If Only the Killer Had Better Firearms Training
Jacob Sullum | April 17, 2007, 1:44pm
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.
kanabiis | April 17, 2007, 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???
Kap | April 17, 2007, 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?
Guy Montag | April 17, 2007, 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 | April 17, 2007, 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.]
