Would Gun Control have prevented the Blacksburg massacre?
Posted by Moonage on 17 Apr 2007 | Tagged as: National Politics
No sooner than the news hit the tv’s of what was going on, people were immediately using this tragedy as yet another piece of evidence that we need to ban all guns.
That is so backward it’s amazing to me.
How many guns are there legally in the United States? How many are in Russia? How many are in North Korea? How many are in the world?
Now, what happens is if you ban guns, only those people who wish to kill other people will get them.
It’s that simple.
Now, yesterday, what happened is the people who obey the law that says they can’t have guns in the buildings were the victims of a person who didn’t obey the law. The argument has always been that if you ban guns, the only people that will have them will be criminals. Yesterday kinda proved that point, again. Now, if that idiot had known that 50 people would have been able to shoot back at him, we might have had a totally uneventful day in Blacksburg.
Understand this clearly, people like the guy wanting to kill as many people as he could don’t give a rat’s ass about the law that would ban guns.
6 Comments »
on 20 Apr 2007 at 1:32 pm 1.deborah conner said …
Sure, americans won’t let go of guns. Like war, they think they need them for safety when real life, reality, *proves it does the opposite.* But how do you justify selling hundreds of rounds of ammo without batting an eye, no questions asked? This is where we can be sane. We can keep track, work this out, if we want to. e.g., if guns are for rec, at the firing range they can buy all they like, use it or return it, leaving with gun empty, etc. If guns are for home safety, you should be allowed a reasonable very limited amount. We could work it out if we wanted to.
on 20 Apr 2007 at 3:54 pm 2.Moonage
said …
It is not uncommon to shoot a hundred rounds when practicing. What would be the limit? The problem, as I tried to lay out, is that there is too much out there already to just suddenly wish them all away with legislation. Too many people take the giant leap that only violent minded people want guns ( the association with war is exactly what I am referring to ). The fact is a lot of law abiding people have guns as well for their own protection or enjoying the very human pursuit of hunting. That doesn’t prove that they want war or want to kill someone who steps on their toes. A lot of people keep guns for protection only. There are too many reasons, neverminding the second amendment to the Constitution, to not legislate control. People who are violent, who do want to kill others, or want to intimidate others, have already disregarded the legal system and will acquire as many rounds as it takes to do whatever it is they intend to do.
I’m all for eliminating the craziness of these incidents, but crass characterizations and pointing fingers at guns won’t solve it. Even if we did eliminate the guns, they’d just use pipe bombs, baseball bats, or whatever else they could think of to do the job.
In the case of Columbine and Paducah, I made the argument to hold the parents responsible ( they were their weapons ). In this case, it was a legal adult who bought them on his own, legally. So, what to do? I don’t know exactly, I just know blaming it on the tool and not the executor won’t remove the desire to do these things.
And, with all the copycat calls and threats made since the VT massacre, you can’t tell me it was the gun’s fault. There’s a lot of fubar people out there. I think we need to do a better job keeping an eye on them.
on 22 Apr 2007 at 2:50 pm 3.mw
said …
I am not buying into either side of the gun control argument as it relates to the VT massacre. The guns used did not fall into the “assault weapon” ban that is the favored vehicle for gun legislation. They were bought legally within the existing framework of criminal background checks (he had no felony record, only misdemeanors and mental illness institutionalization). I agree with Charles Krauthammer on this one:
To the degree that there is an answer, it is 1) to modify existing gun purchase regulations and HIPAA privacy laws to make head cases visible to the gun purchase background check process and 2) when a person is identified to legal and medical system as “dangerous to himself and others” as Cho was, their privacy does not take priority over public safety, where they can disappear back into anonymity just because they improve while they are on medication.
I firmly believe that the first right is the right to protect ones own life, and as such I am a strong defender of the 2nd amendment. That said, the notion that expanding concealed carry gun rights to the campus as a solution strikes me as ludicrous. Just ask yourself: How would the first responding police and SWAT teams react to students running around brandishing weapons in self defense? How would you like to be a Professor lecturing in front of a auditorium full of students that are armed? Would you teach at a University that permitted students to come to class packing?
on 22 Apr 2007 at 8:36 pm 4.Moonage
said …
I agree with Krauthammer as well. However, I have never liked the concept that an adult is allowed to carry a concealed weapon everywhere but “here”. Concealed weapons are legal on the campus, just not in the classroom. Therefore, he knew where to strike the most defenseless.
As far as dealing with psychosis, HIPAA has got to go. ( Wanna bet not one single person ever pins this chain of events on Hillary? I can very easily. )
on 28 Apr 2007 at 12:39 am 5.mw
said …
I am sure that you, like me, like any professor at University of Utah, would find this picture enormously reassuring.
on 29 Apr 2007 at 10:58 am 6.American Phoenix
said …
The Massacre That Didn’t Have To Happen…
In my work as a family law attorney and especially as a volunteer for the homeless, I came into contact with many mentally ill people. Unfortunately, unless someone committed themselves voluntarily for treatment, there were very few legal avenues that…