April 16th, 2007 12:24 pm
Reports are scattered right now. Here’s the latest from ABCNews:
At least 29 people are dead in what may be the biggest mass killing on a college campus in American history — and the death toll may rise.
Police at Virginia Tech, in Blaksburg, Va., said that the shootings happened at a dormitory and a classroom on opposite sides of the university campus.
Law enforcement sources tell ABC News the shooting may have been set off by an off-campus incident.
Virginia Tech Police Chief Wendell Flinchum said that one person was killed in the first shooting, which occurred just after 7 a.m. at West Ambler Johnston Hall, a large dormitory. Flinchum said that at least 20 more people were killed at Norris Hall, an academic building.
So where have we heard news of Virgina Tech and guns before?
January 2006, when Virginia Tech administrators proudly proclaimed how safe their school would be when honest citizens were banned from posessing legally-permitted guns.
A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.
House Bill 1572 didn’t get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.
The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Gilbert was unavailable Monday and spokesman Gary Frink would not comment on the bill’s defeat other than to say the issue was dead for this General Assembly session.
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.”
How’s that “safe feeling” working out for you today, Larry?
Last spring a Virginia Tech student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit. […] In June, Tech’s governing board approved a violence prevention policy reiterating its ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus facilities.
Great. Because we all know criminals will abide by such policies. Meanwhile, someone who could’ve taken the perpetrator out before he ran his score up to 29+ was prevented from doing so because some administrators wanted to give the tuition-paying customer base a false sense of security.
UPDATE:
I changed my headline as, in reflection, it seemed a little inappropriate.
UPDATE 2:
Allah has a good roundup, including an eyewitness account posted on a VT frat listserv.
UPDATE 3:
Cell phone video from the scene:
UPDATE 4:
Some reports from students coming in claim the University didn’t notify anyone of the earlier shooting around 7:00 AM (second round of shootings apparently happened 2 hours later). Looks like many people went to campus completely unaware of what was transpiring. The Universtiy will have some explaining to do on that one.
UPDATE 5:
Here’s an editorial from Virginia Tech spokesman, Larry Hinckler from last Fall, in response to another editorial entitled “Unarmed and vulnerable“:
The writer would have us believe that a university campus, with tens of thousands of young people, is safer with everyone packing heat. Imagine the continual fear of students in that scenario. We’ve seen that fear here, and we don’t want to see it again.
Guns don’t belong in classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same.
The title of Hinckler’s editorial was, “Imagine if students were armed.” Yes… let’s imagine.
UPDATE 6:
And right on cue, here comes the Old Gray Lady to tell us guns are bad. And MSNBC rolls out a “gun control” special… I wonder if those who are giving me heat for my post will show the same outrage for the anti-gun lobby quickly turning on their campaign.
UPDATE 7:
A list of victims.
UPDATE 8:
Someone claims to be the one who sold the guns to the shooter. If this is true, and if it’s true he was here on a student visa, then this would go to show that gun laws don’t prevent or deter criminals from obtaining guns. It only prevents law-abiding citizens from obtaining them… and protecting themselves…
Call BS all you like, but I just spent the last several hours with 3 ATF agents. I saw the shooter’s picture. I know his name and home address. I also know that he used a Glock 19 and a Walther P-22. The serial number was ground off the Glock. Why would he do that and still keep the receipt in his pocket from when he bought the gun?
ATF told me that they are going to keep this low-key and not report this to the tv news. However, they cautioned that it will leak out eventually, and that I should be ready to deal with CNN, FOX, etc.
My 32 camera surveillance system recorded the event 35 days ago. This is a digital system that only keeps the video for 35 days. We got lucky.
By the way, the paperwork for Mr. Cho was perfect, thank God.
UPDATE 9:
Even in the worst of tragedies, we witness the best of humanity:
An Israeli lecturer who died in the massacre at a U.S. university saved the lives of several students by blocking the doorway of his classroom from the approaching gunman before he was fatally shot, his son said Tuesday.
Students of Liviu Librescu, 76, an engineering science and mathematics lecturer in at Virginia Tech for 20 years, sent e-mails to his wife, Marlena, telling of how he blocked the gunman’s way and saved their lives, said the son, Joe.
“My father blocked the doorway with his body and asked the students to flee,” Joe Librescu said in a telephone interview from his home outside of Tel Aviv. “Students started opening windows and jumping out.”
UPDATE 10:
Shooter is identified as Cho Hui Seung, a 23 year old student at Va Tech. A native of South Korea, he was a “resident alien” of the U.S.
The face of a monster:
UPDATE 11:
A missed opportunity.
A court found that Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho was “mentally ill” and potentially dangerous. Then it let him go.
In December 2005 — more than a year before Monday’s mass shootings — a district court in Montgomery County, Va., ruled that Cho presented “an imminent danger to self or others.” That was the necessary criterion for a detention order, so that Cho, who had been accused of stalking by two female schoolmates, could be evaluated by a state doctor and ordered to undergo outpatient care.
UPDATE 12:
Warning signs?
In September 2005, Cho was enrolled in [English Professor Nikki] Giovanni’s introduction to creative writing class. From the beginning, he began building a wall between himself and the rest of the class.
He wore sunglasses to class and pulled his maroon knit cap down low over his forehead. When she tried to get him to participate in class discussion, his answer was silence.
[…]
But then female students began complaining about Cho.About five weeks into the semester, students told Giovanni that Cho was taking photographs of their legs and knees under the desks with his cell phone. She told him to stop, but the damage was already done.
[…]
“There was no writing. I wasn’t teaching him anything, and he didn’t want to learn anything,” she said. “And I finally realized either I was going to lose my class, or Mr. Cho had to leave.”Giovanni wrote a letter to then-department head Lucinda Roy, who removed Cho.
Roy alerted student affairs, the dean’s office, even the campus police, but each said there was nothing they could do if Cho had made no overt threats against himself or others.
[…]
When she and Giovanni learned of the shootings and heard a description of the gunman, they immediately thought of Cho.
UPDATE 13:
The psycho speaks from the grave.
After killing two people in a Virginia university dormitory — but before he slaughtered 30 more in a classroom building — the gunman, Cho Seung-Hui, mailed NBC News a long, profanity-laced diatribe and dozens of photographs and videos Monday morning, boasting, “When the time came, I did it. I had to.”
So much for the theory that this guy just snapped. This package shows that this was planned. (Combined with the possibility Cho was responsible for the two bomb threats in the weeks leading up to this event further proves this wasn’t just a ‘heat of passion’ kind of rampage.)
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Texas Rainmaker is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
Graphics by: Margolis Media Works | Style by: Lisa Sabin - E.Webscapes
Un-be-lievable. Your warped reasoning is actually almost as revolting as what happened there. Wouldn’t have thought it possible…
Comment by endorendil — 12:47 pm
Then explain how the university’s policy helped today.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 12:56 pm
They’re still counting the bodies and you’re already trying to turn it into some political issue. That’s what’s revolting. Tuned into the NRA disaster fighting channel?
And the prohibition of wasn’t university policy, it’s Virginia law. Columbine had no such limitations, and it didn’t help them one bit. The idea that arming every teacher and student is going to reduce campus shootings is preposterous. A well-armed and well-trained gunman can kill dozens of surprised youngsters, armed or not.
Comment by endorendil — 1:09 pm
“They’re still counting the bodies and you’re already trying to turn it into some political issue. That’s what’s revolting. Tuned into the NRA disaster fighting channel?”
Be sure to register your complaint with ABC News as well.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 1:36 pm
I have.
Comment by endorendil — 2:18 pm
Apparently they moderate comments - may need to wait for it to appear. It appears that the shooter used a 9 mm and a 22 mm (or two 9 mm), not assault guns, so the issue is hand-gun control.
Comment by endorendil — 2:21 pm
Those who know me know I’m not NRA-koolaid drinker. I’m all for background checks and banning armor-piercing ammunition (I’ve never seen a deer wearing kevlar). But I also think that policies like this only prevent law-abiding citizens from carrying a gun that could be used against a perpetrator like the gunman today.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 2:24 pm
Jason, I agree with endorendil on this.
While I wholeheartedly support your right to use this tragedy to spur discussion on gun control issues and can even understand (while not necessarily agreeing) how this could help your point, but I view the timing and the tone of some of your statements quite disappointing.
How’s that “safe feeling” working out for you today, Larry?
Would you be saying this to the parents of any of the students, if they had supported the policy?
This is a time to grieve the loss, finger-pointing this soon after it occurred is out of taste.
Comment by forrest — 2:43 pm
Multiple Shootings at Virginia Tech
***See Updates***
This story is unfolding, but it appears there is more than one shooter involved.
Trackback by JammieWearingFool — 3:02 pm
TR, I’m fine with people owning single-shot hunting rifles, IF they actually hunt. And with permits, of course, and regular reviews (eye checks etc), whatever.
But multi-shot rifles and hand guns are pointless for any reasonable hunter. They are only there to kill humans.
Where there are strict gun laws, less people get murdered.
Comment by endorendil — 3:27 pm
“Jason, I agree with endorendil on this.”
Shocker.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 4:15 pm
*UPDATE* Reported 33 Killed in Virginia Tech Shooting
Classes have been canceled today as a scary situation develops in Blacksburg:Shootings in a dorm and classroom at Virginia Tech left at least one person dead and seven or eight more wounded Monday before police arrested the suspected gunman, officials
Trackback by The Sandbox — 4:24 pm
“But multi-shot rifles and hand guns are pointless for any reasonable hunter. They are only there to kill humans.”
While I agree in questioning the need for multishot (semis and full autos) rifles, hand guns can come in handy in the middle of the night to greet a home invader (and likely could’ve come in handy today when a guy walks down your school hallway empty clip after clip).
“Where there are strict gun laws, less people get murdered.”
Not necessarily.
Turns out, those usually complying with gun laws are law-abiding citizens, not the criminals. So stricter gun laws only serve to mostly disarm the law-abiding public, thereby making them more vulnerable.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 4:29 pm
…
And like always, you don’t even pay attention to the substantive point of my comment.
Well, no skin off my back if you appear to be lacking in class.
Comment by forrest — 4:39 pm
TR, you simply repeat my point about handguns - they are their to shoot people with, not hunt. That means that anyone that has them can only plan to do one thing with them - consciously or unconsciously. Unfortunately, no one can be trusted to be rational all the time. So no one can be trusted with a gun all the time. Much better to arrest anyone in possession of a handgun on sight.
How many people would have been killed by scared students shooting blindly back without looking? Guns have to remain in the hand of competent people.
The first article you reference is short on actual data, but it is clearly limited to studies within the US. Unfortunately local gun laws don’t make much of a dent in the availability of guns, so you can’t expect them to have an impact on criminals. Only country-wide measures with strict enforcement can be expected to have an impact.
In the second article, the complaint is that a buyback program didn’t affect the murder rate significantly. But that is irrelevant, since a buyback progam isn’t the same as outlawing the weapons - it doesn’t carry the big advantage that you can arrest people for possession only. Even so, the findings are disputed (http://www.guncontrol.org.au/index.php?article=75).
I’m sorry, but I find it nuts to allow things that can only be used to kill people. We would not allow the sale of plutonium or arsenic over the counter. Of course not, they have no value beyond killing people. So why would we allow anything but sporting hunting rifles to be sold?
Comment by endorendil — 5:51 pm
The question of whether or not students and staff with handguns would have stopped this guy any sooner can be debated to death. One thing that needs to be considered in such a situation is this. Had students and staff been carrying handguns the following situation could have happened. The shooter is caught by a student and shot, but another student or staff come upon the scene and then they shoot the student who just shot the bad guy. See where this is going? You could potentially end up with dozens of “good samaritans” shot dead by other good samaritans.
A waiting period to buy a weapon and banning armour piercing bullets is not curtailing freedom to bare arms, it is ensuring ( or trying to) that whackos don’t have easy access to weapons.
Comment by MrCynic1 — 6:46 pm
“Unfortunately, no one can be trusted to be rational all the time. So no one can be trusted with a gun all the time. Much better to arrest anyone in possession of a handgun on sight.”
Sounds familiar.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 8:52 pm
“They’re still counting the bodies and you’re already trying to turn it into some political issue. That’s what’s revolting. Tuned into the NRA disaster fighting channel?”
Looks like the anti-gun lobby one-upped me on being revolting… they’re using today’s events as a fundraising campaign… How very John Edwards of them.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 9:17 pm
Campus Self-Defense Squelched at Va. Tech in 2006
“I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions,” Hincker said on Jan. 31, 2006, “because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus…”
Trackback by Doug Ross @ Journal — 4:19 am
Endorendil, it would appear your arguments are visceral and emotional. Firearms, whether single shot, semi-automatic or full automatic do not in and of themselves ‘kill’ people. “People’ kill people. Many people die as a result of using cocaine, which is an illegal substance. Too, many people die as a result of using alcohol or are killed by those who do, and alcohol is a legal substance. Airliners in the wrong hands are lethal, too. It is not the instrument used to kill that is the problem; rather it is the inhumanity (fueled by immorality) that motivates such acts that seems to be the fundamental problem.
A person trained in special military operations armed with a six-inch bladed knife could have killed just as many people as the crazed shooter. So banning or unnecessarily controlling multi-shot firearms is not the solution to the problem. I, too, believe that an armed student or teacher could have prevented the death toll from being so high. As for MrCynic1’s preposition; that is absurd. Were the premise arguable; many plain-clothes detectives and under cover agents would die at the hands of uniformed officers and other detectives/agents. It takes a fraction of a second to analyze a situation and determine if a response is appropriate and necessary. The majority of people who have decided to carry a weapon have done so with great care and cognizance. They must determine beforehand to use deadly force if absolutely necessary. That is not a decision made lightly.
I find it interesting that subsequent to 9-11 there was an outcry to arm airline pilots so as to prevent another terrorist hijacking event. Yet, a crazed person walks into a school and kills thirty-plus people and the outcry is for gun control. I also find it hard to accept that rational people honestly believe that gun control will effect anyone other than a [already] law abiding person. Criminals, by their very nature, have no regard for the law – and neither do crazed people with murder in their heart.
As long as our constitution affords me the right and such inhuman idiots walk our streets, I will continue to carrying my semi-automatic handgun.
Some gun facts for everyone.
Comment by Old Soldier — 6:18 am
Old Soldier, my argument on the issue of gun control isn’t emotional. I was emotional in my first post since it was sooo callous. This was when it was still titled “Dozens dead as college applauds hokie gun policy”, btw.
The argument that “People kill people” is missing the point: if that kid had only had a knife, he wouldn’t have killed 32 people. It takes a whole lot more work and training to kill a person with a knife, not to mention a very strong stomach to keep going after the first one. You say that some well-trained special ops guy could have killed 32 people with a knife because he was having a bad day. Perhaps that is true in principle, but have you ever heard of a “mass knifing” like that? I haven’t. In any case, I’m sure we can agree that a 19-year old engineering student without any military training can kill a lot more people with a gun than with a knife… Somewhere between 15 to 30 times more is my guess.
Now, if I understand your argument correctly, since “people kill people”, there is no point regulating the arms that people have access to. But then why all the fuzz about Iran going nuclear? You know, nuclear bombs don’t kill people, people kill people….
And I must say that I don’t understand the bit about cocaine and alcohol. The fact that people have access to legal and illegal narcotics is another strong argument to limit their access to guns, isn’t it. I am much less concerned about a staggering drunk wielding a knife than one wielding a gun…
But the most important argument is that there is no positive value in allowing assault weapons and handguns, only negative. So why would we allow these things on the street?
Comment by endorendil — 7:24 am
“The argument that “People kill people” is missing the point: if that kid had only had a knife, he wouldn’t have killed 32 people.”
He could’ve done a lot more damage with some ammonium nitrate, gun powder and other commonly-available (and legally available) ingredients. Would you ban all of those items, too?
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 7:31 am
TR, that would have required a whole lot more skill and time. You won’t see someone get dumped by his girlfriend and run out to build a truck bomb. And if he does, there’s a more than fair chance to stop him before he gets around to detonating it… even if he doesn’t come to his senses first.
No need to ban fertilizers.
Comment by endorendil — 8:51 am
No, the argument that only ‘people’ kill people is precisely the point. The instrument used is immaterial. Just as TR pointed out, this crazy could have just as easily fabricated a bomb that could have been just as devastating; if not even more so. How many terrorists did it take to kill nearly 3,000 people? And how many of those kids could have been saved had a teacher or another student been armed? Even if your desire (total ban on any weapon other than single shot) were implemented, just how would you go about implementing such an action? Americans have a love affair with guns which are too prevalent to collect up without employing some Gestapo-like force.
The Iran reference is a grasp at a straw. Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs have openly stated they want to usher in the next Islamic ruler and to do so they must plunge the world into chaos. In other words, the Iranian leadership has openly indicated a desire to use such weaponry against the non-Muslim world. Had Seung’s intent been known, I doubt weapons would have been sold to him. No more apples and oranges, please.
There many shooting match events that employ rapid firing guns. You’re attempting to justify a position of gun control by conceding ownership of single fire rifles. I resent the actions of a crazed person being used to require me to disarm – and so do millions of other fellow Americans. Statistically speaking, teenagers are the most dangerous drivers on the road. Knowing that, why do we continue to let them drive automobiles? Why aren’t there campaigns to require them to drive solo so as to mitigate the numbers of kids who die on our highways annually?
Comment by Old Soldier — 9:25 am
The law was obviously incapable of stopping that monster. One bullet would have.
Comment by USBeast — 9:57 am
OS, you cannot be serious when you say “this crazy could have just as easily fabricated a bomb”. It takes specialised knowledge, a huge amount of place, and a whole lot of time to create a fertilizer bomb. It’s not something you can build in a dorm room. When is the last time you heard of someone detonating a self-built bomb on campus?
“And how many of those kids could have been saved had a teacher or another student been armed.”
This is pure speculation, but perhaps there would have been more since there would have been two shooters. In any case, if 260 students would have been armed on that day, the chance that any one of them had been either in the dorm or in the classroom would still be small. The problem with that argument is that the offensive gun is always at the place of the crime, but defensive guns aren’t… For your argument to hold, you’ld really have to arm almost every student. Then you would not have one shooting killing 30 students in one go. But you would probably have 30 shootings a year killing a few students each.
“Americans have a love affair with guns which are too prevalent to collect up without employing some Gestapo-like force.”
I am aware that it would take a while to get the handguns and automatic weapons off the street. In the process, you’d arrest quite a few hardened criminals, though, so it has merit on its own. But it can be done. First stop all sales of them (and their ammo), then start large buy-backs. After that, just keep taking each gun that shows up. It will take a long time, but so what?
I think your analysis of Iran is flawed, but that isn’t the point. If you really believe that there is no reason to limit the weaponry available to looney tunes all over this world, why object to nuclear weaponry? If you believe that giving weapons to everyone makes everyone safer, why doesn’t the US sell nuclear weapons to Canada, Ireland, Spain or South Africa? This shows how untenable the “people kill people” argument is: firepower does matter.
I don’t think that automatic weapons should be allowed because you need them for some sporting events. We don’t allow Formula 1 cars on the road just because they can be used for competitive races.
Which brings us to your last example: cars. The price we pay in order to be able to drive is huge, in terms of resources and lives. But the benefit is huge too: mobility on a scale that the world has never seen. There is no such redeeming aspect to private ownership of handguns and automatics. Even so, in many countries and states young drivers (usually under 25) must indeed face restrictions, such as driving alone or with only a single passenger (although the reasoning is that passengers distract and egg on drivers), or not driving at night and on weekends.
Comment by endorendil — 10:36 am
“When is the last time you heard of someone detonating a self-built bomb on campus?”
October 24, 2005 - University of Oklahoma
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 10:42 am
Exactly TR. Shows just how difficult it is to build one of these, doesn’t it? Worked on it forever, then only succeeded in blowing himself up. Sorry, but truck bombs are not going to replace guns as weapons of choice on US campuses. Too difficult to make, too unwieldy to hide.
Comment by endorendil — 11:01 am
Endo, look up the mixing of Amonium Hydroxide and Iodine Crystals - it rivals Nitro Glycerine and takes no more space than a desk to mix!
Again, the guns did not kill 30-plus people - Cho Hui-Seung did! Figure out a way to control the Cho’s of the world, not the instruments the Chos choose to use.
BTW, are you in favor of or opposed to the Patriot Act?
Comment by Old Soldier — 12:36 pm
OS, how do you plan to control the Cho’s of the world? Until you have a realistic way to do that, let’s control the damage they can wreak.
Easily accessible data shows that your argument is bogus: two thirds of murders are committed by firearms while nitroglycerine and other explosives barely register (FBI uniform crime report referenced below). So, in the US, it remains vastly easier to kill someone with a gun than with explosives.
http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/ucr/05cius/data/documents/05tbl20.xls
Comment by endorendil — 1:32 pm
Endo, I gave an example of an explosive that is not difficult to formulate and does not require a lot of space. The example was not to suggest that explosives are a weapon of choice (yet). However, if you were to succeed in taking away legitimate citizen ownership of multi-round firearms, perhaps explosives would become the weapon of choice.
My plan to deal with the Chos of the world is easy – be armed and prepared to shoot them when they surface! The chances are great that Cho would not have gone on his rampage if he thought there was a one in ten chance of coming upon another armed person. People like that are cowards – he took his own life rather than face armed police, for crying out loud.
You didn’t answer my question.
Comment by Old Soldier — 7:09 pm
Quoting Old Soldier
As for MrCynic1’s preposition; that is absurd. Were the premise arguable; many plain-clothes detectives and under cover agents would die at the hands of uniformed officers and other detectives/agents. It takes a fraction of a second to analyze a situation and determine if a response is appropriate and necessary.
Your point here is valid OS, however the vast majority of the students ( I would say almost all) would not have had the training to deal with such an event. Police officers and soldiers go through a great deal of training before they are sent out on the street or into a warzone. How much training in analizing a situation would your average student have? I am guessing none, and in a world where kids have grown up with video games where you shoot first and ask questions later I fear tragedy would be just a hair trigger away.
Would more vidoe cameras and/or armed security on campus be a way to go? Then you get “Big Brother Is Watching” syndrom.
I live in Canada and we have had handgun control here since 1933, but theyy are still used for crimes. It’s funnyy how the bad guys don’t follow the rules. Our gun registration here is nothing but a joke as well, so I can tell you that isn’t the way to go.
Blaming this on Bush and Congress and others is a futile gesture anyways. In the end it was Cho that deserves the blame, 100% of it.
Comment by MrCynic1 — 9:48 pm
OS, the Cho’s of the world aren’t rational, so they won’t be deterred by the idea that they will be shot on sight. The US has some of the harshest punishments in the world for violent crime, all the way up to capital punishment, and it is still the most prone to violent crime among western nations. Clearly, deterrence does not work on violent criminals.
Of course, if you pull a gun on someone that you think is a Cho, I just might shoot you because I think you’re one. Much better to make sure that anyone who even has a gun is a criminal. That way you can arrest them when they don’t even carry it on them, in stead of waiting until they start shooting with it
.
The idea that people would use explosives if they are denied guns doesn’t survive first contact with the data (reference the FBI data again). The data show that explosives are not used as weapons in murders when people lack guns. They use knifes, blunt objects and even their bare hands, rather than use explosives. Let it go…
I didn’t answer about the Patriot Act since I don’t see its relevance to the gun control debate. Please explain why it would matter.
Comment by endorendil — 1:54 am
Mr Cynic, perhaps I’ve somewhat over generalized in believing that those who make a cognizant decision to carry a weapon are also responsible enough to learn all the implications and responsibilities that accompany such a decision; and that they would become ‘blindly’ familiar with the weapon. I’ll admit there is a possibility that someone may not exercise such prudence and might possibly become a confused and conflicted distractor to a crisis situation rather than respond appropriately; however I feel the potential is extremely unlikely and should not constrict or restrict the rights of others to carry a weapon, even to class on colleges and university campuses.
Endo, back to TR’s premise about an armed student or teacher… had there been one early on, Cho’s murderous rampage may have ended way before 32 people were slaughtered – we’ll never know. Most people who carry do not do so in a vacuum. They buy a weapon that fits their purpose, become familiar and competent with it and learn the laws of their state. Such people are extremely unlikely to do as you hypothesize and shoot a “friendly.” There are no cases that I know of where such has occurred; yet there are many incidents where armed citizens have successfully defended/protected themselves and/or others.
My explosive mix comment was in response to your comment, “It takes specialised knowledge, a huge amount of place, and a whole lot of time to create a fertilizer bomb. It’s not something you can build in a dorm room.” I do not argue against those attributes applying to a fertilizer bomb. However, there are other explosive material combinations that do not require “specialized knowledge,” or “a huge amount of place,” or “a whole lot of time” to prepare and can be ‘assembled’ (mixed) in a dorm room – that was my point. Now we can both let it go and move on…
Forget about my question – I believe I know the answer.
Hasn’t anyone figured out why ‘gun free zones’ (like schools and colleges) are favored grounds of rampage killers? If gun control is the answer, why does Washington DC have such a high violent crime rate? DC has some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation. Yet crime rates drop where the citizens are allowed to arm themselves. Do we need a few rocket scientists to analyze this for us?
Comment by Old Soldier — 5:47 am
“Most people who carry do not do so in a vacuum. They buy a weapon that fits their purpose, become familiar and competent with it and learn the laws of their state.”
That is correct: few people buy guns just for the heck of it. Certainly in this case, Cho bought the weapons that fit his purpose. I don’t know whether he really got too familiar with them - apparently he had them only about a month - but you don’t need to know much about a gun in order to use it with deadly effectiveness. And I’m pretty sure he knew that murder was illegal too. Somehow, all that didn’t help anything.
About 200 criminals are shot by private citizens each year (i.e. justifiable homicide). But guns kill 10,000 people a year. Cost/benefit analysis, please?
On the issue of explosives, the data clearly shows that people use knives or their bare hands when they don’t have a gun handy. They don’t manufacture explosives. That’s because it is hard, time-consuming and very dangerous. Fortunately.
Contrary to your assumption, most murders do not happen in gun-free zones. Sure, rampages by students and teachers happen mainly in schools and colleges, just as rampages by disgruntled employees happen in businesses, and postal workers shoot up post offices. They shoot whom they hate - and then keep going. It has nothing to do with the presence or absence of guns. These killers aren’t rational!
I assume that you’ve figured out that the Patriot Act is irrelevant to this debate.
Comment by endorendil — 8:24 am
”But guns kill 10,000 people a year.” Care to enlighten me and others as to how an inanimate object manages to kill anyone? You are blaming the instrument not the perpetrator! Automobile accidents claimed over 43,000 lives in 2005. Does that mean automobiles killed 43,000 people? Put the blame where it belongs.
Comment by Old Soldier — 12:16 pm
“Exactly TR. Shows just how difficult it is to build one of these, doesn’t it? Worked on it forever, then only succeeded in blowing himself up. Sorry, but truck bombs are not going to replace guns as weapons of choice on US campuses. Too difficult to make, too unwieldy to hide.”
May 18, 1927 - Bath Consolidated School - 45 killed by dynamite explosion detonated by disgruntled school board member
September 15, 1959 - Poe Elementary School (here in Houston) - 6 killed by dynamite explosion detonated by disgruntled parent
June 12, 1962 - Volkhoven Catholic elementary school (Cologne, Germany) - 10 killed by homemade flamethrower
…and complexity and difficulty doesn’t stop psychopaths in Israel from using homemade bombs on a weekly basis.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 1:39 pm
LMAO. TR, thanks for those examples. On any given day, about 5 times as many people are killed by guns as have been killed in those three tragedies, which played out over a period of almost a century and on two continents.
I wouldn’t call Israelis psychopaths, I am not sure which incidents you refer to. I know they made their own nuclear weapons, but that doesn’t really qualify as “home-made”, I think. But if you refer to the primitive (and quite ineffective) weaponry produced by the palestinians, please keep in mind that:
1) the US isn’t a war zone. The amount of people interested in building bombs in the US is still small.
2) the US isn’t a failed state. Yet. It is much harder to hide bomb factories here.
OS, firepower matters. I blame handguns and automatic weapons because they are an enabling technology with no benefits. They make it too easy for people to kill. If your reasoning would hold, we shouldn’t be concerned about nuclear proliferation (nuclear bombs don’t kill people, people kill people). And I’ve already addressed your analogy to cars before. Cars have benefits.
Comment by endorendil — 4:45 pm
Hey, why no update with the new info from the NBC tapes? Apparently Cho thought he was following Christ in showing that the weak can’t be kicked around forever. Oy ve.
Comment by endorendil — 5:00 pm
“I wouldn’t call Israelis psychopaths, I am not sure which incidents you refer to.”
I was referring to the palestinian baby killers that strap explosives on to go shopping and to school.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 5:19 pm
Endo, I wouldn’t call Israelis psychopaths, either; however the Arab Muslim homicide bombers that attack Israeli targets almost daily probably fit TR’s description. I would also keep in mind:
1)that Israel does not wish to be at war, however the number of Muslims interested in building bombs is quite high.
2)that Israel is not yet a failed state.
You might recall that Timothy McVey and Ted Kaczynski did well at hiding their “factories.”
You can blame handguns all day long; but in doing so you still falsely place blame. I’ve already addressed your attempt at dragging in the nuclear argument and that dog still won’t hunt. Try another angle.
”…enabling technology with no benefits.” Catchy – but there are many advances that could be placed in such a broad category. It doesn’t substantiate the argument – it merely diverts attention from the real perpetrater.
Comment by Old Soldier — 5:51 pm
OS, I didn’t drag Israel in it, TR did. I don’t see the relevance of discussing war zones in this. Last I checked, the US was not a war zone.
McVeigh was a well-trained, decorated ex-soldier whose hatred of the US government either started or was fanned in the Gulf war and festered for years as he built a network of sympathisers and at least one direct acomplice. Kacynski dedicated his life to his cause, to the point that he lived most his life as an ascetic monk. A violent, hate-filled one. He was an absolute fanatic. Neither of them are anything like a depressed 19-year old engineering student with an acute case of teenage angst.
I do believe that handguns are the reason why many arguments end up with dead people in stead of bloody noses, and certainly as the only way in which Cho could have killed more than one or two people. Sorry to say, but if he had only had a knife, he wouldn’t have made it to Fox News.
While you’re complementing me on phrasing the argument that handguns and (semi)automatic weapons are an enabling technology with no benefits and much drawbacks, you’re not answering it. Please explain why that isn’t a valid reason to ban them. If there are counter-examples, pony up.
Comment by endorendil — 7:49 pm
Just one bit on the Israel issue, since you misrepresent my argument:
1) it doesn’t matter whether Israel wants to be at war, it just is.
2) the failed state is in the palestinian territories, where the bomb factories are.
Comment by endorendil — 7:59 pm
Endo, you have one focus – repeating handguns are killers. You refuse to refocus on the real assailant. Regardless of the chosen method to kill; handguns for Cho, ammonia nitrate for McVey, and Boeing airliners for al-Qaeda, the common thread is deranged minds – not repeating handguns.
As an aside, Cho was not some ”depressed 19-year old engineering student with an acute case of teenage angst.” He was a 23-year old English major with a dark side that will stand the hairs up on the back of your neck. You might want to dig a little deeper in reading about Cho.
As for your “enabling technology with no benefit” mantra…, the entire world of metallurgy benefited as repeating arms were developed and a transition made from black powder to smokeless powder; metallurgy that produced more durable farming implements, stronger structures for building, improved alloys for rail road applications, etc. One industry complimented another as advancements were made. Weaponry alone is not the beneficiary of advanced technology, but a significant contributor as well. The largest airplanes made were first warplanes – air travel applications came later. Civil aviation “crash worthiness” (improved safety) is a direct result of technological advancements associated with military research.
Ever been to an International Practical Shooting Confederation (ISPC) or United States Practical Shooting Assoc (USPCA) match? Try going to one and telling those men and women there are no benefits to a semi-automatic pistol. Having been a competative shooter and professional soldier, I fully understand the true value of “gun control.”
Finally, the reason not to ban semi-automatic pistols resides in the Second Amendment. Please do not insult me with the argument that a “well regulated militia” refers to a national guard type force because that is merely a preamble to or a reason for the specified “right” – “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” I can think of no other right specified in our Constitution that our forefathers qualified with the words, “shall not be infringed.”
Comment by Old Soldier — 5:22 am
OS, there is no way to detect “deranged” minds in time to prevent these tragedies from happening. Yes, sometimes it’s obvious, but even normal, stable people can lose control temporarily, either under stress, influence of alcohol or simply because. If there’s a gun around, it only takes a fraction of a second of uncontrolled rage to cause a lifetime of regret (how Oprah
).
So until we have the infallible mind control system that you want, we just have to accept that people will run amok from time to time. The focus is therefor on limiting the damage they can wreak, i.e. the firepower they can obtain, not preventing it.
Metallurgy enables guns, not the other way around. But weapons development encouraged metallurgical progress, certainly in the very beginning (swords and such). Of course metallurgy has always had benefits beyond guns, so it would have developed anyway - just somewhat slower. But most importantly for our argument here is that the military pushes the development of new weapons, so this is no reason to let civilians have guns.
“Try going to one and telling those men and women there are no benefits to a semi-automatic pistol. Having been a competative shooter and professional soldier, I fully understand the true value of “gun control.””
I’m sorry, is this a “I could tell you but then I’ld have to kill you” argument? Or do you mean to say that other people assure you there’s a benefit, but they haven’t told you either?
I’ve answered at length on the second amendment issue in another post (”It was only a matter of time”). Madison explained that the Militias were meant to be a non-standing army with allegiance to the State, which would allow the States to defend themselves against the Federal army. But the National Guard is no longer a State force, as it was integrated in the Federal military in 1933, and so it no longer is the kind of Militia that the Founders wanted to protect. The State Defense Forces that still exist in some states are pretty much the way Madison thought of them: all volunteer, with the members providing uniforms and weapons and - crucially - not under federal control. If you’re in an SDF, your right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution, as you are the last line of protection of a State against the federal government. If you’re not in an SDF, there is no constitutional protection to your right to bear arms.
Comment by endorendil — 7:16 am
“If you’re not in an SDF, there is no constitutional protection to your right to bear arms.”
Why in the world did you have to employ that lame argument? It would seem that not all jurists agree with your premise. What part of the words, “…right of the people…, shall not be infringed.” do you not understand? Where else in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the remainder of Amendments do the words “shall not be infringed” appear? Seems to me there was a lot of emphasis placed on that specific “right.”
Why aren’t you as incensed about automobile deaths - 43,000 in 2005 – that’s four times your figures on gun related deaths. Do you truly justify the sacrifice of 43,000 lives on the alter of automotive transportation, merely because you believe there is a benefit? That’s lame and inconsistent, Endo. If you are incensed and want to ban semi-automatic hand guns because “they kill”, then you should be just as incensed about automobiles, and alcohol, and cocaine, and anything else that contributes to the loss of human life.
Did you try looking up IPSC or USPSA?
Comment by Old Soldier — 8:15 am
Just out of curiosity, given the facts that “a court found that Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho was ‘mentally ill’ and potentially dangerous” and Cho was ruled “an imminent danger to self or others”, does anyone believe that Cho should have been allowed to purchase a firearm?
To me, this seems to be the type of red flag that should prevent a gun sale during a background check.
I’d hope at least the background check process in Virginia (and other places as well, ideally) is given a thorough examination and will be reformed as necessary to prevent this type of individual from legally purchasing a weapon again.
Of course, its entirely possible that Cho would have simply gone off and obtained a handgun illegally, but thats not the point of this comment…
Comment by forrest — 10:00 am
Forrest, it struck me as odd that a court which declared Cho a mental danger to himself and to others would not have notified the national (what-ever-it’s-called) criminal database used to clear firearms purchases and flagged his ability to “lawfully” purchase firearms. I, too, would hope that any such hole in the system is patched to preclude the same from happening again.
Comment by Old Soldier — 10:48 am
OS, you can’t pick and chose which part of the Second Amendment you want to read. It does say that the right to bear arms is derived from the need for a well-regulated militia. If the Founders meant to make it an absolute right, the Second Amendment would have read “The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. But that is not what it says.
“Do you truly justify the sacrifice of 43,000 lives on the alter of automotive transportation, merely because you believe there is a benefit?”
I believe in tradeoffs. Most legal matters are - at the basic level - cost/benefit analyses. The cost of lax gun controls is clear, and large. The benefit is unclear, and tiny. The decision is simple.
By the way, I don’t think that gun control amounts to a religious issue. Yes, Christ teaches absolute, complete and unrelenting non-violence, to the point of forswearing all self-defense. Those who follow Him should have no doubt about what Jesus would do. It is therefor tempting to say that Christians should attempt to ban guns. But this isn’t a Christian nation, only a nation with a lot of Christians. The choice to remain completely non-violent therefore remains with the individual and does not have to be written into law.
Comment by endorendil — 5:23 pm
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 5:29 pm
Wow, John… this is amazing. I think we finally found the one thing at the one point of time that we can seem to agree
Incredible… I found one of these w/ Jason a week or so ago as well.
Obviously the apocalypse is near.
Comment by forrest — 12:24 am
Forrest, don’t cash in your life insurance policies just yet…
Endo,
“OS, you can’t pick and chose which part of the Second Amendment you want to read.” And why not? You do.
“It does say that the right to bear arms is derived from the need for a well-regulated militia.” Wrong. The Constitution does not say that - that’s your interpretation. Many (myself included) view the reference to a “well regulated melitia” as a preamble, not a restriction or condition. Obviously our forefathers thought it important enough to include the phrase “shall not be infringed.” Those words directly relate to the preceeding specified “right.” Interesting, isn’t it, that the word “shall” is compulsory or obligatory - non-negotiatble.
“I believe in tradeoffs. Most legal matters are - at the basic level - cost/benefit analyses.” Then you must be beside yourself at the thought of the annual cost in lives, lost wages, lost production and medical costs associated with the legal substance known as alcohol. It produces far more cost with no benefit than does semi-automatic handguns.
There is a gaping hole in your rationalization - but tunnel vision prevents you from seeing it.
Comment by Old Soldier — 5:07 am
OS, the Founding Fathers thought it important enough to qualify the right to bear arms by explicitly stating the framework in which it existed. All the other rights are simply stated, without qualifications. Just read the first amendment. Also, many of the FF were kind enough to explain their reasoning for posterity, which is why I can quote Madison to explain what the amendment was supposed to achieve.
On the matter of alcohol, you’re ignoring the huge societal value in the recreational use of a drug. I agree that it would have been better if western societies had chosen to coexist with a less destructive drug than alcohol - say marihuana - but it didn’t. So our societies are set up to deal with alcohol as the recreational drug of choice, and it functions moderately well as such.
I’m still waiting for you to come up with a single benefit that we get from having private citizens, that are not in a State Defense Force, own anything but simple hunting rifles.
Comment by endorendil — 10:49 am
“On the matter of alcohol, you’re ignoring the huge societal value in the recreational use of a drug.”
Huge societal value in recreational drug use? Sounds like you might be taking part at this very moment. What “huge societal value” comes from recretional drug use?
Is it cirrhosis? Is it impaired judgement? Is it drunk driving? Is it unwanted pregnancies? Or is it beer’s magical power to make ugly people better looking after a long night of consumption?
What on earth is the “hugh societal value” to recreational drug use?
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 11:14 am
TR, are you saying that you’re tee-totaling? If not, why do you drink? If not recreationally, say so, let us help.
Some behavioural psychologists have proposed classifying recreational drug use as the fourth basic urge after food, water and shelter (yes, I know what you were thinking - we’re talking basic here). Every society on this planet has discovered drugs and integrated them into their daily life and their religious rituals. That’s not an accident.
Comment by endorendil — 5:44 pm
And TR, feel free to point to a single benefit that we get from having private citizens, that are not in a State Defense Force, own anything but simple hunting rifles.
Comment by endorendil — 6:05 pm
Self-defense and defense of others.
If a law-abiding citizen wouldve been allowed to possess a gun on Monday, they couldve potentially ended Cho’s reign of terror much sooner. The benefit… Fewer lives lost.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 6:20 pm
TR, the statistics show only about two hundred killed in self-defense, out of about ten thousand. 99.8% of gun victims are innocent. Do you really think that this balances out to be a benefit, an argument in favour of private gun ownership?
Comment by endorendil — 4:38 pm
Correction, 98% are innocent.
Comment by endorendil — 4:38 pm
“I’m still waiting for you to come up with a single benefit that we get from having private citizens,… owning anything but simple hunting rifles.”
Endo, I’ll just borrow some of the “rationalization” you applied to accepting the huge financial, moral, and life-loss impact of alcohol… recreational shooting is a benefit (I gave you two links), the sport of hunting (regardless of the hunter’s choice of weapon),self defense for those bold enough to dare such. I suppose someone could possible use alcohol to defend them self or their loved ones - however, talking an assailant into over-imbibing might be a trick.
You’ve referenced Madison, how about reading what some other founding fathers and their peers had to say regarding the right to bear arms. CLICK HERE>
Your argument regarding only 200 assailants being killed by self-defending citizens, yet another 9800 people die at the hands of criminals wielding guns is non-contextual. Where is the data relative to criminal activity thwarted by armed citizens (without violence ensuing)? Case in point: FL had a very strict policy regarding concealed carry - in fact it was almost impossible to obtain a license. FL also had a “flee first” law applicable to home defense situations. FL, not long ago loosened their concealed carry laws, abolished the “flee first” law, and actually acknowledged the use of deadly force to protect self, family and others in imminent danger. Do you recall the headlines in Europe about tourists beware in FL; citizens could shoot you for no reason? Didn’t come to pass, did it? Yet the home invasion and personal crime rate in FL is down over what it used to be. Armed citizens deter criminal activity. It doesn’t completely stop it, but it certainly reduces it.
You are entitled to your opinion… yet so am I. I have no problems with you not carrying a concealed weapon: so, do not presume to prohibit me from carrying mine.
Comment by Old Soldier — 5:55 am
OS, hunting is a sport if you use a traditional hunters’ gun. I also don’t have a problem with some sharpshooter rifles used in other sports - those are hard things to learn to use properly. As long as they are tracked closely, and only sold to practicing “athletes” (hunters, sharp shooters, etc.). But there is no reason to allow hand guns for sport, or (semi) automatics, and those are the firearms that should be banned.
“No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Jefferson wrote this in a DRAFT constitution. Obviously he couldn’t even get that passed in Virginia, and he certainly didn’t get it into the federal constitution. It is an extremely useful quote, since it shows exactly what WOULD have been in the constitution if it had intended to allow firearms by all and sundry. Jefferson clearly lost that argument, and the Constitution limits the right to bear arms to those who serve in a militia.
The Madison quote in your link is:
“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
This is a prime example of lying through ellipsis. The actual quote is:
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
This clearly shows that the advantage of being armed is inextricably linked to the militias, whose officers are appointed by the State government.
“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”
This is John Adams’ quote and it shows again that the Founding Fathers considered the question of armed citizens and the existence of a legalized militia as two parts of the same coin. As he says, allowing civilians to be armed outside of the state militia is tantamount to the dissolution of goverment.
And so on and so forth. Many of the quotes on that page are very vague, or - as with Jefferson - represent the losing side of the argument. Many are like the ones above - further proving that the right to bear arms is limited to the members of the state militia.
The Founding Fathers also didn’t have the benefit of the modern example of democracies worldwide that have standing armies but are not subject to military coups. We are allowed to take heart from their example.
The self defense argument doesn’t hold, as the disadvantage of widespread availability of guns vastly overwhelms any possible advantage, as the murder statistics show. The idea that a disarmed citizenry would suffer from more crime is further disproven by the example of several western european countries, where violent crime is much lower than in the US.
The argument that guns prevent crime is in any case obviously wrong: if all you do is deter a criminal from robbing you, he will just rob someone else. So it doesn’t really deter crime, it merely moves it around, and in addition it encourages criminals to arm themselves AND to shoot with less provocation. The fact that the well-armed US citizenry suffers much more violent crime than any other western country is therefor easy to understand.
You have the right to bear a concealed weapon, in most part of the US, because it is currently legal. I deeply regret that you are compelled by fear and distrust to be armed, and I wish I could help you get over it. But the fact is that you are willing to endanger both yourself and those around you by doing so. Since your actions hurt my safety, I have the right and the duty to try to stop you.
Since none of your arguments hold for the 50 caliber guns, or for assault weapons, I assume that we can at least agree that such things should be banned?
Comment by endorendil — 10:29 am
Endo, as I have stated before, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I care not to prolong this exchange any further other than to address the following.
”I deeply regret that you are compelled by fear and distrust to be armed, and I wish I could help you get over it. But the fact is that you are willing to endanger both yourself and those around you by doing so. Since your actions hurt my safety, I have the right and the duty to try to stop you.”
What an immature, childish, school-girl utterance. You have absolutely no idea as to why I chose to arm myself; and to presume otherwise displays an intolerable elitist attitude tied to an overabundance of inanity. There is absolutely no argumentative value in such discourse. You have failed to persuade me, so you stoop to belittling… what a way to end what I thought was an exchange.
Comment by Old Soldier — 11:45 am
“Since your actions hurt my safety, I have the right and the duty to try to stop you.”
Says the unarmed man to the guy holding a gun. Good luck with that.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 11:59 am
TR, I don’t plan to use violence, just the law.
OS, you say that you arm yourself in self-defense. That implies you are afraid and have no faith in either divine judgement or human behaviour. Fear and distrust, no? It isn’t something to be ashamed of: half the US is afraid and distrustful enough to have guns. It’s just not the only way, and it’s not even the better way.
Incidentally, OS, you’ve accused me of having tunnel vision. You belittled my arguments by calling them rationalisation and tell me not to change a situation that is a direct threat to me. You called me lame and inconsistent, visceral and emotional. So don’t act the boy scout, okay?
Comment by endorendil — 1:58 pm
[…] enables guns, not the other way around. But weapons development encouraged metallurgical progress, certainly in the very beginning (swords and such). Of course metallurgy has always had benefits beyond guns, so it would have more [ ] …more […]
Pingback by metallurgy » Blog Archive » Rosie Metallurgy 101 — 10:13 am