On Monday Morning a Virginia Tech. Senior committed the worst act of gun violence in the history of our nation. Including himself, thirty three are dead and many wounded remain in area hospitals. The incident has left that community and the nation reeling in anguish and frustration. Why? Is the most common question asked in the first hours after the carnage. But the inevitable next question is, how could we have prevented it? And that’s when the gun control faction of my party (the Democrats,) will come out emphatically embolden with passion yelling “we told you so.” Which will then be followed with renewed calls for tougher gun laws.
But just ask someone who lives in New York City how effective gun laws are. It’s the city with the toughest gun control laws in the country. Despite that fact, over five hundred homicides were committed with guns last year alone in that city. And let’s not forget the incidents of genocide in Africa recently were carried out mostly by machetes, not guns. Gun laws keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, not criminals. It’s like my father used to tell me. “Padlocks are to keep honest folks from being tempted. If a thief wants something, a padlock is not going to stop him.” For the issue of guns, those padlocks are the laws we already have against using guns against people.
You might think that a point of view like this coming from a liberal Democrat is oxymoronic. My point is that as far as I’m concerned the debate is over. The good people of this nation want their guns and they are not going to give them up. It’s like the abortion issue. That debate is over as well. Unfortunately, there is always a group who cannot except majority rule. While I advocate their right to speak out on any issue. I’m not crazy about the idea of the “national debate” being dominated by an issue that has already been decided. Especially now, when our country is mired down in an un-winnable war where the counted dead is in the thousands.
We cannot afford to be distracted right now. I don’t want to take anything away from the thirty two victims at Virginia Tech. But that many American citizens and more are dying in Iraq every week.
Despite the fact that I was once a passionate gun control advocate, I had to concede our side had lost that debate. And now I’m not so sure we shouldn’t have. I’ve come to realize that although a gun may make committing a murder easier, it is not the source of the motivation to commit murder. Also, the right of an individual to defend themselves cannot be ignored. The gun control advocates believe the myth that police can be counted on to protect our citizens. But that’s an arrogance we cannot afford. Even under the most ideal circumstances, police response time will be in the minutes. It only took a few minutes for the Virginia Tech. Shooter to kill 30 people. And the police were right outside. I know this will incite a lot of my Democratic brothers and sisters, but I can’t help but wonder how differently things would have turned out if there had been a armed security officer or two in that building. The other thing I cannot ignore is the fact that with an armed populace, no foreign power will ever be able to occupy this country. That may sound outlandish, but no one thought Japan had the nerve to attack the United States either.
********************************
Devin Barber, Politics Correspondent
Devin’s column, “Left Of The Right” published every Tuesday and Thursday to Gather Essentials: Politics is a Blue Collar Democrats take on current political news.
Devin was raised by proud Roosevelt Democrats. Being the son of parents counted among the throng of Americans displaced by the Great Depression has given Devin a deep rooted passion for causes dealing with the poor and the working class.
You can find all of Devin’s columns at http://gather.com/leftoftheright
You can keep up with Devin’s postings and his Gather activity by joining his Gather network. Just click here: http://kiwina58.gather.com and then select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page.
You can find Devin and other Political Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other politics experts at Politics.gather.com.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 33
We've made so many advances, and our priority is still to kill each other. Until that changes, I'll keep myself armed.
I think you're missing something. Our "attempted" occupation of Iraq has been a dismal failure. And it's Iraq's armed populace that will keep it that way. Throughout modern history, the only successful occupations have been when the local population is either unarmed, or accepting of the occupying army.
This case is different, however, because he was NOT a US citizen and therefore the Constitution should not enter this debate. He is not a citizen being protected by the constitution, period. He should not have been able to purchase a gun, period.
As far as the rest of the debate, according to the Constitution, the guns are for overthrowing a rogue government, and after the technology of tanks and planes with huge bombs on them it seems a bit lopsidded to say the least.
The self-defense argument can tilt either way depending on who you are talking to, so I would throw that out. For example: If noone but criminals carried weapons they would get arrested with weapons possibly before they commited the crimes and we wouldn't have the domestic dispute (passion crime) problems. But of course crazy gunmen could be shot as well if everyone carried a gun, etc...
With all that said, do I think guns should be outlawed? No, it is in the Constitution and I happen to like that document and wish everyone actually followed it. We can alter the laws and try and make it harder for certain people to get ahold of a gun, but the NRA might not want to lose that money, right?
Where is Charlton Heston, shouldn't he be speaking about guns being good at Virginia Tech by now?
If we take away the citizens rights to bear firearms, the criminals will be the only ones with guns. Guns have been around for along time and they do plan an important role to self defense as well as hunting. If someone wants to kill another human badly enough, they will find a way to do it.
I own a concealed weapons permit and do carry a concealed weapon everywhere that I go. I have never killed anyone nor have I shot anyone. So how is my gun to blame for the shootings at Virginia Tech?
Gun control doesn't solve crime. For example, in Japan where guns are illegal, the Mayor of Nagasaki was assassinated yesterday by a gangmember with a handgun.
In Britain, a new law banning cheaply made samurai swords has just been passed. Criminals there have chosen it as the #2 weapon of choice after firearms (which are currently banned there.)
The problem isn't the weapon, it's the murderous animal who wants it to commit his heinous act. You really think this guy would have not gone through with this plan if he didn't have access to guns? No, he simply would have found another tool to help him achieve his desired result.... the slaying of 32 innocent people.
BTW, technically the VT campus is a 'gun-free' zone.
What you have here is a perfect example of what can happen when citizens cannot protect themselves.
On a side note, on your WWII Japan comment... I believe it was Admiral Yamamato who would not ever invade America because "There would be a gun behind every blade of grass."
Take away the right and means to defend ourselves, and the criminal hawks will swoop in for the slaughter.
Are those guns making us safer? Is Canada going to invade us? Nope to both.
But if I had any lingering thoughts that we might look upon this miserable massacre as a reason to reconsider our rejection of gun control, the avalanche of nonsense that has greeted that notion on gather has banished the thought by now.
By all means, let's proceed with our denial fest along with our grieving. But when this happens again a few years hence, I reserve dibs on I-told-you-so.
If you think we are absolutley safe from invasion, then I'm afraid you've under estimated both China and Russia. And the idea that it just wouldn't make sense to invade the U.S.? Since when did any country invading another make sense?
Guns are merely tools and obsessing about them misses the point. As long as our society continues on with the (you're-on-your-own) mentality, I'm afraid we're all doomed to live with a lot of uncomfortable realities.
the invasion comments were a part of a separate sub-topic discussing historical facts of WWII. I think you can understand multi-tasking.
The main point is that in gun-free areas, such as VT campus, if you have someone who is intent on ignoring the law and killing someone, then they will find a way to do it. And they will be more brazen knowing that
1. Their victims are unarmed and cannot defend themselves
2. He has the upper hand on the local police force as they will only be able to react after his actions.
JLF, if you are happy being completely unarmed, thats fine. If a couple guys want to break into your house to rape, and murder your family what will you do? Call the cops? They will most likely arrive too late, and you will basically be helpless to defend those you love.
Your choice. But don't take from the rest of us the means to persue "LIFE, liberty, and the persuit of happiness" by being able to defend those we love.
Devin, back to the historical note... If you really want the hair on your neck to raise then look at the predictions General Billy Mitchell made at his court martial about the future use of airpower and the upcoming attack on Pearl Harbor. He nailed the who, the how, and missed the when by less than 30 minutes.
This was the response of Messr. G. Katsuda to a correspondent for the Hartford Courant after the sinking of the Ostfriesland in 1921. Added the Japanese House of Peers statesman:
"Should there be such a war America would have to fight it a long way from home...It would be gravely embarrassing to the American people if the ideas of your General Mitchell were more appreciated in Japan than in the United States."
http://www.homeofheroes.com/wings/part1/6_survival.html
the problem is that gun lobby has too much money to spare on PR campaigns, to make sure the people keep buying guns and their coffers stay stocked. shame on NRA for all they do..shame
You've actually supported my point bhumika. Just like gun laws, drug laws have failed to keep drugs out of the hands of criminals. And when I say criminals, I'm talking about the sellers of drugs, not consumers.
General L: So, as I understand it you're not advocating gun control, you're advocating bullet control. Is that right? You mean, like Deputy Barney Fife, with one round in his shirt pocket? You might be on to something there all right.
Bhumika: Actually there is a logical argument to be made for legalizing drugs, too. We've been fighting a so-called War on Drugs for years, or decades, now, and it hasn't really made much of dent in their availability. I'm afraid that you'd discover the same thing to be true if we repealed the second amendment.
Here's an update: The Washington Post today ran an article quoting praise for the gun control policies of..... Saddam Hussein. Yep, over 1 million Iraqis died because they couldn't defend themselves from this madman, and less than 48 hours after the VT tragedy they praise the man with the stretched neck. We have sunk to an all new low.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/17/AR2007041701805.html
"Hussein Kadhum, 26, a traffic policeman in the heavily Shiite city of Najaf, south of Baghdad. "But America has terrorism and they are exporting it to us. We did not have this violence in the Saddam era because the law was so tough on guns."
With friends like the WaPo, who needs enemies?
What is the logical extension of the idea that you need guns to protect yourself because you can never take the guns out of the hands of the criminals?
An arms race between the citizen and the criminal.
Who will win this arms race?
No other first world country sees the need to allow everyone in their society to own a gun and virtually every other first world country has far less gun violence than does the US. As an outsider looking in I find most of the pro gun arguments that are being pedalled in the US to be absurd.
Are non armed citizens in the US (the majority) constantly victims of crime? No
Are the armed members of your society any less likely to be the victims of crime? No.
So who benefits from the wide availability of firearms in the US? The criminal element.
And don't believe half of the crap being pedalled about the state of crime in other countries with rational gun ownership laws. Following the gun buyback and restrictions imposed in Australia the rate of many crimes was unaltered but the outcome of those crimes has altered. One crime stopped entirely - massacres with guns. In the ten years prior to the restrictions there were thirteen gun related massacres (culminating in Port Arthur which took thirty five lives). In the ten following years there have been none. Nil. Nada. Zero.
In the three years prior to the restrictions 28% of robberies were committed with a firearm. In the years 2003 - 2006 15% of robberies utilised a firearm. This puts the lie to the idea that gun control effects only law abiding citizens.
The object of rationalizing gun laws is to make the society less violent and to delimit the effects of that violence that does occur. It works in every other first world country so why not America?
Study links guns in the home with increased deaths by gunshot.
6-4-03
If you keep a gun in your home, you dramatically increase the odds that you will die of a gunshot wound, according to research published in the June issue of the Annals of Emergency Medicine.
"Keeping guns at home is dangerous for adults regardless of age, sex, or race," said Douglas J. Wiebe, PhD, instructor of biostatistics and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and a fellow at Penn's Firearm Injury Center. Wiebe led the study by the Violence Prevention Research Group at the University of California at Los Angeles before moving to Penn.
Wiebe's study found that people with a gun in their home were almost twice as likely to die in a gun-related homicide, and 16 times more likely to use a gun to commit suicide, than people without a gun in their home. The findings support widely debated studies published a decade ago in the New England Journal of Medicine that also link the presence of a gun in the house with increased rates of suicide and death by homicide.
One in every three households in the United States contains firearms; the number of guns in those homes totals nearly 200 million, according to the National Institute of Justice. In his study, Wiebe compared 1,720 homicide victims and 1,959 suicide victims over the age of 18 with a sampling of American adults.
"Our findings suggest that, when violence occurs and a gun is accessible, the gun may be selected for use over a weapon that is less lethal," Wiebe said. "That is particularly significant in terms of suicides and domestic violence."
Wiebe's study also found that handguns accounted for 40 percent of all domestic homicides and one-third of all suicides.
"This may be a function of the fact that a gun requires little preparation. Tragically, because gunshot wounds are so traumatic, almost all gunshot attempts are fatal"
Its nice to see a partisan of something actually admit they may have been wrong and detail why. That kind of thing would do much for debate on this site. All I ever see is two sets of screamers yelling past each other and not listening or looking at the others arguments.
Yes, I believe in banning handgun ownership except for guns stored at shooting ranges. People are much less safe with a gun around, no matter what they think. The argument that this would be unconstitutional doesn't have any credibility with me, but if it takes a Constitutional Amendment to readjust to modern society, which is not exactly unprecedented, I'm all for it.