if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
The Gun Blame
by Lee
Is it just me or is there something just a little creepy about the impulse to blame gun-control policies on campus for a massacre of over 30 people? While the corpses are not yet cold?
Nope. Incidents like these are the very reason that CCW laws should exist. Had there been an armed student at that school, other than the psychopath, this could have been a mere tragedy instead of a record-setting bloodbath. This is EXACTLY the right time to point out, before the usual Marilyn Manson-type excuses are bandied about, that the reason this happened is because those students were defenseless. Period.
Comments
Yes ,padders, but on a plane I want to know that there are Marshalls locked and loaded.
On private properties like a club, it is up to the club owner.
In our homes and on the streets we should be ever vigilant and prepared to defend ourselves against the bad guys.
Lee: Devil’s advocate time: Isn’t another theoretical scenario that lots of students get killed by accident in an ensuing cross-fire if lots of students had been armed? If the “he could have been killed quick” scenario is possible, many others are possible as well. The “if only they were armed” response is only really useful if there are many many armed students in every class room, just in case (which you may be advocating). Which in turn increases the likelihood of friendly-fire or accidental shootings by its very nature.
What is the proportion of students who get shot in classrooms vs. those that don’t get shot in classrooms each year? I’m guessing very small. While a horrible, horrible tragedy, there is an appreciable tendency (in any immediate aftermath) to suggest that going to extremes in the prohibition/proliferation scale would cure all problems. In most of these cases, the overall problem requires really nothing be done since the problem is very small to begin with.
The other theory here is that the shooter would have had a whole lot less incentive to walk in and try this if he knew that he would face any return fire. The criminal mind looks for the easiest targets.
The other theory here is that the shooter would have had a whole lot less incentive to walk in and try this if he knew that he would face any return fire. The criminal mind looks for the easiest targets.
Maybe, so he would perhaps just bomb the place instead or throw grenades or buy a bigger gun or ......
I am guessing he didn’t do this with a hand gun either. My guess is the talk is going to be about the *type* of weaponary used here.
people that have CCWs 99% of the time know exactly what they are doing and were that bullet is going. So Lee is right just one CCW in the bunch would have saved a lot of lives.
I’m not advocating mass proliferation. Because not everyone is going to do it anyway. The students should have had a fighting chance. Most people are scared of weapons.....pussies.
And Lee, I’m pretty sure bringing a weapon on campus is a federal offense so that would have to change before any CCWs would be allowed. So in other words, ain’t gonna happen.
Yes ,padders, but on a plane I want to know that there are Marshalls locked and loaded.
How is this different than suggesting there should be police, perhaps armed, in colleges?
I think you guys are buying into a false dichotomy here. It can be simultaneously true that gun control laws are of no use for situations like this and that arming students is a bit much for something that happens very very rarely.
I think the thing to take away her is that this is an isolate horrifying incident. We have had two others like it in the last forty years (the UT Tower across from where I work and Columbine). There is not lesson you can draw from a rare horrible tragedy—pro- or ant-gun.
I see the dancing in the blood has already started....
typical.
Yeah, guns in school! That will solve these problems. Fucking morons. No wonder the tide is finally turning against conservatives in this country.
There *are* armed campus police in most universities. The small state univ I went to had armed campus police associated with the local city police.
A lot of administrators at this school should be fired. They DIDN’T CLOSE CAMPUS after the first shooting, which apparently was two hours before the 2nd incident.
Yeah, guns in school!
Indeed. Especially here in Virginia. Remember we had a little incident a few years ago in Virginia, where highjackers took over a plane (from virginia) and crashed it into The Pentagon( also in Virginia) then, we had two crazy snipers kill us on the streets for a few weeks (in Virginia). Then , just as school started last august, a crazed killer escaped from prison and killed people at the same school.(in Virginia)
I don’t care what you anti-gun advocates say. I am arming myself tonignt, and god help the next mother fucking crazy person who tries this within 50 yards of ME.
Maybe, so he would perhaps just bomb the place instead or throw grenades or buy a bigger gun or ......
I am guessing he didn’t do this with a hand gun either. My guess is the talk is going to be about the *type* of weaponary used here.
Oh, so you mean if people don’t have access to guns but are bent on killing people, they’ll just improvise and find other ways? Often the damage is less, I’ll give you that. But, taking away the guns doesn’t eliminate the violence.
For what it’s worth, this shooter apparently used .9mm and .22 cal handguns.
Maybe, so he would perhaps just bomb the place instead or throw grenades or buy a bigger gun or ......
I am guessing he didn’t do this with a hand gun either. My guess is the talk is going to be about the *type* of weaponary used here.
yeah since Bombs and hand grenades are illegal to own already, he should have no problem buying them at the local store…
Currently FOX is saying 2 handguns were recovered.
what does this have to do with conservatives?Yeah, guns in school! That will solve these problems. Fucking morons. No wonder the tide is finally turning against conservatives in this country.
quite a nice dance step you got there hazzy..
Personally, I’d prefer to not need to pack heat everywhere I go. At the same time, I’m not interested in infringing on second ammendment rights.
I am in the process of getting my concealed permit through the state of Utah. Only people with no intention of killing someone go through the training and the trouble required to get a permit. It is a shame that the campusw didn’t have a campus full of gun-toting rednecks. There would be only a few people who were killed, instead of 32!
Shitehead thinks that only conservatives have guns.
What is the proportion of students who get shot in classrooms vs. those that don’t get shot in classrooms each year? I’m guessing very small. While a horrible, horrible tragedy, there is an appreciable tendency (in any immediate aftermath) to suggest that going to extremes in the prohibition/proliferation scale would cure all problems. In most of these cases, the overall problem requires really nothing be done since the problem is very small to begin with.
Bravo.... a intelligent response..
Even defining it as a “problem” is problematic. At some point it’s simply a senseless tragedy. You take reasonable precautions and leave the rest up to chance.
I’m still very interested in what they find out about the motive of the shooter.
Lee: Devil’s advocate time: Isn’t another theoretical scenario that lots of students get killed by accident in an ensuing cross-fire if lots of students had been armed?
CCW permits are not easy to come by and require exhaustive training, 3 blind people with no training blasting away would not of caused this much (33 dead) mayhem, so your scenario is preposterous.
How is this different than suggesting there should be police, perhaps armed, in colleges?
All state universities have campus police departments on scene. Maybe Para so another Virginia resident can confirm whether Virginia Tech. had campus police.
I agree that it is human nature to knee jerk yourself into the absurd after this kind of tragedy, and I’m certainly not advocating arming yourself in the classroom, but I can’t shake what a miserable way to go then to be stuck in a group watching some pyscho pick you off one by one, knowing you’re probably next.
Just as it’s stupid gun control advocates to jump all over this in a second, so is it to pretend to think that the absolute right to carry concealed weapons anywhere, anytime is the answer or will make a difference.
Having the general population carrying concealed weapons is not a good idea, and really not necessary, even given this terrible event.
Do you really want thugs wandering around with guns under their jackets?
And before everyone kicks in and says that thugs already do and all the excuses, think for one second:
There are millions of adults in the country who don’t have guns, who don’t really think too much about the issue, that like and work every day, and expect to do so in peace and to be protected by the authorities. Not pro or anti gun control, but just don’t see the need. Maybe they have one in the house, maybe not.
Do all these people go and get guns?
Are they then just pussies if they don’t?
And therefore responsible for anything that happens to them if they can’t defend themselves?
Is this really the America we want?
I understand that anti-social killers exist and that whatever is happening to cause the proliferation of school and workplace shootings is not being addressed, and that it may not be addressable.
But allowing guns to be warn in public, by anyone seems… crazy. Truly.
Having a gun in the house, a good idea, a gun in the car… I don’t know, maybe.
But just carrying around one on the off chance you’ll stop a workplace shooting.... does not seem to be the answer.
In most of these cases, the overall problem requires really nothing be done since the problem is very small to begin with.
How many times are Americans murdered dozens at a time? Not often, but this has happened more than a few times in the past decade, not just at schools, but at workplaces and post offices as well. In every case a trained,armed citizen could have possibly brought the rampage to a halt by placing a well aimed shot into the perpetrator. In every case, an unarmed person was unavalilabe at the time.
Pass al the gun laws you want, you wont prevent a single one of these incidents.
Can you say the same if we lifted some restrictions ?
I just got my CCW this weekend. I’m taking recommendations for affordable gats.
Posted by Jason on 04/16/07 at 04:57 PM from United States
I just got my CCW this weekend. I’m taking recommendations for affordable gats.
depends on what you are familiar with and what you needs are.
personally I prefer a M-1911 45 ACP. Springfield and Kimber make excellent tools.
However a 4 inch .357 is a good choice for a revolver. Ruger, Taurus, and S&W;are god choices.
For a smaller Semi auto, you have 9mm and 40 cal.
If you are looking for a inexpensive but very good semi auto, go with the Springfield XD in .40 cal.
if you want a more detailed suggestion, email me..
Having a gun in the house, a good idea, a gun in the car… I don’t know, maybe.
But just carrying around one on the off chance you’ll stop a workplace shooting.... does not seem to be the answer.
That’s precisely why I carry one. If some mad man is going to shoot at me, I at least want to be able to shoot back.
I just got my CCW this weekend. I’m taking recommendations for affordable gats.
How bulky are you willing to carry? The perfect conceal is a Smith & Wesson 642. Something larger, like a Glock or Springfield XD can be carried. I sometimes carry a Smith & Wesson SW9VE, a very thrifty Glock clone that’s been perfectly reliable in over 2,300 rounds for me. If you’re willing to go over $600 or so and carry something pretty bulky, a 1911 is a good one. In the other direction, Kel-Tec makes a cute little 9mm (P-11) that carries and conceals well. The only really cheap gun that I would consider would be a Hi-Point. I have a .45, too big to carry but has also been perfectly reliable, but they make a 9mm that can be had for under $150. A Ruger SP101 or Charter Arms Pug are also good choices. That’ll give you a full night of research there...good luck whatever you buy.
Do you really want thugs wandering around with guns under their jackets?
So now im a Thug?
Do all these people go and get guns?
of course not.
Are they then just pussies if they don’t? no just Sheep
And therefore responsible for anything that happens to them if they can’t defend themselves?If the refuse to defend themselves in the face of a attack.........
Is this really the America we want? not gonna happen anyhow.. but i would LOVE to see peopl take more responsibly for they own defense and quit relying on the police to be there. As a Pack, not a Herd.
Lee, if there was a shooting in a student night club would you also students taking guns with them?
not where alcohol is served..
Do you think people should be allowed to take their guns on planes?
Yes.
What about on a tour of the white house?
Well.. shouldn’t have too they already do have a lot of armed security there.
Surely, your argument suggests there should *no where* that guns should be banned, really want to go there?
Banned… NO.. but a strong suggestion backed by the property owner policy.
Do you really want thugs wandering around with guns under their jackets?
The thugs ALREADY have guns under thier jackets. I want LAW ABIDING people with guns under thier jackets too.
What harm does a law abiding armed person do? What harm might they prevent?
Do you really want thugs wandering around with guns under their jackets?
What is it that makes people think this is what will happen? CCW permits are hard to get. You have to be screened carefully. But getting an illegal gun is easy.
And not everyone has to carry. Just a small fraction would be enough to deter. As I often say to anti-second ammendment types: “Would you put a sign on your lawn advertising it as a gun-free house?”
I don’t know that guns would have made that big a difference her. When Whitman killed people in Austin, there were armed guards in the building and armed citizen started shooting back. In Columbine, an armed guard shot at the two monster and police exchanged fire with them several times to no effect. There’s the Luby’s incident, where a woman had a gun in her car and thinks she might have stopped it. She might have. But proclaiming that an armed person could have stopped this is pure speculation. We don’t know nearly enough yet.
I’m in favor of gun freedom. But let’s not go overboard and proclaim it the end-all, be-all of crime prevention. This person was seriously disturbed and very determined. it’s hard to stop someone who is willing to die.
I’m in favor of gun freedom. But let’s not go overboard and proclaim it the end-all, be-all of crime prevention. This person was seriously disturbed and very determined. it’s hard to stop someone who is willing to die.
I don’t think more armed, trained citizens will prevent crimes from starting, but I think they could stop them from getting to the proportions of an incident like this. They certianly don’t make the situation worse.
In towns where concealed weapons are permitted, crime is lower than , say, Washington D.C. where guns are outlawed and crime is higher than almost anywhere.
As far as stopping a person who is willing to die, it’s not hard; you shoot him. Shoot him before he ever fires a second shot. Shoot him dead.
I heard a quote the other day.
“When the government takes away the means for people to protect themselves, they esssentially take away the right to protect themselves.”
Basically, the idea of being gunned down like a dog just while unarmed because some people don’t care for guns just doesn’t appeal to me.
How about this: like abortions and SUV’s , if you don’t like guns, don’t have one, but don’t infringe on my rights to do what I see fit, especially when it comes to matters of life and death at the hands of a criminal.
why is so easy to get an illegal gun in the US?
why is so easy to get an illegal gun in the US?
For the same reason it’s easy to buy drugs. There’s a demand, and people (criminals) are willing to break that law to meet the demand.
but why is it easier is the US say than in the UK?
I have no idea how I would get a gun in the UK, I could score some weed fairly easily, but I don’t know how to get a gun...why is that?
The demand is there, so why can’t i easily buy one?
Surely there must be some relation between the number of guns present in a country and the ease with which someone can get one?
but why is it easier is the US say than in the UK?
There’s more guns here. We have lax import laws on cheap guns which come in from China and the other manufacturing ports. This is a gun culture, people just like guns, and there is a demand for them. Europe, for example, is a football (socceer) culture. The world goes crazy for it, but it barely raises a peep here. This isn’t a soccer culture. So there’s no demand here for Diego Maradona souvenir jerseys or Pele soccer balls.
Demand drives supply. The reason drug dealers sell drugs instead of little fluffy bunny dolls is because there’s no market for bunny dolls. There is, however, a market for drugs. And there is a market for cheap, unlicensed guns.
Surely there must be some relation between the number of guns present in a country and the ease with which someone can get one?
Oh, absolutely. The question, though, is whether decreasing the supply will also decrease the demand. All it will do is drive the price of guns up, making the importation of guns all the more lucrative for criminals to import.
So would it be fair to say that because there is a gun culture, ie people like having guns, it makes it easy for a criminal to get hold of a gun?
The question that follows, as you say, is would decreasing the supply decrease the demand.
I’m sure it would not decrease the demand, but would it decrease the ease with which a criminal could get one? ie less guns available, the ones that are get more expensive, so it’s more difficult to get hold of one? The more expensive it is the fewer people can afford it?
Isn’t there a valid greater good argument to be made here?
Let’s not forget, more murders are committed with handguns that any other form of weapon in the US, however, they do not represent more murders than all the other weapons combined. More people are beat to death, stabbed, drowned,burned,run over, poisoned, smothered, and pushed off high buildings each year that are murdered with handguns.
My point, people kill people, guns or not. Ban guns and people will use something else.
it’s easier to kill with a gun though isn’t it?
Seems to me you have to accept these kind of tragedies if you have a gun culture like the US. Your society has decided it is worth it, and so the laws reflect that. That seems reasonable to me.
Would people here agree with that? That more shooting incidents are the price you pay as a society for easy access for everyone to guns?
Ban guns and people will use something else.
This is the key point though, while in some cases they would - there are also a lot of deaths from guns that would not have happened had there not been a gun.
Oh, absolutely. The question, though, is whether decreasing the supply will also decrease the demand. All it will do is drive the price of guns up, making the importation of guns all the more lucrative for criminals to import.
So you have to decrease the demand for guns. How do you do that? Do what the UK does, mandatory sentences of having a gun whether you use it or not.
I know you are perhaps making a link to the pointless war on drugs, but this only dosen’t work because we don’t lock up college kids smoking pot or city bankers taking cocaine. If there was a 10 year minimum sentence for any and all drug use, it would work - but of course no politician wants to put half the country in jail.
With guns, it could work.
Of course, it’s too late for the US and politically impossible.
Of course, it’s too late for the US and politically impossible
is it really? I bet if 100% of the electorate wanted to ban all guns then it would happen.
Anyone got any good stats for numbers of people in favour of/against stricter gun controls?
Seems like people are happy to trade gun culture for these kind of incidents…
Oh and out of interest - how many people here who have a gun have been in a situation where they would have been dead or permanentely injured had they not had their gun?
Seems to me you have to accept these kind of tragedies if you have a gun culture like the US. Your society has decided it is worth it, and so the laws reflect that. That seems reasonable to me.
Would people here agree with that? That more shooting incidents are the price you pay as a society for easy access for everyone to guns?
Not necessarily true. Israel and Switzerland have similar gun permission laws, yet thier gun murder rate is lower.
It’s not our “gun culture”, it’s our tollerance of other crime. A huge percentage of America’s gun murders are related to gang activity. Take away the gangland murders and the US stats fall to levels of European countries. We refuse to confront the gang culture here because we still feel guilty about the whole slavery thing and we don’t want to appear critical of black culture, even if it is destructive.
I have no idea how I would get a gun in the UK, I could score some weed fairly easily, but I don’t know how to get a gun...why is that?
The demand is there, so why can’t i easily buy one?
The point is there istn’t the demand here because:
a) There is less of a gun culture, having a gun is not, by anyone, considered a right.
b) Less people have guns, so less people feel they need to have guns to protect themselves
c) Cops rarely have guns, so criminals don’t feel they need guns
d) Being caught with a gun is pretty bad news, you go to jail for quite a long time. You will go to jail for longer for carrying a gun than stealing a car, so unsurprisingly people who steal cars don’t carry guns.
e) Less “carrying a gun is cool” black culture
One thing I want to ask, I get that you guys feel carrying a gun is useful for your own security, and I can certainly see that as a real argument - but my concern is then that if you are giving up on society, ie - there are loads of criminals with guns, nothing we can do but meet them with our own guns where that takes you, it means you always need protection, you always need to rely on having a gun.
So what do you then do in places where having a gun is not exactly easy, be it being drunk in a bar or on a beach when you want to go swimming etc? If you have designed your system to give up on actually preventing criminals having guns, what do you then do at the times you can’t carry a gun?
padders, there are plenty of laws on the books to curb illegal gun activity and criminal use of guns. The problem is that the liberal twats in this country don’t seem to want to enforce them nor rigorously punish the offenders.
padders, I could be wrong but I sense a thick layer of sanctimony in your questions. It would be easier for you to just accept it as a idiosyncracy of our culture, much like the Brits propensity for tea drinking or their aversion to dentists.
This is the key point though, while in some cases they would - there are also a lot of deaths from guns that would not have happened had there not been a gun.
Facile observations like this are pointless. Yes. on its face, it is reasonable to assume this but so what? It assumes that there is a correlation between the availability of guns and that gun being owned by somebody not in control of his faculties, thus more prown to murder.
It is a misconception that everybody over here owns guns. If somebody is bent on murder I would think its easier to go into the kitchen and grab a knife.
And for the record, we have pretty stringent gun laws over here as well. All felonies have a gun enhancement that adds 10 years to the sentence. The “felony murder rule” lists several crimes where if you use a gun and somebody dies, even without intend, he is charged with murder.
Rightly or wrongly gun ownership is considered a fundamental right, a part of our culture, and not going away anytime soon. Violence is also a part of our culture. Sociologists have blamed everything from the socio-economic status of the poor, our race relations, gang prevlance, Hollywood making violent movies, and even video games. Take away the guns (good luck on that one)and we would just find another way to do each other in.
padders, I could be wrong but I sense a thick layer of sanctimony in your questions. It would be easier for you to just accept it as a idiosyncracy of our culture, much like the Brits propensity for tea drinking or their aversion to dentists.
Not at all. When I first encountered Lee et all I had a very different opinion, I couldn’t for the life of me understand why politicians in the US didn’t just ban guns, right now. After reading moorewatch and here I came to the conclusion that it probably wastn’t a good idea to do so. Yes, I would certainly not consider for a moment replacing what we have in the UK we your current system so I think it is better, yes, but I am certainly not as opposed to the way you have it as I was. I’ll also add I am sitting about 30 meters from my own shot gun, locked in a cabinet although I havn’t used it in probably a decade.
Facile observations like this are pointless. Yes. on its face, it is reasonable to assume this but so what? It assumes that there is a correlation between the availability of guns and that gun being owned by somebody not in control of his faculties, thus more prown to murder.
Are you really trying to argue against an increasing avaliability of guns means that an increase of people who should not have them, having them.
If a deranged kid wanted to get a gun in the UK it wouldn’t be impossible, but it would be extremley hard for him to get one. That istn’t to say he couldn’t make a bomb or slash people or drive a car into pedestrians or whatever, but it would be a lot harder to go and kill people with a gun - and it seems that when people want to kill lots of people they either do it with bombs or guns.
And for the record, we have pretty stringent gun laws over here as well. All felonies have a gun enhancement that adds 10 years to the sentence. The “felony murder rule” lists several crimes where if you use a gun and somebody dies, even without intend, he is charged with murder.
Rightly or wrongly gun ownership is considered a fundamental right, a part of our culture, and not going away anytime soon. Violence is also a part of our culture. Sociologists have blamed everything from the socio-economic status of the poor, our race relations, gang prevlance, Hollywood making violent movies, and even video games. Take away the guns (good luck on that one)and we would just find another way to do each other in.
I do understand and appreciate this, but reading from what people here seem to write, it’s you should get a gun. The idea of a place like a school where this is no guns is absurd. It’s almost like they want everyone to have a gun. But this citizen militarisation has consequences, and the major one being that the end result is everyone needs to have a gun all the time, otherwise you are always going to be at a loss as to what the other guy might do and that is what lead to my question about what do people do on the beach or at the swimming pool etc.
Are you really trying to argue against an increasing avaliability of guns means that an increase of people who should not have them, having them.
I’m arguing that the availability of guns does not make the crime rate go up. Most gun owners are law abiding citizens who do not commit crimes. D.C. is a good example of this. It is virtually impossible to get a gun permit there, yet the criminals all have guns. Their murder rate and crimes with guns should be lower given their gun laws, but it is just the opposite.
I do understand and appreciate this, but reading from what people here seem to write, it’s you should get a gun. The idea of a place like a school where this is no guns is absurd. It’s almost like they want everyone to have a gun. But this citizen militarisation has consequences, and the major one being that the end result is everyone needs to have a gun all the time, otherwise you are always going to be at a loss as to what the other guy might do and that is what lead to my question about what do people do on the beach or at the swimming pool etc.
I think you are operating under some misconceptions. Gun owners do not want or expect everybody else to own guns. The freedom to own a gun is also the freedom to not own a gun, its a personal choice that each side need to respect.
When you say, “citizen militarization has consequences” I think you are missing the point. The average gun owner does not to invade a country or even impose his will on other people. He wants what you and everybody else wants, to be safe and have his family safe. We do not envision a fire fight every time we go to the store or to the movies (this is why your swimming pool scenario is ludicruous) and only a small fraction of the population have CCW permits, we do not want everybody packing. You might be getting this impression because people here are frustrated at what happened and bantying about ill conceived ideas off the cuff.
Next entry: What a Bunch of Jack Offs
Previous entry: Bloodbath and Beyond
Lee, if there was a shooting in a student night club would you also students taking guns with them?
Do you think people should be allowed to take their guns on planes?
What about on a tour of the white house?
Surely, your argument suggests there should *no where* that guns should be banned, really want to go there?