My oldest son goes to college at the University of Virginia (Glenn appears to have misread this, my apologies for using the abbreviation earlier), and so I’ve gotten a slug of phone calls from colleagues and friends who knew he was in Virginia telling me about the mass murder at Virginia Tech today.
This isn’t the time for dispassionate – or even passionate – policy discussion, although that will surely follow.
It’s time to think about the other parents – parents like me – whose daughters and sons go to school at VPI (instead of UVA where my son goes) and are waiting for news or are getting the worst news imaginable.
You know full well there will be no “discussion”, it will be a once sided media hammering of the anti-gun sides arguments.
Don’t believe me, It’s already starting. Just like the recent “discussion” on race has been a nearly one sided hammering of evil whitey, this will be yet another opportunity for the anti-gun media to pound away with their message of evil guns.
I hope your son is OK.
My prayers are with you and your family.
Your family and all the families involved are in my thoughts. May you hear from your son soon.
LW
AL:
I have friends at both VA Tech and on the faculty of Radford University, in nearby Christiansburg. I’ve been cycling in the New River Valley many times, as part of the “Mountains of Misery” ride that goes over a segment of the old Tour Dupont (including the Cat 1 climb up to Mountain Lake) and also as part of Cycle Virginia. I hope you understand that I’m responding to this in a way that I feel appropriate.
I agree with the poster above, that the Democrats and anti-gun crowd won’t waste any time using the emotional grab of this event to promote an anti-gun agenda. The circling of the wagons that will result probably spells the end of a Giuliani presidential campaign, at the very least. The event has altered our history and our politics, so I think it’s fair game.
However I understand your emotional investment here, so I’m not criticizing your reaction. I don’t feel bound by it, but I respect it.
Demo – and I hadn’t seen your post when I did mine (at work). No criticism implied.
A.L.
All we can do right now is hope and pray, I suppose. I’m not religious but I’ll try to do a bit of both for you.
Nicholas, AL, et al:
I can’t get my head around the fact that this fellow killed 32 people with what appears to be a couple of 9mm. My inference is that had this not been a disarmed and quiescent population no such thing could have possibly happened, but of course I can’t say that definitively, because we still don’t know the circumstances. It’s just ghastly.
It’s baffling how that is even possible. Don’t they even have armed security guards, or Campus Police?
AL,
I hope your son is safe. My family’s thoughts and prayers will be with the victims and their families.
I agree whole-heartedly that this isn’t the time for a policy debate and I would remind those who aren’t swayed by the decency argument that it may be a while before all of the relevant facts are known. Right now and probably for a while it’s gong to be incomplete information, misinformation, and sometimes just rumors being reported on a 24-hour news cycle. There will be plenty of time to make sure that when people entrench themselves into their opinions, they can at least make sure they’re informed.
There is a cover-up in the making. There was more than one gunman. The Police failed to serve and protect. Your son should of had his gun on him.
Demosophist, I’d like to discuss that with you, but I don’t think this is a good time.. let’s wait until A.L. and the other parents hear more news first.
Marc, as the father of a university student, my thoughts are especially with you. I sincerely hope for only the best possible news.
Please forgive this small error correction, but VA Tech is not VIT; it’s VPI, Virginia Polytechnic Institute.
Guys, just as a note – my son is not at Virginia Tech – he’s at UVA. There’s some confusion, and I made it worse through quick and careless writing.
A.L.
Oh, well, that’s a relief. Sorry, I’m not familiar with the abbreviations.
Demosophist.. I’ve always found arguments for banning fully automatic weapons silly. Similarly I don’t understand why they ban large calibers here in Australia. Why? Because while machine guns and big rifles are useful as military weapons, against civilians, there really isn’t much of a point. Why spray and pray when you can easily get to close range and fire off aimed shots?
I fired a 9mm automatic pistol once. It was basically like playing Nintendo with a light gun. Very little noise or recoil, aiming at short distances (say 30 feet) was easy. I’ve no doubt a nut with a couple of 9mm pistols and plenty of ammunition could take his time, get close to large groups of people and shoot lots of them. An assault rifle wouldn’t be much worse of a tool of destruction in a similar situation – if anything it would probably just slow you down and make aiming awkward.
Sadly, the only thing which is going to stop such a person is someone else with a gun or else suicide, as appears to be the case here. So I guess that leaves society with two choices.. try to restrict ownership of guns so severely that disturbed people can’t get a hold of them, or have enough armed people around (civilians or security guards) to respond to such an attack. I understand that gun control can, to some extent, achieve this result. The problem is that it does so at the expense of people being able to defend themselves from criminals, who will have weapons regardless. Is that a fair trade-off? Studies here (Australia) show that gun control doesn’t change the overall trend in violent crime. It probably shifts such crimes from horrible ones like this, into many smaller incidents instead.
I won’t opine on whether that’s a good trade-off, although I have an opinion. We should be able to make informed decisions based upon the information available.
I still can’t understand what would drive someone to do such a thing. That’s the bit I can’t get my mind around.
“It’s baffling how that is even possible. Don’t they even have armed security guards, or Campus Police?”
I’m sure that they do. However, authority figures cannot be around at all times and all places, and if you think about it I’m sure you will quickly realize that you would not want them to. The US is not a police state.
Campus Police forces are generally told to have a very light touch so as to not make students feel uncomfortable, and like all police forces on a day to day basis thier primary job is that of historians not of security. They go where crime has happened, not where it will happen.
This is very simple. If you don’t live in a police state, you are primarily responcible for your own security. You are your own first responder. Even the most compotent of police forces cannot be expected to arrive in the time frame required to matter.
Now, I will say this. The effectiveness of police forces as agents of security has been greatly reduced in the US by the adoption of paramilitary training for police officers. Paramilitary training gives police officers primarily a mindset of protecting themselves, and not protecting the public. At Columbine for instance, several people died while police responders followed thier paramilitary training, leaving it up to employees of the school to ultimately provide actual security (using privately owned weapons).
But even if US police officers weren’t being mistrained, and even if they were as compotent as could be and everyone could in an emergency immediately contact a dispatcher by phone, 3-5 minutes of response time still means dozens dead.
After a few hours of commentati decrying the two-hour lag between the dorm shootings and the classroom shootings, the tone has turned a little. As police have pointed out, they have not actually established that the murders at the two sites are related, meaning they don’t know whether the same killer did them. Witness statements from both scenes will help resolve, but we may not know until ballistics lab work is done on bullets from both sites.
I’m really hesitant to write this, but will anyway. News reports are that the shooter was described by an eyewitness (whom I also heard interviewed on FNC) as an “Asian male in his twenties.” I have to say the non-PC thought occurred to me whether he will be found to have been a self-motivated Muslim jihadi. It would not be the first such attack in the US since 9/11. Just two months ago a Muslim immigrant killed five at a mall in Salt Lake City. Marely more than three years ago a Muslim man named Mohammed Taheri-azar ran an SUV through a college crowd at the Univ. of NC campus, saying in court later that (according to The News and Observer), “the Muslim holy book, the Quran, gave him permission to drive a Jeep Cherokee into a campus plaza March 3 ‘to punish the U.S. government, the enemy of my brothers and sisters in religion.'”
The killer has not been identified yet because he carried no ID on his person, according to the Va. Tech president.
The killer certainly intended mayhem. He was heavily armed with ammunition and two pistols. This was a well-planned mass murder.
A Symptom of our “Chain Letter Society”?
Read an analysis of the influences in our “Chain Letter Society” that may be precipitating events like the tragedy at Virginia Tech and how our focus on winning and being number one may be fostering a generation of children with fully inadequate coping skills who have a misguided sense of self-worth…here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
In both the Pearl MS shooting (Principal ran back to his truck to get his pistol) and the Appalachian Law School shooting (three people ran back to their vehicles to get their handguns, one a police officer and part-time student), armed people will confront killers. Unarmed people won’t.
It’s also worth noting that both cases it was men not women who at gunpoint subdued both shooters and prevented further bloodshed and death.
How does this affect things?
1. Dems on an anti-gun terror rampage. Kiss the South goodbye and also the hunting, male, and gun-owning crowd.
2. Dems move further and further left, Reps more right.
3. The shooter … is he Muslim? If so expect the Media to conceal it as hard as they can. But it will get out and expect THAT to also be an issue.
4. Violence as a function of diversity. Expect the counter-attack on the Dems gun-banning ways to point out how diversity increases violence and same-ness decreases it. Japan has low violence due to their lack of diversity and rigid social controls.
5. The bill that would have allowed students at VA Universities and Colleges carry if they had a permit died in committee. Expect THAT to be an issue. This could also be a Luby’s Cafeteria issue.
Jim Roquefort,
I’ll bet the shooter was a Jew.
$20?
Your on too, if you want to take it, cannon cocker (D.S.)
Donald, Nicholas, et al:
It’s still hard for me to imagine someone being able to kill that many people with what I’d call a medium caliber weapon within such a short period. Moreover, the ratio of dead to wounded was approximately 3 to 2. That suggests to me that this was well planned and that the shooter was very well trained. On the other hand, if this really was a well planned (read terrorist) operation, why use a weapon of that caliber? On balance this was probably a case of someone “going off”, rather than some planned terrorist operation, even if it was jihad motivated. But it was probably someone pretty well trained, possibly someone who’d even been in competition. He simply may have been more comfortable with that caliber.
Gives me the shivers…
What has increasingly vexed me since 9-11 is how the nanny state wants to make us safe by taking all the sharp objects away, but then falls down on the job. Make that campus gun free and you may just be creating an easy target rich environment.
Does this hold in CA as well?
“Call before via RecGuns”:http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:8e1DXUPs4EIJ:www.recguns.com/Sources/IIC1a1.html+campus+overrides+concealed+carry+law&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us
I was watching the TV and the anchor was interviewing a student over the phone and asked if grief/trauma counseling had been lined up yet. Presumably after means testing. I feel safer already.
And BTW….get a grip bed wetters, as awful as this murder spree is, It’s a freak one time deal that effected a minor % of a small population. A.L.’s son is not in a combat zone fighting the war (that A.L. supports) in Iraq and braving ongoing real danger (like D.S.’s son or mine was).
Only Slightly OT –
“Affirmative action for our kidz?”:http://www.nypost.com/seven/04152007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/rudys_wrongs_opedcolumnists_jacob_sullum.htm?page=0
Couldn’t resist. Jacob Sullum nails it. The point is, we need to get the stats showing crime reduction from CCP front and center.
And I have kids in school and I don’t think this is a one-off. We have enough data points to show some trends.
I don’t believe you can successfully take all the guns away, and if you really worked at it, you would just wind up with England where the thugs come into your house to burgle you while you are at home and you are advised to adopt a submissive position or potentially be sued later.
I am too old and too cranky to do this. I would rather go down fighting.
Bill O’Reilly just said that the Sun Times has cited investigators as saying that the killer was a 24-y/o Chinese national who arrived in the US last year. If accurate, this decreases the likelihood that he was Muslim, but does not eliminate it. Odds are long, though, based on this report.
Hey avedis, take a break on the ‘bed wetters’ comment, it’s annoying and demeaning (to you and to this place). Next time I’ll ask you to stay in your room for a month (ban you from my threads for a month).
What my sons choose to do is their choice – it’s not political capital for me. You should be proud of your son – I certainly appreciate his service. But the honor goes to him, not to you.
A.L.
jdwill:
Gosh, it’d be nice but probably not definitive. The statistical problems are legion. My assessment of the situation is that CCW permits don’t do much more that keep a lid on crime, and they’re not the “solution”. However crime and these kinds of mass murder events aren’t quite the same thing, and we have some powerful anecdotal evidence that concealed carry can really reduce the number of casualties. But I think the cultural message, that we’re at least partially responsible for our own protection, is really critical.
As a general principle I’d say that any large disparity between the capacity for self protection and the firepower of an assailant will encourage attacks, and we can’t necessarily keep that gap at zero without huge costs to society. But the notion of leaving citizens utterly defenseless is an order of magnitude worse than simply tolerating a “firepower gap”. It’s simply unacceptable at this point in history. The VA Tech Administration deserves condemnation for helping to create this situation.
Demo:
It is unheard of for someone to employ a handgun of any caliber with that kind of lethal effect unless the killer was able to take all the time he wanted to.
Though its too early to be sure I suspect this is another effect of the over-reliance on SWAT teams and tactical experts, instead of the cop on the spot.
But the notion of leaving citizens utterly defenseless is an order of magnitude worse than simply tolerating a “firepower gap”.
Demosophist,
Exactly. We have an excellent experiment in progress to make just this point – Britain.
“Gun Control’s Twisted Outcome”:http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
I don’t need to prove CCW, I merely need to prove the anti-thesis of extreme gun control, and point to dropping stats for violent crime in the US and cite CCW, and other reforms to the justice system made in the late 80’s. The burden of proof should be on the controllers.
At any rate, my fundamental goal is not so much for all people to tote sidearms everywhere than it is to maintain the fear of resistance in the criminal mind. A blow-up like this latest maniac may not be deterred, but many lesser thugs will.
What seems to have bit us today is more an argument for training and arming staff, especially in ‘gun free’ zones that enable this kind of mass murder.
But, if one or two students had been able to carry a gun in a briefcase or backpack, this catastrophe might have been cut short. I listened with great angst to the accounts of students laying on the floor for a full minute while the maniac reloaded and kept shooting.
I have two kids in college, and the thought of losing them after all these years is terrifying. If this makes me a ‘bed-wetter’, so be it.
Avedis —
You’d lose. Shooter is apparently a Chinese National, a man of 25, arrived last year on a Student F-1 Visa.
That would appear to at first glance disqualify him from legally purchasing a firearm in VA (if their laws are anything like CA).
However, it was a Muslim man who shot up a Utah Mall. Who shot up LAX. Two Muslim men who were the DC snipers. A Muslim man who ran over Jews in SF outside a Synagoge. A Muslim man who ran over UNC students at Chapel Hill. A Muslim man who shouted “I am a Muslim American!” as she murdered a Jewish woman in a Seattle Jewish Community Center.
In all cases the Media went into contortions to conceal their identities as Muslim. Can’t actually speak to what actually happened.
Supposedly the shooter had only two guns, a 9mm pistol and a 22 caliber handgun. Presumably purchased off a drug dealer or the like.
Reports were that he chained the doors together. Also that he’d called in bomb threats over the last several weeks to test security response and make students blase to threats. Finally that he went to the door of one classroom, shot the Professor in the head and picked people off, killing 24 out of 30.
THAT alone is a strong argument for students who have concealed carry and valid permits to carry. At that point no one could have stopped that killing save a concealed carry student.
Another classroom barricaded the door with their bodies, gunman shot through the door but did not kill anyone.
Police arrived on the second floor as the guy shot himself (he presumably heard them break the doors down and knew it was over). At no time did the police engage the shooter.
This is awful. May all those in the bereaved families have long life, health and abundant healing, and may all the innocents slain find their way to a favorable judgment and eternal reward. May their hearts be lighter than a feather and their souls always at peace.
“Hey avedis, take a break on the ‘bed wetters’ comment, it’s annoying and demeaning (to you and to this place).”
You’re right. No more of that from me.
“You should be proud of your son…”
I am.
“I certainly appreciate his service.”
So do I
“..But the honor goes to him, not to you….”
True. And, for the record, I was in Iraq the first time we went there. Additionally, I tried to get back in post 9/11 so I could go to Afghanistan to kill terrorists. However, even with prior service, I was deemed too old (though under today’s standards I would have been accepted). Also, for the record, I think we should have done Afghanistan right and actually killed *all* the terrorists – and Taliban – instead of diverting our resources becoming embroiled in a colonialist war of aggression in Iraq – a country that posed no substantial immediate threat and for whom the WMD inspection regime was working effectively.
With that out of the way……… from a technical standpoint, I am amazed that this shooter could kill so many people being armed only with two handguns. Normally, more shots miss than hit and of those victims that are hit, more are wounded than killed.
While I generally think gun control is for sissies (I own a few guns both long and short), I am not sure that I would want todays youth running about with loaded weapons packed next to their Ipods. I think the cost in terms of tragic accidents and impulse shootings would be higher than the benefit in terms of innocent lives saved.
On the other hand, I think we have to acknowledge that had one of the students been both armed and properly trained, the extent of this tragedy would have been diminished.
This isn’t a very accurate description of how concealed carry works in Virginia. You have to go to the trouble of applying in person at a police station, including fingerprinting, and must have taken a weapons training class. Approval and background check takes 45 days. In some states it takes 90 or 120. Moreover, carrying a weapon tends to make you look fat. That rules out a lot of the vanity prone right there. So it’s probably not the case that kids are going to just buy a gun and carry it next to their Ipod.
Good point.
I was in virginia interviewing yesterday, and the school I was at was completely focused on this event. At this point, I think it’s difficult to say what exactly went wrong and why response (from students & police) was slow. The two contrasting responses are 1) no one should be armed or 2) Everyone should be armed to offset the problem.
I do understand the campuses firarm rule. As an instuctor-to-be, it can be quite… unsettling to know that a student is carrying a firearm in your classroom. Additionally, having an open policy towards firarms also opens up the opportunity for a school-diabling lawsuit (& serious bad press) if a gun is accidently discarged, stolen or simply displayed inappropriately. Since there have been very few shooting instances on colleges so far, it makes sense that there is greater financial danger to the schools openly alowing firearms than preventing their presence.
This may change, but I expect the opposite will happen. Many schools will go out of their way to prevent firearms, which is extremely difficult due to the open environment of large campuses. Additionally, at least for the near future, many campuses will increase security details and try to instigate ‘hotlines’ where students can call if they see something out of the ordinary.
I have been reading that the shooter used a Glock 9mm purchased in March (there was a receipt found) that had the serial number filed off. What does that indicate, do you think? Was this an illegal sale, or did the shooter do this himself (and why would he)?
I have no problem with gun ownership, but I must strongly come down on the side of those who wish to make owning one much much more difficult (such as civilian Police). There should be mandatory training/licensing, and gun shop owners must be held responsible for selling weapons illegally.
Good can come from a tragedy such as this if it helps to instigate positive changes in the way Americans purchase and use firearms.
I should follow up by noting that I have in the past derived great enjoyment from firing a Ruger 9mm at an indoor range…and found myself to be a pretty damn decent shot.
_”There should be mandatory training/licensing, and gun shop owners must be held responsible for selling weapons illegally.”_
This is already the law in most states I know of. If the facts coming out about this guy are true he obtained his weapons illegally. If he bought them at a gun shop the owner will most certainly face prosecution. But that is most likely not the case. Most weapons used in crimes are either stolen or obtained illegally. How do you outlaw what is already illegal?
This country is entirely conflicted on guns. On the one hand you have proponents who generally want people to be free to lawfully own and carry- but criminals to pay a HIGH price for using a weapon in a crime. Like 20 years to life automatic for armed robbery. The other side doesnt want law abiding people to have guns but weaps crocodile tears for criminals that stick a pistol in some storekeepers face.
I prefer the former. If somebody abuses the right to own a firearm they should be removed from society. If you sell a gun illegally you should be locked up for a looong time. If you use a gun in a crime you should be locked up basically forever, even for a simple stick up. I dont care about sob stories. We need to send a message guns are a massive but important responsibility, and that if you abuse that to the detriment of society you will be removed from society permanantly.
That makes sense to me Mark.
In addition I would add that having an armed civilian would not neccessarrily have simplied or ended this situation. I imagine the first people to realize there was a gunman did not survive the encounter. By the time the school was notified of the problem, I suspect that most of the damage had already happened. Now, having a gun might have worked, but life never works as cleanly as our hindsight vision says it should be.
On the flipside, there have been several occassions in the last several years were an unarmed crowd prevented further killings, including in a highschool cafeteria (although I can’t remember where) where several football players/wrestlers stampeded the gunman.
So is there mandatory training and licensing in Virginia or not, Mark? From what it seems, Cho was able to purchase two handguns (9mm and 22 cal) simply by showing the proper ID. Does the law allow him to walk out of the shop that day with the weapons?
If you are trying to argue that the laws in this case (or in this State) are sufficiently restrictive, then color me highly unconvinced.
Please differentiate between the purchase of a handgun, and obtaining a permit to carry a concealed handgun.
Handgun purchases in Virginia are subject to the very same regulations as every other state under the Brady Law, complete with instant background checks – and if you are okayed by the Virginia State Police through the instant check, you may walk out of the dealer’s establishment with your gun that very moment. Virginia also requires that no one may purchase more than one handgun every 30 days unless the purchase of multiple handguns is either okayed by the State Police, through a roughly 30 day process, or by the purchasher holding a valid Virginia concealed weapon permit.
The process for obtaining a concealed weapon permit is a tad longer. You have to show proof of training AND pass the background check. One applies to the county court of their residence county and the county must grant the permit or deny it within 45 days.
The background check is roughly the same for both purchase and concealed weapon permitting, but the concealed weapon training component is set by statute, and is fairly stringent.
Hope that clarifies some confusion.
I didnt say Virginia was a typical state when it comes to gun control. I have no problem with mandatory training- although i fully understand the justifiable fears of gun owners considering the underhanded tactics used to disarm and demonize populations in the past. Canada used its licensing list to track down and disarm gun-owners, and plenty of jurisdictions in the US sit on paperwork intentionally to deny licenses and concealed carry permits. With luck we can get a clean decision from the SOCUS confirming the individual right to bear arms, and from their sensible limits can be set without fear of confiscation down the road.
Mark B,
in #39 you wrote: “On the one hand you have proponents who generally want people to be free to lawfully own and carry- but criminals to pay a HIGH price for using a weapon in a crime. Like 20 years to life automatic for armed robbery. The other side doesnt want law abiding people to have guns but weaps crocodile tears for criminals that stick a pistol in some storekeepers face.”
I’m not sure you did justice to the other side there. I’m not sure weeping crocodile tears is necessarily or that frequently a collolary to advocating gun control. But that aside, let me offer you a 3rd group, the one I’m in, which combines elements of both sides you listed. I do advocate extremely high penalties for using a weapon in a crime AND I don’t want law abiding citizens to have guns (I don’t weep crocodile tears for criminals that stick a pistol in some storekeepers face).
“I do advocate extremely high penalties for using a weapon in a crime AND I don’t want law abiding citizens to have guns.”
Why? I mean, don’t you by definition want law abiding citizens to have guns?
Surely you mean you don’t want criminals to have guns.
Of course, keeping criminals from having guns is a tad more difficult than keeping law abiding citizens from owning guns, because in the case of the criminals you can’t just pass a law and expect them to give up guns anymore than you can expect criminals to stop doing drugs just because you pass a law against it.
My view on this is colored by the fact that I’ve lived in a nation with as highly restrictive of gun control laws as possible, and you know what? The criminals managed to have guns. Lots of guns. And lots of people still managed to get shot. But the law abiding population, well, they just had to run really fast and hope that the criminal was a bad shot, and didn’t shoot thier slower moving children.
tcg:
Jay makes the situation pretty clear. CCW requires a background check, so that any prior acts, or psychiatric history, or even a defaulted student loan debt, means you fail to qualify. That said, it’s not profoundly difficult to get the permit. There are, I’m afraid, bound to be a few bad apples who get it… but that fact doesn’t justify disarming the society. I think the assets outweigh the liabilities.
Mark:
I have a friend who is an oft-cited Constitutional and Natural Law scholar who thinks that if the SCOTUS unambiguously affirmed the individual right to bear arms (which would require overruling a 1930s decision that interpreted the 2nd Amendment as a “collective right”) there wouldn’t be a great deal of opposition to universal registration of handguns. Unfortunately the current consensus among legal scholars is that SCOTUS is unlikely to affirm such a right. However, it’s a closer call than it used to be. (He also feels that the Founders *did* establish an individual right, but that it’s currently not likely to be recognized and affirmed by the courts.) If he isn’t averse to being cited, I’ll tell you who the Natural Law scholar is.
_I have a friend who is an oft-cited Constitutional and Natural Law scholar who thinks that if the SCOTUS unambiguously affirmed the individual right to bear arms … there wouldn’t be a great deal of opposition to universal registration of handguns._
Is he predicting that an individual right to bear arms would not be inconsistent with state regulation of handguns?
tcg:
The shooter purchased one of the guns 36 days before yesterday. An instant check was performed at the time and nothing came up to warrant a denial. We don’t know what his intentions were when he purchased it. 35 days after he purchased it there was nothing (as far as we know) known that would warrant a denial of his right to purchase the gun. His intentions were still unknown. It was only yesterday that it became obvious he shouldn’t have a gun.
It’s been said he had a history of mental illness. If that’s so and it’s on the record and of a variety that might warrant a denial then it should have come up on the check. If it didn’t it’s the instant check system that needs perfecting, not the law (especially in these times when instant information is the norm).
I believe a person has the right to own a gun, any gun unless they exhibit behavior that is legitimately determined to be that of someone unfit for the responsibility of ownership within the framework of our society. I’d prefer those who carry, concealed or otherwise, have the demeanor and maturity necessary to handle the awesome responsibility.
I don’t understand what your beliefs are and how they could be infused into a set of laws that would be “sufficiently restrictive” as you put it, to have (convincingly) prevented the tragedy that happened yesterday. Could you elaborate?
I envision a licencing scheme similar to that required for the operation of a motor vehicle.
OK tcg. I’ll set aside the notion (my belief) that a driver’s license is an earned privilege as opposed to a right.
I think it’s fair to say that a car, if used improperly, is equally as dangerous as any firearm that could be borne or carried by an individual – even with two hands.
Have you ever met anyone seemingly competent who has sincerely attempted but failed to obtain a driver’s license? Is it fair to say that many behind the wheel are not taking their responsibility seriously enough? Would you say driver’s licenses are not sufficiently restricted?
Yeah we’re all really shocked by the recent shootings at Virginia Tech. We don’t know if the immediate response by the administration was sufficient to contain the threat, and it’s unclear what exactly motivated the killer. Now all we can do is mourn for the victims…
Bert-auto accidents account for more deaths than those by firearms, so I would go even further than you in where they sit along the spectrum of risks.
“Have you ever met anyone seemingly competent who has sincerely attempted but failed to obtain a driver’s license?” I don’t think so…how would I know this?
“Is it fair to say that many behind the wheel are not taking their responsibility seriously enough?” Absolutely. Every day I spy a driver of a large, heavy vehicle such as an SUV talking on a cell phone while driving, many times at intersections.
“Would you say driver’s licenses are not sufficiently restricted?” Licensing for teens is becoming more restrictive in some states, and rightly so because they’re the group that is at the highest risk for accidents (a combo of inexperience and exhuberance…I was there not too long ago!). I support these efforts. So, I guess my answer here is that they are not sufficienty restrictive for the entry-level population who should be required to have training (not just pass a test) and who will have usage restrictions (after dark driving, number of passengers, cell phones, etc).
As far as the issue of “right” vs. “priviledge” wrt gun ownership, this issue can be spun in a number of different ways. For example, someone’s right to own a gun should not trump another citizen’s right for safety and security. In addition, that gun ownership is enshrined in the constitution does not mean restrictions cannot be placed upon this right in an effort to balance it with the rights of others. All rights are priviledges in some senses in that there are only a few that are inalienable…and I do not believe that gun ownership is one of these.
tcg, we’ve sort of hijacked this thread. If no one minds fine. If you do, moderators please forward my email to tcg.
Ok, I was just throwing a few questions out there for you. They’re by no means comprehensive. Frankly tcg I think you’re closer to my point of view than you think (and I to yours I suppose). It shouldn’t be a great leap of faith to say individual responsibility is the root cause. The social ills that undermine the sense of responsibility can not IMHO be corrected by further limiting of responsibility or by the “state’s” assuming responsibility. The state is made up of individuals after all.
Re: those without licenses – it’s rare indeed that you meet someone without a driver’s license and when you do it usually isn’t difficult to ascertain why.
Irresponsible drivers – of course. We all see them every day, multiple times a day. Their behavior is troubling and dangerous. Somewhere someone exhibiting the same behavior is causing mayhem or death. It’s by chance or the awareness of other responsible (defensive) drivers or a combination of the two that the individual’s behavior you’re witnessing is not.
Restrictions – yes, teens. Highest risk. Makes sense. But what about the next highest risk group? And the next? How many lives are you willing to forsake so that we may all drive? When do the restrictions stop?
As for the “rights vs.”: I simply don’t see how owning a gun trumps another’s right to security. There could be guns laying all about my house and they will have zero effect on anyone’s security anywhere – unless handled irresponsibly. I can assure you they won’t be. Having them in public is another matter and I would prefer those who do have training just as hunters are required to pass a safety course. It wasn’t always the case with hunters. Good habits were passed from generation to generation and many young ones don’t need to study to pass this test or lead a life of safety in the woods. They were taught by their responsible parents. There is less familiarization with firearms in general these days. I’m not comfortable with that. I believe the good habits need to be passed along.
Guys, I’ll refer you to an old post of mine on “risk”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/003110.php
I discuss causes of death & risks in some depth.
A.L
PD #47:
Laurence Tribe, in the NYT in 1999, didn’t think so:
First, he affirms the right:
I have a question. Is 3 rounds a second from a Glock 9 mm probably from an amateur? Also, do you think the killings could have been completed in 9 minutes as reported without a second shooter?
Blog asks this question: http://lilarajiva.wordpress.com
SR –
Not if he expects to hit anything.
And certainly, yes. There is no evidence of a second shooter, and no reason to assume there was one.
A.L.