy, they were only following orders, blah
blah... how about its time we demand a change to that
policy??!!
While unarmed, defenseless kids were being slaughtered, the ones
with the means, and defense to stop the carnage were tied down by
politics and policy... whats the sense in having bullet proof vests
and millions of dollars in training if your not going to use it
when it counts???
Timothy|4.17.07 @ 2:50PM|#
I doubt, "Man, I sure feel murderous, but I can't find any guns, so I guess I'll go crochet instead." is a very common thought. More like, "I guess I'll find some other way to hurt a bunch of people because I am a deranged psychopath to whom the normal moral calculus doesn't apply."
|4.17.07 @ 2:52PM|#
JW,
"Somehow, they believe, that on this one occasion psychopaths and
thugs will obey the rules of society."
If there's one thing I've learned, it's the value of actually
understanding your opponents' beliefs, instead of projecting
easily-refuted positions onto them. At a minimum, doing so will
enhance your ability to win arguments with them. Sometimes, it will
lead you to a greater understanding of the issues involved.
No, gun-controllers don't believe that thugs are going to follow
the law. They are confident that they will not follow the laws
against murder and assault. That's why they want to make it harder
for them to get firearms.
If you look at the gun control laws that have been passed an
proposed, they involve bans on manufacturing, selling and
transferring firearms, as well as owning them. It isn'the
compliance of the murderers that is assumed, but of the gun dealers
and normal gun-owning people.
|4.17.07 @ 2:52PM|#
9/11, for better or worse, temporarily persuaded many dove-ish
people that their deeply held views on foreign policy were flat-out
wrong.
There is nobody here who has changed their views as a result of
this tragedy.
That is why all these arguments are unconvincing.
|4.17.07 @ 2:52PM|#
Kanabis,
I agree completely. The cops are paid to put their lives on the
line to protect innocent people. If they are going to stand around
and say "I ain't going in there" while some lunatic is killing
innocent people, then what the hell good are they? The did the same
thing at Columbine and several other mass shootings; just stand
around wait until the guy is done and has killed himself and then
cleaned up the mess. It is complete bullshit.
|4.17.07 @ 2:52PM|#
I doubt, "Man, I sure feel murderous, but I can't find any
guns, so I guess I'll go crochet instead." is a very common
thought. More like, "I guess I'll find some other way to hurt a
bunch of people because I am a deranged psychopath to whom the
normal moral calculus doesn't apply."
So...the argument is that since a psychopath (presumably) will find
a way to hurt people no matter what, we should make it as easy as
possible?
Kap|4.17.07 @ 2:53PM|#
No one, in any of these threads, has anything new or useful to say...
OK, I'll make a feeble effort.
When I was in high school 20-odd years ago some merry prankster put
a Kryptonite lock across the two handles of the double doors
entering the library. This locked a dozen students in for a few
hours while the metal shop guys diamond-drilled their way through
the lock. The experience freaked the school admin so badly that
within a week or so on every set of double doors one of the
doorpulls was removed. I read that the shooter in VA did the same
trick, with himself and his prey inside.
Isn't there any repository of lessons learned, of "best practices"
to prevent or minimize this sort of thing? I'm not calling for
regulation, can't the American Architectural Association or
whomever develop some sort of knowledge base.
Also, can we stop identifying these killers? It's sufficient to say
"a 23-year old man", you don't need to plaster his name and photo
over our collective consciousness for 3 months. These idiots are
angry at life and they want revenge against it, and infamy. If you
render them forever anonymous, I think in the broken mindset of
these folks it renders their spree pointless.
I'm not calling for censorship, only responsibility on the part of
the school admin, police, journalists, and bloggers.
It pisses me off when the finger is pointed at the likes of me, as
a gunowner, for culpability in these situations when many of the
people pointing that finger are turning the shooters into
celebrities.
Now, would you care to state the blindingly obvious truth about the weapon of choice in the majority of multiple homicides, or is playing dumb part of your religion.
A blindingly obvious truth: in the UK when guns were banned the
populace started getting stabby. Substitution. A libertarian
playing dumb about economics?
|4.17.07 @ 2:54PM|#
John,
"How is this freak any different that tweedle dee and tweedle dumb
who did the OKC bombing?"
Their crime required greater expertise and financial resources.
|4.17.07 @ 2:55PM|#
"It isn'the compliance of the murderers that is assumed, but of
the gun dealers and normal gun-owning people."
Since this guy had a clean record and there was no reason to
beleive he was dangerous, no amount of compliance on the part of
gun dealers would have prevented the tragedy. Indeed, I defy you to
find one of these mass shootings where background checks or any
form of gun control would have stopped it. Your ordinary scumbag
criminal just doesn't engage in mass shootings. It is always seems
to be the wierd loaner who has never been in trouble before.
Other Matt|4.17.07 @ 2:55PM|#
Now, would you care to state the blindingly obvious truth
about the weapon of choice in the majority of multiple homicides,
or is playing dumb part of your religion.
I don't have religion, perhaps taoism is close.
You spoke of spree killers. They are a special breed, and typically
take what's available to them. This is the point. If you take away
guns, they'll use something else. In Britian, they have a rash of
knife attacks, now that guns are outlawed.
I honestly don't know their weapon of choice statistically.
|4.17.07 @ 2:56PM|#
I'm for the right to bear arms and I own lots of weapons. But grow up and realize that the price of that freedom is that there is more opportunity and means for nuts to kill people with guns. I'm brave enough to accept that.
|4.17.07 @ 2:58PM|#
Kanabiis,
The students inside the building reported that they could hear the
police in the hall very quickly after the first shots were fired.
Given the way terror can make minutes seem like hours, their sense
that the police arrived quickly is pretty compelling. The police
even fired a few shots at the killer as they were chasing him,
before he shot himself.
I saw the footage of the cops outside, too. While they were
standing behind trees and watching the doors, there were other
police inside, looking for the guy.
|4.17.07 @ 2:59PM|#
When I was in high school 20-odd years ago some merry
prankster put a Kryptonite lock across the two
handles of the double doors entering the library.
I guess that stopped Superman from saving the day.
Kap|4.17.07 @ 2:59PM|#
It is always seems to be the wierd loaner who has never been in trouble before.
Leave the subprime crisis out of this.
|4.17.07 @ 3:00PM|#
If there's one thing I've learned, it's the value of
actually understanding your opponents' beliefs, instead of
projecting easily-refuted positions onto them. At a minimum, doing
so will enhance your ability to win arguments with them. Sometimes,
it will lead you to a greater understanding of the issues
involved.
Feeling a little superor today joe? No shit. You keep missing my
point.
No, gun-controllers don't believe that thugs are going to
follow the law. They are confident that they will not follow the
laws against murder and assault. That's why they want to make it
harder for them to get firearms.
Even though it doesn't, it feels so good to think that anyway,
eh?
If you look at the gun control laws that have been passed an
proposed, they involve bans on manufacturing, selling and
transferring firearms, as well as owning them. It isn'the
compliance of the murderers that is assumed, but of the gun dealers
and normal gun-owning people.
And that it does nothing to stop "murderers" is beside the pount
then?
If only "murderers" were the only problem, then we'd have no need
for gun control laws, right?
|4.17.07 @ 3:01PM|#
Since this guy had a clean record and there was no reason to
beleive he was dangerous...
You mean he was a law-abiding citizen? I thought there was no risk
in selling that kind of person a gun, since only criminal commit
crimes.
|4.17.07 @ 3:02PM|#
Kap,
"A blindingly obvious truth: in the UK when guns were banned the
populace started getting stabby. Substitution. A libertarian
playing dumb about economics?"
I'm not a libertarian, but I do know enough about economics to know
that not all substitutions are as efficient as the original choice.
Have there been a large number of mass casualty stabbings in
Blighty lately?
A knife may well be a highly efficient substitution for a gun when
you want to stick it in an old lady's face and take her purse, but
to slaughter dozens of people in a school building?
|4.17.07 @ 3:04PM|#
Joe,
Link?? Not that im calling you a lier, but I have been wasting a
day at work talking with coworkers around me about this, and we are
all reading articles about the shooting, and I have yet to read one
with the police response details, nor an interview with any of the
survivors saying thank god for the police.
If it is true, then thats a welcome change from the SOP in the 30
or some odd shootings over the last decade.
|4.17.07 @ 3:07PM|#
You mean he was a law-abiding citizen? I thought there was
no risk in selling that kind of person a gun, since only criminal
commit crimes.
This is true, which is why the argument about overriding numbers
using guns is bullshit. Statistically, all of violent crimes are
comitted by prior criminals. Even here, there were indications. The
problem is balancing the privacy of the individual, in terms of
being treated for depression, with background checks. As there is
no database I'm aware of of people who are under a doctor's care
for depression, there is no way to verify. There is a question on
the form which asks if you're under treatment for mental disease,
but of course this guy lied (which really makes you wonder why the
form is even filled out, because someone who is nefarious would
simply lie, but Sarah likes it I guess).
Dave W.|4.17.07 @ 3:08PM|#
It's hard to see how any of this is relevant to the case at
hand. Assuming that Cho Seung-Hui did not have firearms training .
. .
Guess what happened when Zaccharias Moussaoui went to get flight
training.
Cho bought his guns at a store or a gun show, but there's also
no indication that he would have failed a background check,
assuming he avoided one.
On one of the other threads it was alleged that disturbing writings
caused him to be referred as a risk at the university. So a
background check might have picked up on this referral.
Another comment alleged that his MySpace page was disturbing. So
that is another thing a background check might have picked up
on.
Try reading the comments section at HnR sometime, Mr.
Sullum. Almost as good as actual research.
The response from Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign
to Prevent Gun Violence, is similarly puzzling. Helmke bemoans "how
easy it is for an individual to get powerful weapons in our
country." In what sense are the handguns Cho used . . .[including]
a 9mm, especially "powerful"?
There are weaker handguns. And when we are talking about something
as easily concealed as a handgun, there is an argument that 9 mm is
too powerful for such an easily concealed weapon.
Long guns are a different story, of course. In part because they
are harder to lug across campus.
I guess we should be thankful that Helmke at least did not
demand reinstatement of the federal "assault weapon"
ban.
True, that.
|4.17.07 @ 3:10PM|#
"A knife may well be a highly efficient substitution for a gun
when you want to stick it in an old lady's face and take her purse,
but to slaughter dozens of people in a school building?"
You mean like the machete used in the school killings in Dunblane,
England, 16 students killed... higher body count then
Columbine...
|4.17.07 @ 3:12PM|#
JW,
"Feeling a little superor today joe?" I feel superior every day,
but you are making it easy today.
"Even though it doesn't, it feels so good to think that anyway,
eh?"
I wouldn't know. Ideologues of all varieities tend to feel good
about their superiority to those who disagree with them, so it
probably does feel good to them.
"And that it does nothing to stop "murderers" is beside the pount
then?" Nice wholly-unsupported-assumption you've got there.
"If only "murderers" were the only problem, then we'd have no need
for gun control laws, right?" I don't even know what this is
supposed to mean. Does supporting a ban on selling lock-picking
tools to the general public mean I'm not worried about burglars?
No, it means I AM worried about burglars, and want to make it
harder for them to practice their craft.
Dave W.|4.17.07 @ 3:12PM|#
By the way, the paperwork for Mr. Cho was perfect, thank
God.
If anyone has a copy of that paperwork, please post. It is, as
"Weigs" Weigel would say, "relevant" to the story.
Kap|4.17.07 @ 3:13PM|#
joe,
You are correct.
Knife < gun < fire < explosives.
And the somber scorecard reflects this perfectly.
Unless you're starting at the top of that list and banning
downwards, your efforts at banning the middle might have unintended
consequences...
Devil's advocate here: OK, ban anything that goes "boom". Do you
honestly think that every one of the 200M extant guns can be
recovered? Has this worked in any other prohibition scheme?
I gave a few ideas above, what is your solution?
|4.17.07 @ 3:14PM|#
In other news, I see that the mayor of Nagaski, who was shot by
a gunman earlier today, has died. This points out the need for
Japan to enact tight gun control laws.
Oh, wait. . .
|4.17.07 @ 3:14PM|#
In what sense are the handguns Cho used . . .[including] a
9mm, especially "powerful"?
I dunno, maybe in the sense that they allowed one guy to kill 33
people?
Other Matt|4.17.07 @ 3:15PM|#
On one of the other threads it was alleged that disturbing
writings caused him to be referred as a risk at the university. So
a background check might have picked up on this referral.
Another comment alleged that his MySpace page was disturbing. So
that is another thing a background check might have picked up
on.
Dave-Do you even know what you're talking about with a background
check? I'm not being inflammatory, but there's no way in hell
they'd pick up on a college counsellor referring someone due to
writings. It's just simply not what it is.
|4.17.07 @ 3:15PM|#
kanabiis,
No link, just the interviews I've seen on CNN. A girl who described
locking herself and 20 other people in an office, and the guy who
held the door shut to a classroom as the killer tried to get
in.
"If it is true, then thats a welcome change from the SOP in the 30
or some odd shootings over the last decade." I think there has been
a change. Columbine and the Amish school attack seem to have caused
some rethinking.
Other Matt|4.17.07 @ 3:17PM|#
For Dave W-http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics.htm
Educate yourself and come back.
|4.17.07 @ 3:17PM|#
"You mean he was a law-abiding citizen? I thought there was no
risk in selling that kind of person a gun, since only criminal
commit crimes."
I haven't seen anyone claim "no risk" at all. Just a different
level of risk, to be weighed against other interests. Obviously,
having a restraining order out against you or a history of
schizophrenia is going to make one side of the scale a bit
heavier.
|4.17.07 @ 3:20PM|#
You mean like the machete used in the school killings in
Dunblane, England, 16 students killed... higher body count then
Columbine...
Umm, actually, Dunblane was done with handguns. and it's in
Scotland.
It led to Great Britain (already home to some of the world's
toughest gun laws and traditionally low rates of gun ownership) to
pass even stricter legislation.
Kap|4.17.07 @ 3:22PM|#
Obviously, having a restraining order out against you or a history of schizophrenia is going to make one side of the scale a bit heavier.
Both of these already make you legally ineligible for purchase or
possession of a firearm.
|4.17.07 @ 3:23PM|#
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.
So much for smug superiority.
Tell me again who is expected to follow a gun ownership law?
Dave W.|4.17.07 @ 3:24PM|#
Dave-Do you even know what you're talking about with a
background check? I'm not being inflammatory, but there's no way in
hell they'd pick up on a college counsellor referring someone due
to writings. It's just simply not what it is.
Maybe that is the problem, then, no?
|4.17.07 @ 3:24PM|#
"You mean like the machete used in the school killings in
Dunblane, England, 16 students killed... higher body count then
Columbine..."
And half of that at VT. My anecdote is bigger than your
anecdote.
Kap,
Explosives are already highly regulated - many are completely
illegal, and even nitrogen fertilizer sales are now reported to the
feds.
"Do you honestly think that every one of the 200M extant guns can
be recovered?" Of course not.
"Has this worked in any other prohibition scheme?" No, banning
common practices, like drinking, gambling, or owning pistols or
rifles, is only going to produce a black market. The practice/items
are too common, and the general public will cooperate with the
racketeers instead of the government.
"I gave a few ideas above, what is your solution?" I don't have a
solution for what happened yesterday, at least not one that
involves gun ownership.
|4.17.07 @ 3:26PM|#
Kap,
"Both of these already make you legally ineligible for purchase or
possession of a firearm."
Have you got a problem with that? Or do you agree that marginal
protections are allowable (even desireable), as long as they don't
interfere with the general public?
Other Matt|4.17.07 @ 3:27PM|#
In what sense are the handguns Cho used . . .[including] a
9mm, especially "powerful"?
I dunno, maybe in the sense that they allowed one guy to kill 33
people?
You really need to know what you're talking about, Hooked.
In the world of handguns, the 22 is the lowliest, the 9mm is
constantly derided as underpowered, to the point where a number of
organizations and individuals have gone to the 40SW. There are the
45ACP guys, who'll always be the 45ACP guys, and nothing else will
ever do.
The point is, in terms of handguns, these are not "High Powered".
To say so is sensationalism.
Other Matt|4.17.07 @ 3:29PM|#
Maybe that is the problem, then, no?
And not the firearm?! Perish the thought! ;)
The problem is balancing the privacy rights of the guy to seek
help, vs the database. I have a hard time with that one, my natural
privacy bent tends to win.
|4.17.07 @ 3:30PM|#
JW,
I assure you, my smug superiority is untouched by your unclear
writing.
"Tell me again who is expected to follow a gun ownership law?" You
mean, specifically, ownerhsip laws, separate and apart from
manufacture and sales laws?
Law-abiding people. The only relevance of a purely onwership-based
law to the people committing most of the gun crimes in this country
is to give the police something to charge them with.
Guy Montag|4.17.07 @ 3:31PM|#
Josh Horowitz is a flaming moron.
Everything below is a about LEGAL purchases and transfers.
"Virginia's gun laws are some of the weakest state laws in the
country":
Right here we see his bias: freedom means weak laws. The fact is
that the Commonwealth of Virginia prevents localities from
infringing on the rights of citizens.
Virginia imposes few restrictions on the purchase of handguns
and no requirement for any kind of licensing or
training.
There might be States that require training before purchase of
handguns and I am open to hearing of them, but I have not heard of
one yet.
Guess what? Tennessee does not require any training for you to
purchase a car either. Not sure about VA, but I have heard you
actually need ID in VA for the cash purchase of a car (some of that
required insurance nonsense or something), but no training is
required for purchasing a car. I bet you don't need any training or
ID to purchase a bulldozer cash either (as long as it costs less
than the federal required reporting of cash transactions).
The state does limit handgun purchases to one per month to
discourage bulk buying and resale, state officials said.
What was he saying before about a lack of restrictions? How did
this slip out of the same mouth/ass?
Once a person has passed a background check, state law requires
that law enforcement officers issue a concealed carry
permit...
Ah, the Dowification is present! Combined with all of the
Fairbanksing it is not a surprise.
He forgot about the required training too. Also, when I looked into
getting a VA CCW permit they wanted me to remember every violation
of the law I had ever had, including traffic infractions. I went
with the TN license, since they just look up the stuff they are
interested in.
However, no regulations and no background checks are required
for purchase of weapons at a Virginia gun show.
As someone else mentioned, if you are buying from a dealer at a gun
show, gun store, parking lot or anyplace else a background check is
required.
I am a Tennessee domiciliary, so I can only buy handguns from TN
dealers and residents in TN. Private sales in TN and in VA do not
require a background check. A VA domiciliary may seell a handgun
privately to another VA domiciliary, but not to an out-of-Stater.
Same with TN.
IIRC, handguns can only be purchased in the State of domicile
anyway. Long guns and shotguns can be purchased in adjoining States
(like when I purchased shotguns in VA and had to wait THREE
FREAKING DAYS for VA to clear the purchase).
Oh, the shooter when to the same (or a nearby) high school as
Jayson Blair of the NYT.
Kap|4.17.07 @ 3:32PM|#
My anecdote is bigger than your anecdote.
Rwanda for the win.
I don't have a solution for what happened yesterday, at least not one that involves gun ownership.
Neither do I. And I hope nobody else does either. Unfortunately, I
doubt that will be the case.
MC|4.17.07 @ 3:37PM|#
Talk of new gun laws after this is like talking about restrictions on diesel fuel after oklahoma city.
|4.17.07 @ 3:37PM|#
Jacob Sullum writes:
> In what sense are the handguns Cho
> used, a .22 and a 9mm, especially "powerful"?
He used them to kill 32 people. What further demonstration do you
want?
|4.17.07 @ 3:37PM|#
"How is this freak any different that tweedle dee and
tweedle dumb who did the OKC bombing?"
Their crime required greater expertise and financial
resources.
Then I think we need to outlaw greater expertise and financial
resources. Fortunately, the people who run our schools, and
government tax-and-spenders in general, are on the case.
|4.17.07 @ 3:38PM|#
"There is a question on the form which asks if you're under
treatment for mental disease, but of course this guy
lied"
Actually, the question asks if you have ever been adjudicated as
mentally incompetent or involuntarily committed.
Just being depressed, or seeing a shrink isn't a violation of the
law.
Dave W.|4.17.07 @ 3:44PM|#
"How is this freak any different that tweedle dee and
tweedle dumb who did the OKC bombing?"
Cause the feds knew about that one before it happened.
|4.17.07 @ 3:50PM|#
"Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million
violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated
and simple assault in 2005."
- Bureau of Justice Statistics
That said, firearms are used in more than 50% of attempted
homicides.
|4.17.07 @ 3:50PM|#
"Tell me again who is expected to follow a gun ownership
law?"
You mean, specifically, ownerhsip laws, separate and apart from
manufacture and sales laws?
No. But then, you generally can't own one without buying one,
right? Yes, you can inherit them, but as you are fond of pointing
out statistical probabliity, that isn't the issue here.
Law-abiding people. The only relevance of a purely
onwership-based law to the people committing most of the gun crimes
in this country is to give the police something to charge them
with.
Oh, I thought we weren't talking about "normal people."
Waits for joe to respond with "but you didn't say sales..."
Kap|4.17.07 @ 3:51PM|#
Have you got a problem with that? Or do you agree that marginal protections are allowable (even desireable), as long as they don't interfere with the general public?
Guy and mediageek may throw their drinks at me for saying this, but
no, I don't. A journalist doesn't need a license to exercise his
first amendment rights, but no, I don't have a problem with having
to ID myself and prove no criminal background check to buy a gun. I
don't have a problem with needing a CHL to carry one, and I won't
event bitch about the ~$300 cost of obtaining one every 5
years.
But I don't think that any of this will really stop criminals from
getting them, or the insane from occasionally using them. That ATF
form is basically 20 questions of "are you now, or have you ever
been, a member of the Communist Party?" It's quaint. I like how
they throw just one "yes" question in there to make sure you're
paying attention.
I will, however, put up with it if it makes the soccer moms feel
safer and if it eventually leads people to bark up other trees than
mine.
I do have a problem with the thought of some disgruntled
ex-girlfriend going to a judge and making a baseless accusation of
abuse from me, knowing that the judge's rubber stamp of a
restraining order ("what could it hurt?") will instantly turn me
into a felon because I own guns. Witness what happened to David
Letterman.
I also have a problem with "OMFG!!!!1111!!LOOK AT ALL THE PRO-GUN
COMMENTS HE WRITES IN A SPOOKY LIBERTARIAN BLOG!!!!111!!" leading
to my ineligibility or revocation. Or goth poetry, or
whatever.
Due process, confront accuser, jury of peers, etc.
Finally, I believe that the likes of Rita Cosby are more culpable
for yesterday than I am. I am not speaking rhetorically, I honestly
believe that.
[Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, long sloppy wet kisses, Susan
Sarandon in garters still hot, etc.]
bubba|4.17.07 @ 3:52PM|#
The Killeen shooting directly led to Texas authorizing concealed handgun licenses, and ultimately led to me having one.
|4.17.07 @ 3:54PM|#
The fact is no amount of gun control within the context of a
free society could have prevented Hui from doing what he did. Given
this fact, the gun control advocates have nothing relevant to add
to the discussion.
Maybe you are giving them, without wanting it, the solution: as you
said, no amount of gun control within a FREE society could have
prevented this. So the solution in the collectivist mind will be to
make this an UNfree society, and alas, I believe that is the
direction we're headed, carbon credits and all...
|4.17.07 @ 4:10PM|#
"Guy and mediageek may throw their drinks at me for saying
this, but no, I don't. A journalist doesn't need a license to
exercise his first amendment rights, but no, I don't have a problem
with having to ID myself and prove no criminal background check to
buy a gun. I don't have a problem with needing a CHL to carry one,
and I won't event bitch about the ~$300 cost of obtaining one every
5 years."
I have a problem with it only insofar as it's generally
ineffective, if unoffensive. As a libertarian, I'm philosophically
opposed to it.
But I don't have a serious issue with it.
MattXIV|4.17.07 @ 4:16PM|#
joe,
"Would the economic libertarians please explain to the 2nd
Amendment libertarians the concept of "margins?""
That argument isn't the homerun you think it is. I'm guessing the
demand for premediated murder is pretty inelastic and "sticky" in
the sense that unanticipated difficulties would be unlikely to
cause a plotter to stop if they could be overcame. In order to
prevent the murder, the difference in preference between the gun
and the best substitute (legal or marked up on a black market)
would have to be greater than the difference in preference between
not commiting the murder and committing it. Just because a policy
change has a marginal impact doesn't make it an effective tool for
changing behavior. Changing income would have a marginal impact on
how many meals people eat a day, but that doesn't mean it could
serve as the basis for an effective policy effort to change the
average number of meals people eat a day. I also don't think an
analysis of utility is that relevant in this particular case, or in
cases of murder-suicides in general. The suicide part suggests that
the killer is unlikely to respond to the normal range of incentives
that public policy could put forth.
Also, you seem to be moving the goalposts. Switching to the more
general case of all multiple homicides rather than "spree
killing"-type ones and complaining that examples of the latter
aren't representative of the former when we're discussing the later
is a pretty poor rhetorical slight of hand.
|4.17.07 @ 4:20PM|#
Once again we see how the easy availability of handguns
enables one individual to kill a lot of people. So discussing ways
to prevent such occurances in the future seems pretty relevant to
me.
It is not relevant. The weapon of choice for killing lots more
people in a single instance is still an improvised explosive
device.
A way to prevent such occurances as the one in VT is to allow
people to defend themselves, and not make them into defenseless
targets by gun-control laws.
|4.17.07 @ 4:20PM|#
JW,
"But then, you generally can't own one without buying one,
right?"
Right, but buying one requires a transaction between two parties,
meaning that the sale of a banned weapon requires both a buyer and
a seller. My point here is that gun store owner, subject to
licensing and required to keep records, is likely to stay on the
right side of the law.
'Oh, I thought we weren't talking about "normal people."' We're
not. You're being unclear again.
Guy Montag|4.17.07 @ 4:20PM|#
Kap,
[tosses full Foster's bottle at Kap]
[tips bartender $300 to keep his mouth shut]
|4.17.07 @ 4:25PM|#
Matt XIV,
"That argument isn't the homerun you think it is." I'm not making
an argument, I'm refuting one.
I agree that gun laws are unlikely to make a dent in the number of
spree-killings/multiple murders (I really wasn't trying to move the
goalposts there, just using the terms interchangeably). I do
believe that reducing the lethality of the weaponry available can
reduce the body count when they do occur.
|4.17.07 @ 4:27PM|#
Kap,
I've been here long enough to know that there are reasonable and
moderate gun nuts.
|4.17.07 @ 4:29PM|#
In what sense are the handguns Cho used, a .22 and a 9mm,
especially "powerful"?
Because Helmke probable never fired, much less touched a firearm in
his life and would shit himself if one were discharged in his
prissy presence.
|4.17.07 @ 4:31PM|#
Law-abiding people [would obey these laws]
Which immediately says that non-abiding individuals would not obey
these laws, obviating them. Good thinking, Joe.
The only relevance of a purely onwership-based law to the
people committing most of the gun crimes in this country is to give
the police something to charge them with.
Actually, the true relevance is that it would hinder the
law-abiding people from getting guns, giving room for non-abiding
people to use them against the law-abiding with less risk of
getting shot back. The fact that there are many criminals indicate
that the risk of prosecution is still relatively low compared to
the rewards.
|4.17.07 @ 4:33PM|#
I do believe that reducing the lethality of the weaponry
available can reduce the body count when they do occur.
That is absurd. Reducing the lethality of one weapon would only
encourage a killer to carry more lesser-lethality weapons, or use
Improvised Explosive Devices, which can be created out of
almost-household items.
|4.17.07 @ 4:35PM|#
Right, but buying one requires a transaction between two
parties, meaning that the sale of a banned weapon requires both a
buyer and a seller. My point here is that gun store owner, subject
to licensing and required to keep records, is likely to stay on the
right side of the law.
Irrelevant. In such cases, the non-abiding individual will simply
turn to the black market, which will become more lucrative once a
ban is imposed, the same way as with drugs, alcohol and
prostitution. Prohibition does not work - the law of unintended
consequences is too powerful for even the most proactive of
bureaucrats.
|4.17.07 @ 4:45PM|#
Couldn't the Assault Weapons Ban have covered the clips used in the 9mm? If the clips used held more than 10 rounds, they would have fallen under the ban. Of course, the gunman had a vest with multiple clips, and a few extra re-loads wouldn't have made a difference, but hey, this is politics, not reality. Those kids have enough reality to deal with.
ellipsis|4.17.07 @ 4:59PM|#
Akira,
You seem to do a lot of ex post facto corrections. Is it the rush
to get your comment in as quick as possible? I know I do that
sometimes. I grabbed the newest version of firefox, which
spell-checks on the fly. I've found that to be helpful.
|4.17.07 @ 5:00PM|#
Lamar-
As I've already pointed out, even during the ban on magazines
holding more than ten rounds, it was still legal to own and sell
ones that were in circulation before the law was enacted.
Even if he had been limited to ten-round magazines, it wouldn't
have made much of a difference.
The latest that I've read is that the .22 pistol he used was a
Walther P22, for which there are no >10 round magazines
available anyway.
Guy Montag|4.17.07 @ 5:04PM|#
I am still waiting for the people who did not hug this guy
"enough" get blamed for the shooting, since the gun seller has
already been blamed (other thread?).
Herd some dork call in on a radio show blaming the US "isolationist
society" (he was assuming nobody wanted to hang around with the
English major from Asia, or something) for this and that there
would be "a lot more of it".
Come to think of it, if that caller goes on a shooting rampage
because he does not want to make friends I bet WMAL catches crap
for not "reporting" the caller to whomever "loners" are supposed to
be "reported" to.
|4.17.07 @ 5:14PM|#
Right, but buying one requires a transaction between two
parties, meaning that the sale of a banned weapon requires both a
buyer and a seller. My point here is that gun store owner, subject
to licensing and required to keep records, is likely to stay on the
right side of the law.
Banned weapons? When did I say anything about that?
You're being unclear again.
No, you're just being deliberately obtuse to make a point.
|4.17.07 @ 5:15PM|#
Other Matt | April 17, 2007, 3:27pm | #
> The point is, in terms of handguns, these
> are not "High Powered". To say so is
> sensationalism.
Yes. And 32 dead people in Virginia agree with you.
|4.17.07 @ 5:20PM|#
So what then would constitute a low-powered gun? One completely
incapable of causing injury?
That would kind of make the whole
"high-powered-pistol-rifle-assault-weapon" meme a tad bit moot,
wouldn't it?
But then again, I guess its all about the hyperbole.
|4.17.07 @ 5:35PM|#
I read about half the comments here.
I think we oughtta make people illegal. Half are too fuckin stupid
to justify the oxygen they use and the other half are armed. Which
apparently makes them lunatics as well.
|4.17.07 @ 5:39PM|#
And oh BTW,
classmates of the shooter said he was bat shit crazy and they joked
about whether he was gonna turn into a school shooter. The
shooter's professors had referred him to counseling because they
saw he was a fucking loon.
The signs were obviously there.
|4.17.07 @ 5:54PM|#
9/11, for better or worse, temporarily persuaded many dove-ish people that their deeply held views on foreign policy were flat-out wrong.
There is nobody here who has changed their views as a result of this tragedy.
Invoking the Nazis in every unreleated discussion has gotten passe
- I really think Godwin's law will need a 9/11 corollary soon.
|4.17.07 @ 6:10PM|#
Jacob Sullum writes:
> In what sense are the handguns Cho
> used, a .22 and a 9mm, especially "powerful"?
He used them to kill 32 people. What further demonstration do you
want?
Oh, I dunno, maybe something about how powerful the weapon is
rather than how many people Cho killed with it. (Or maybe I missed
the part where, instead of killing them one at a time, Cho lined
all his victims up and killed them with a single round. If that's
what happened, then yeah, his weapon was pretty powerful.)
|4.17.07 @ 6:26PM|#
Seamus wrote:
>> Jacob Sullum writes:
>>> In what sense are the handguns Cho
>>> used, a .22 and a 9mm, especially
>>> "powerful"?
>> He used them to kill 32 people. What further >>
demonstration do you want?
> Oh, I dunno, maybe something about how
> powerful the weapon is rather than how many
> people Cho killed with it.
Seamus, my dear fellow: The measure of a weapon's "powerfulness"
is, in the ultimate sense, how many people it will kill. Any other
measure is just pissing around. By this measure, the guns used in
the VT massacre were quite powerful indeed.
Please don't try and play us for fools.
|4.17.07 @ 6:41PM|#
Really, Ken?
Perhaps you should call Marshall & Sanow, the FBI, Martin
Fackler, or anyone else who works in the field of ballistics and
let them know about this.
Geeze, why should they be fucking around calculating foot-lbs,
ballistic coefficients, or aerodynamics.
Why, if a bullet, administered to a human head at point-blank range
kills them, that certainly tells anyone all they need to know about
the "power" of that round.
Your expertise is jaw-dropping.
|4.17.07 @ 6:56PM|#
mediageek wrote:
> Really, Ken?
>
> Geeze, why should they be fucking
> around calculating foot-lbs, ballistic
> coefficients, or aerodynamics.
Only a real scumbag would value foot-lbs over human lives. Such
measurements are meaningless in light of the overwhelming loss of
life that occurred at VT. It is souls that concern the American
public, mediageek, and frankly it's a shame I have to point that
out to you.
You don't care much for human life, do you?
|4.17.07 @ 7:01PM|#
Seamus, my dear fellow: The measure of a weapon's "powerfulness" is, in the ultimate sense, how many people it will kill.
Then, by all means, man is that ultimate weapon. Every single
murder in human history has had one thing in common, another person
was involved. The instrument used does not determine the amount of
death, only the wielder of said instrument.
|4.17.07 @ 7:10PM|#
Kwix,
"Then, by all means, man is that ultimate weapon. Every single
murder in human history has had one thing in common, another person
was involved. The instrument used does not determine the amount of
death, only the wielder of said instrument."
Thank you very very much. No other comments are necessary. Good
night everyone. God bless.
Peace out.
A M E N
|4.17.07 @ 7:35PM|#
Ken, did you furrow your brow and purse your lips while typing
up that dreadful bit of sanctimony?
If you're going to define "high-powered" as "anything that could
possibly kill a person" then the term obviously has no meaning.
|4.17.07 @ 7:42PM|#
mediageek wrote:
> If you're going to define "high-powered" as
> "anything that could possibly kill a person"
> then the term obviously has no meaning.
Yes, I value human lives over foot-pounds. Only an inhuman witch
would not. I see that you have taken the side of the witches.
When a member of your family has been killed by a gunman, as has my
family, I will listen more fully to your protests. Until then, you
have littel moral ground.
Gee...|4.17.07 @ 7:51PM|#
Wow, tough shit Ken, but your situation doesn't change whether
or not .22 caliber or 9mm are powerful rounds or not.
Next time you want sympathy, talk to a shrink, don't interject it
into a discussion because you have nothing useful to add.
|4.17.07 @ 7:58PM|#
Plainly, hammers need to be banned.
A sharp blow to the head from a carpenters hammer will prove fatal
in most cases.
|4.17.07 @ 8:17PM|#
Only a real scumbag would value foot-lbs over human lives. Such measurements are meaningless in light of the overwhelming loss of life that occurred at VT.
If you don't torque those lug nuts down to at least 65 ft/lbs your
wheels will slide off and you will die. So more ft/lbs = more human
lives saved.
|4.17.07 @ 10:03PM|#
The response from Paul Helmke, president of the Brady
Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, is similarly puzzling. Helmke
bemoans "how easy it is for an individual to get powerful weapons
in our country." In what sense are the handguns Cho used, a .22 and
a 9mm, especially "powerful"?
Powerful weapons in the sense that bare hands and even knives are
considerably less powerful. Powerful in the sense that one person
who used them was able to kill 30 people in a short period of time.
Powerful in the sense that if someone else in the room had held a
9mm, he could have prevented those thirty deaths in a matter of
seconds.
I would hate to think the argument to allow people to own guns
might have to rest on the premise that they aren't especially
powerful weapons.
Guy Montag|4.17.07 @ 11:09PM|#
And oh BTW,
classmates of the shooter said he was bat shit crazy and they joked
about whether he was gonna turn into a school shooter. The
shooter's professors had referred him to counseling because they
saw he was a fucking loon.
The signs were obviously there.
More for the argument to ban English majors from Engineering
schools.
Other item: Ken, you are a total moron who needs to be playing at
Kos, TNR, The Nation or Ezra's site. When we need a conjugation we
will call you. Otherwise, until you learn something about weapons
just shut up and read or at least make non-technical comments, like
the color that you want guns to be and what sort of design you want
on the stock (yes, that is a real part).
Can't wait for you to tell us how your 1/2 horsepower electric
scooter is "more powerful" than a 426 HEMI because it does not go
as fast and is "zero emission".
|4.17.07 @ 11:53PM|#
Ken
I'm really sorry for what has happened to your family but there's a
reason why doctors don't treat, lawyers don't represent and
policemen don't investigate crimes involving family members.
When you have something emotionally invested in an issue it is hard
to be objective about it.
I know our society in very much into making people whole but,
frankly, victims and their families are the very last people who
should be allowed to give input in policy matters involving
crime.
|4.18.07 @ 8:29AM|#
This whole thing could not have come at a worse time for Rudy
Giuliani.
There was no way the evangelicals were going to vote for him
anyways.
Now, with an increased focus on gun control laws he's going to lose
mainstream republicans.
His only hope is going to be dems crossing over to the GOP to vote
for him in the primaries.
|4.18.07 @ 11:48AM|#
Yes, I value human lives over foot-pounds. Only an inhuman witch would not. I see that you have taken the side of the witches.
Yes! Mediageek is a witch!
Burn him!
|4.21.07 @ 8:51PM|#
Why do gun liberals want to stop any kind of regulation of the
militia?
It was stipulated in the constituion.
After all - Regiments of Cho like maniacs was not in the minds of
the founding fathers.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245