This case is proof either gun control is always doomed to failure or it needs to be tougher. The one thing you can say is the availability of guns made it easy for this nutjob to do what he wanted when he wanted to. Hoooray for the Second Amendment! And for those who will invariably think my posting this indicates Uncle Dave is in favor of gun control, you would be wrong, but not for the reason you’d think.
How sorry are we for the Blacksburg killings?
A news article in the April 18 Wall Street Journal states that one reason the Blacksburg killings are prompting few cries for gun control is that both pistols recovered in the Virginia Tech shootings—a Glock 9 mm and a Walther P22—were purchased legally, according to a gun trace by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
In the past, opponents of gun control have made the precise opposite argument. Appearing on CNBC’s Rivera Live after Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris slaughtered 12 fellow students and one teacher at Columbine High School, Ann Coulter pooh-poohed Geraldo Rivera’s call for beefed-up background checks by saying, “What difference would that have made? They … purchased the guns illegally.”
A psychopathic mass-murderer buys a gun legally. That’s an argument against gun control. A psychopathic mass-murderer buys a gun illegally. That’s an argument against gun control, too. Everything is an argument against gun control.
There are people in this country today who, one day in the future, will be gunned down by psychopaths like Cho Seung-Hui. Future presidents will be assassinated, if the past is any guide, and probably the odd pop star, too. We could spare these lives—some of them, at least—by making it difficult or impossible to acquire a handgun in the United States. But we choose not to. Tough luck, whoever you are.
In searching for a photo, I stumbled on this odd article. Fallout from the murders is ranging far and wide.
Do Iraqis equate President Bush to Cho Seung-Hui?
As President Bush spoke to those gathered at Blacksburgh, Virginia after the loss of 33 lives including the life of Cho Seung-Hui’s, he made these striking remarks, “Yesterday began like any other day. Students woke up, and they grabbed their backpacks and they headed for class. And soon the day took a dark turn, with students and faculty barricading themselves in classrooms and dormitories — confused, terrified, and deeply worried. By the end of the morning, it was the worst day of violence on a college campus in American history — and for many of you here today, it was the worst day of your lives.”
If I could have the president’s ear just for one second, I would say that is the world you created for the Iraqi people. They too have been terrified and yet no one sees them as being victims of terror.
Guns should have a command line interface, not a point and click.
What is wrong with gun lovers? Every time a mass killing like this one happens, they jump right in and say “This would not have happened if everyone had a gun.”
Sheesh, they don’t even say “I’m sorry for your loss” to the ones close to the victim, Having a gun or not is not the point.
Canadians love guns as much as the American and you don’t see the high death rate thanks to guns that you see in the USA.
Me thinks it’s the attitude and the way of thinking that has to change.
My problem with the ‘everyone should have guns’ argument is that they are rarely able to cite examples where it has worked, despite hundreds of years of lax guns laws.
How many people have been saved by someone carrying a gun?
And I’d like to point out one more this. This latest debate about gun control seems to have been introduced mostly by pro gun advocates against an imaginary opposition. Those in favor of gun control seemed to pause after this incident. The ones that made this political were the pro gun lobby. If laws are strengthened because of this, then they only have themselves to blame.
On Tuesday the topic at the local talk station was gun control. They didn’t have a speaker advocating gun control. They weren’t responding to a senators comments. Their foe was imaginary and every caller was pro gun, they eventually had to call out to get someone for an opposing viewpoint.
I just have to laugh at the whole “if the students had been armed” argument. Just imagine a whole school full of teenagers packing heat. Shots ring out somewhere, and suddenly everyone is brandishing a gun and looking to be a hero. Who is the actual shooter? Who do you shoot at? Instead of 33 dead, it would have been 3333.
The murder rate per thousand in Canada is comparable to the states. Only they use more baseball bats and knives.. No one wants to infringe on anyones rights by locking up the obvious nut cases. And as we don’t want to infringe on the peoples rights to reproduce at a horrendous rate, so we have to expect the lemmings to run off the cliff at times.
I’m continually confused as to how few see the shades of gray in this argument.
The second amendment should be upheld, and no law should interfer with it… but that doesn’t mean that those with mental issues should be allowed to have a gun.
The sooner this blog can have this discussion when it it not dominated by absolutes, the sooner a true solution can be reached.
How many people have been saved by someone carrying a gun?
Do you *really* think Cho Seung-Hui could have walked around, shooting people at will and killing almost three dozen, if someone else there had a weapon?
I’m not saying “guns for everyone,” but if guns are so entirely useless, why isn’t there a movement to take them away from police?
Is it illegal to give your pet robot a gun? Just wait 10 years, gun control is going to take on a whole new meaning.
If the gun lobby argument is sound that means something else is very wrong in the USA. Any suggestions
We’ve had school shootings that were stopped by people owning guns.
You guys that are so naive. Do you really think MORE gun laws would have stopped this crime? You do realize that Virginia Tech was a gun-free campus… not by the state but by the VT administration. That helped a lot, it just prevents people that follow laws from carrying a gun.
IF SOMEONE WANTS A GUN TO DO SOMETHING ILLEGAL, THEY ARE NOT REALLY GOING TO CARE ABOUT BREAKING THE LAW TO GET THE GUN.
Did you know that the last Virginia Tech shooting, not even a year ago was stopped by a student who had a gun in his car?
If that’s not a good enough example for you Matthew go here and spend the rest of your day reading about citizens using their weapons in self defense:
http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx
Is it illegal to give your pet robot a gun? Just wait 10 years, gun control is going to take on a whole new meaning.
Is it illegal to give your dog a bazooka and then skateboard around the park while eating nachos and throwing hand grenades? How about if I give a knife to my ironing board, and then throw a can of gasoline at my neighbor’s daughter’s boyfriend’s old gym bag?
Whee. The possibilities are endless, when you live in the limited world of a 19 year old.
Isn’t anyone else sickened by the fact that NBC decided to broadcast the images and videos?!??!??!?!?
What a wonderful way to get ratings. Fulfilling a mass murderers final wish.
A boycott is due here.
F U. NBC.
Next up, Interviewing the guy that sold this crazy kid the guns 🙂
This time a gun was used. If it was possible to eliminate guns (which it is not) crazy intelligent people like this will just select another killing device (echos of the unibomber). There is no real safety in this world. Nature or man will get us all eventually but to give up our freedoms in the foolish unattainable pursuit of security would be a disgrace and only demean us all.
#2 – Angel
“Sheesh, they don’t even say “I’m sorry for your loss” to the ones close to the victim,”
Aw, c’mon, Angel. I don’t know any of the victims’ relatives or friends and neither do you. Any condolences expressed here are pointless, since the victims’ people are not here reading these posts. Discussion of the whys and wherefores is still appropriate for a public current-events blog.
#4 – Matthew
“Those in favor of gun control seemed to pause after this incident.”
And I’d like to think that was due at least in part to some antigun people reconsidering their position in light of the events.
It’s been said recently and more than once, but it doesn’t hurt to say it again, in the hope that maybe one more person will abandon their ideological blinders and use simple logic:
The prohibition of guns on the campus did not stop Cho. It stops no criminal. It never, ever does, because someone who is intending to use a gun to harm someone else already knows – and does not care in the slightest – that they are breaking the law. So the prohibition is a ridiculous, futile, irrational gesture.
On the other hand, we do know for a fact that no one had a gun on their person and used it to stop Cho. And the reason no one had a gun is because the very people who are not criminals are, by definition, the ones who obey the law – and they obeyed the irrational law that forebade them carrying a gun.
– – – – – – – – – – – –
Now we come to today’s supremely idiotic offering, courtesy of Rob, at post #5:
“Just imagine a whole school full of teenagers packing heat. Shots ring out somewhere, and suddenly everyone is brandishing a gun and looking to be a hero. Who is the actual shooter? Who do you shoot at? Instead of 33 dead, it would have been 3333.”
Well, that’s idiotically false.
The anti-drug crusaders use an identical, equally fallacious argument: “If drugs were legal, everyone would be using drugs.”
Bullshit.
Every place where carrying a gun is legal, the number of people who actually do so is quite small. And without that campus prohibition on guns, still only a small number would be motivated to or have need to do so. This has been proven time and again. But ideologues don’t believe in evidence, since they already know they’re right. So they continue to parrot blatant falsehoods.
As a matter of personal experience, I was living in Florida when their concealed-carry law was passed. The predictions were of massacres galore, that every fender-bender or fistfight would erupt into gunfire.
It didn’t happen. It never happens. Bad actors don’t bother with complying with the mandatory safety course and stringent restrictions that accompany a concealed permit, only law-abiding citizens, the people you don’t have to worry about.
I moved to Texas and was here when I got to witness the exact same sequence of events. The Lege considers legalizing concealed-carry, the anti-gun ideologues trot out the exact same false predictions of Dodge City everywhere, and when the law takes effect and a few citizens avail themselves of it, absolutely nothing happens – except for an indeterminate number of violent crimes are thwarted by armed, responsible citizens. Why can’t the crimes deterred be counted? Because they don’t occur.
So while it’s impossible to know what would’ve transpired if the VA Tech campus didn’t prohibit carrying guns, this is certain: Cho might’ve had second thoughts. He might’ve reconsidered.
And if just one student or teacher he encountered had been carrying a pistol, the body count would’ve been lower.
So to restate: If the school didn’t prohibit guns, the death toll would not have been any higher – but it definitely could have been lower.
And no, I am not a ‘gun nut’, an NRA member (or defender). I simply believe in rational solutions, not emotion-driven ones.
None of you antigun ideologues ever stops to think about the true state of affairs in America. We have 300 million people. We have 10s of millions of guns. Yet the average American has a greater chance of dying in a bathtub fall than being shot.
Most police officers go through their entire career without ever once discharging their weapon in the course of duty.
The majority of illegal firearm possession and misuse happens among a very small, violent, criminal minority of the population. When the gun deaths among criminals fighting turf wars and drug dealers ripping each other off and eliminating their competition are removed from the equation, there is very, very little risk of being shot for the vast majority of Americans.
When you look through the statistical distortions, you realize that the actors responsible for the vast majority of gunshot injuries and deaths are in no way deterred by the law. More laws will do nothing to change the behavior of those who ignore them, but they do severely limit the options available to noncriminals, which puts the public at greater, not lesser, risk.
. . . . . . . . .
Sorry for interrupting the emotional tirades with unwelcome logic. Please feel free to resume yelling bullshit past one another…
#12, tallwookie, this was actually done last night on NBC (go figure, anything to fill air time.) All papers were properly filled out and the waiting period fulfilled. The poor guy did everything ‘by the book’, so no fault of his for performing a legal transaction. He said, (loosely quoted) “The kid appeared normal to me.” How was he to know to what purpose the gun(s) were to be put?
He was still in business last night (Wed. 4/18/07).
#3
The usualy agrred upon number is that 2.5 million annually are saved by a “defensive gun use”. The lowest number I have seen is 764,000 people saved yearly by a good guy with a gun.
More laws will do nothing to change the behavior of those who ignore them, but they do severely limit the options available to noncriminals, which puts the public at greater, not lesser, risk.
16, Lauren, sounds a lot like trying to fly commercial these days, doesn’t it?
I suppose examples of people with guns stopping armed crimes can be found but examples of armed crimes happening even though people have guns too can also be found.
One example of guns being used even though other people had guns to deter violence happened on Easter Sunday at Coquina Beach in Manatee County Florida.
http://tinyurl.com/2werlc
A quote from the article:
“Dozens of armed law enforcement officers were patrolling the beach at the time; some were within yards of the shooting.”
I do not think gun control will stop people from using guns. It is like drug laws trying to stop people from using drugs. It doesn’t work.
Guns are not the problem but the people with the guns are. Laws trying to control human behavior usually fail.
#18 – Les
>> The usualy agrred upon number is that 2.5 million annually are saved by a “defensive gun use”. The lowest number I have seen is 764,000 people saved yearly by a good guy with a gun.
Please provide a reliable and scientific source for your statistics, or they should be considered baseless and pure propaganda.
The fact is that between 2000 and 2004 there were 148,000 gun related deaths in the USA.
Just as a point of comparison, during the same 2000 to 2004 period there were 230,000 motor vehicle deaths.
That is an amazing statistic… there were about 70% gunshot related deaths as there were motor vehicle deaths.
The big difference? In almost every case, the vehicle death is an accident, while in the case of guns, the death is intentional. I need a license to drive. Manufacturers of vehicles are held liable for malfunctions of their products. I don’t need a license to own a gun, and manufacturers are specifically exempt from liability for gun malfunctions.
And that is just deaths! How many people get shot every year and don’t become a statistic?Take your own guess and multiple the number of death by that figure. Assuming that 2 out of 3 survive a gunshot, we are looking at well over 1/2 MILLION gunshot related deaths and injuries over a 5 year period.
Source of my statistics:
Center for Disease Control:
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html
Source of your statistics please?
If you can’t provide a source, the honorable thing would be to retract your comment.
I’ve read a few articles suggesting that if only 1 other student had a gun, he could have shot the first shooter and saved lives.
I suspect if another student did have a gun, and had shot the first shooter, the news headline would have been:
Gun-nut student shoots South Korean student, and is then shot 643 times by campus police.
The 2nd amendment reads “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Ok, so why aren’t all gun owners required to be members of a well-regulated militia (such as the National Guard). Then they could all be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.
let me start off by saying the second amendment is a useful one and the right to own a gun is an important one. That said, the solution to events like that of Monday is not that everyone carry a gun. In fact I think concealed weapons are generally a bad idea. Let me elaborate with a quote from a recent blog entry.
#19 – BubbaRay
“Lauren, sounds a lot like trying to fly commercial these days, doesn’t it?”
I wouldn’t have the slightest idea – if I’m not the one at the controls, I’m not interested in flying. 🙂
Way I see it, it God wanted me to fly, He wouldn’t’ve created BMWs.
. . . . . .
BTW, I (belatedly) left you and TJGeezer a little something on the tail end of that earlier Sony/DRM thread…
#3
Maybe you should pay more attention. Shooting sprees ended by armed citizens rarely make the front pages–The casulties are usually too low. There is no question that an armed student in Norris Hall could have saved lives.
For an eerily similar incident, look at the Appalachian School of Law shooting in Virginia in 2002. In this case, armed students ended the rampage after six people were shot, but it could have been much worse.
Funny how each side of the isle thinks it just fine to gut certain parts of the constitution but not others. Seems to be the running joke in religion and politics.
#20 – Ben Franske
“My own feeling is that a great number of people carrying guns are ill prepared to use them and are likely to make a situation worse rather than better.”
And here’re the fatal flaws in that argument:
(a) A “great number of people” do not take advantage of concealed-carry laws. A very small number does. And this is proven fact.
(b) Those who take advantage of concealed-carry are NOT “ill-prepared to use them” OR “likely to make a situation worse.” In order to obtain a carry permit, the prospect is required to learn how to handle a gun safely. They are also heavily drilled on the great responsibility that carrying entails – and also made aware of the dire penalties for abusing the carry privilege. These factors are the primary reasons why, doomsayers’ predictions to the contrary notwithstanding, cases of permitholders committing any offense with their licensed pistols are incredibly rare.
Apparently you think the typical permitholder is spooked by handling their gun, or clumsy, or reckless. This isn’t so, and the virtual nonexistence of mishaps and permit abuse prove it.
So, your objection is based solely on invalid premises, making it bogus. Sorry.
#20,
have you ever been in an argument which would have caused you to kill someone? If you have, I suggest you dont carry a gun, or knife, or pencil or anything which could be used as a weapon.
I have never been in any kind of argument, dispute or auto accident which would cause me to kill somebody. I dont think normal people are suddenly willing to give up their freedom for the rest of their lives, or give up their own life because they are in an argument..
If your mental state is like that, you dont need to project that onto everone else.