In the wake of such tragedies as the massacre as Virginia Tech this week, the debate between gun control and gun rights is unavoidably revived. Gun control as a national issue has enjoyed a relatively subdued debate since the 2000 presidential election, but likely voters will be expecting candidates to take a stand this time around. The candidates have been mum so far, aside from John McCain (R-AZ) and Rudy Giuliani (R-NY) reaffirming their basic belief that the 2nd Amendment protects fundamental gun rights for individuals.
What is the best route America can take to prevent further tragedies like this one? Do you think the events at Virginia Tech will spur Congress to take some sort of action? Do you find it unsavory or perfectly called-for when politicians turn tragedies into political crusades?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 58
And it has not only been McCain and Giuliani that has been quiet, so we should definitely list all candidates who have said nothing concerning the current gun discussion, or none. Being partisan does not lend well to this subject....
1) Require more adults to be resposible for their and their childrens actions. In doing so, falsehoods like "Guns Killing" can be avoided and the real issues around the deaths by guns can be addressed.
2) If a child harms, kills, or is killed by a gun, look into the training and rasing of that child to see if it was actually an accident or were the parents to blame for not training their kids properly, or keeping their firearms out reach from very young children. If either are found to be the lack of parenting then the parents should be held responsible not the gun.
3) When extreamly crazied people get hold of a gun, then A) charge the dealer that sold the gun to the person as an accomplice, and then the person who did the killing should not be pittied for this disorder, but blamed for the crime they did.
All three parts will have to be a social and political acceptance, or it will not work. The freaking "Poor Me" crowd are going to be the biggest obstical in this.
Take a look at how this troubled young man "slipped" through the cracks. All the warning signs were there. But because we can't have profiling of any sorts and the ACLU would have been in an uproar if the school had taken any action to institutionalize this guy, he was allowed to go on with his plan of killing.
There is a "drug ban" in this country, I don't see that working. Illegal drugs like Meth, LSD, cocaine, PCP etc...are killing our kids at a rate higher than gun deaths. The drinking age is 21, yet everyone has in their town, the case of the underage drinking and deaths related to it. If it's illegal for a person under 21 to purchase or have alcohol, why are so many kids dying of alcohol related deaths.
The laws need to be ENFORCED. When a gang member, who has an illegal gun gets away with only a slap on the wrist, that is the problem. Not the gun, but the lax enforcement of the laws. If someone commits a crime with a gun, they usually get only a few years at the most, then is back out on the streets, obtaining a gun, ILLEGALY and repeating his/her crime. They (the criminals) should be locked away for life, without parole if they use any type of gun or other lethal weapons.
Some say that guns are made for one reason....to kill. That is not true, there is target shooting, pistol plate, trap, skeet, wobble trap, sporting clays, rifle target, etc... I've been on firing lines with 40 people all shooting at the same time. NO ONE has been injured or killed. The only "injury" is to the paper or clay targets.
Those that think that gun control isn't a violation of the 2nd ammendment, I have to ask them if they feel censorship is a violation of the 1st.
And the most important thing is to remember that the first act of tyranny is to disarm the people.
Because it is true Mitch, you can't dispute that, you anti-gun nut.
However, I do like Chris Rock's idea which is to make bullets 10 bucks each or some outrageous"think twice" before you fire amount.
Mitch you said "I am against things that can only kill and destroy"
How do you cut your steak? With a spoon?
I dont know what the answer is Cindy but I do know that nothing will change immediatley but Virginia will try and come up with something, we always do.
Sarin Gas, Mustard Gas, a bomb strapped to his chest, all tools that are capable of a mass murder. In fact , the bomb strapped to a torso is the method used daily in the Mid East, so lets ban dynamite, C4 and nitro along with guns.
I own lots of firearms. I'm still alive, as are all the people around me.
I don't think using this tragedy at VA Tech is a good test case for better gun legislation. And note that I use the term "BETTER", not "MORE", as in your lead question (as always, gather team, slanted - can't win, can you?)
The gun protectionists are right in their assertions that guns don't kill, people do. We can say that nuclear war heads don't kill, people using nuclear war heads do, too. That makes just as much sense in this debate. The issue is having an honest debate, which includes recognizing:
- how guns are obtained (legal vs. illegal, law-abiding usage vs. non-law-abiding);
- who uses guns and how (ibid);
- what laws are on the books in each state - how they differ and what their effectiveness is;
- the extent to which these current laws are enforced or even enforceable.
We need to look at this without defensiveness or paranoia. No sensible person I know would question the efficacy of nations limiting and regulating nuclear arms. How are guns any different? Does it make a difference if one child in the ghetto gets killed as opposed to 33 college students as opposed to the population of a city? We can't enter a real debate unless people recognize that there is no acceptable level of violence anywhere at anytime. Guns don't have to equal violence, but recognizing that they sometimes do would at least be a start.
After the total ban in England, the UN finds that the violent crime rate has become the highest in the world!
I think we should look at the amount of time the police spent forming a "perimeter", while listening to the shots, before we talk about gun control.
I'm sick and tired of our culture of violence(which began much earlier than TV) and guns getting in the way of life. Yes, I have handled weapons, I have to for work--I used to shoot "expert" and was even on a pistol team. I also believe that anyone who owns a weapon needs to pass a safety course, be licensed. No one goes hunting game with handguns and using them for protection is a joke. When a gun is used in the home and someone is injured or killed, it is only used for "protection against an intruder" less than 20% of the time. The other 80%? Its used to shoot a family member or friend--oops an accident or crime, but that tragedy is one that could be avoided.
The weapons that show up in Washington D. C.? Bought legally in Virginia, same with NYC.
And the highest violent crime rate in the world is owned by the USA--we averge 33 gun deaths alone per day--every day.
Jimmy: To piggyback on your statement, England is now trying to ban imitation katanas from being imported. Since the gun ban, criminals have evidentially turned to them as their #1 weapon of choice.
Next to be banned are baseball bats, hockey sicks, golf clubs, and all other blunt objects. Those who think gun control is the answer are ignorant. Part of the reason so many died at VT is because the campus was a 'gun free' zone... the victims had no way of defending themselves.
Our longstanding tradition of private gun ownership is what makes this country great. When I have my "Little Friend" with me, I can stroll into any grocery store or cinema without the fear of being assaulted by crimanals and deviants. Rest assured, if I am ever attacked, I will paint the walls with his face.
Wake up everybody. Guns are not the problem here, nor are they the solution. It's time we realize that there are evil people in the world that will do evil things. If guns were illegal, I'm sure this guy would have found a way to get one illegally, or found another weapon. If everybody had a gun, turning V-Tech into the OK Coral isn't the answer either.
The 2nd Amendment exists for a reason, and it's not for us to go around shooting each other.
Guns.
The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) estimates that there were about 215 million guns in 1999,1 when the number of new guns was averaging about 4.5 million (about 2%) annually.2 A report for the National Academy of Sciences put the 1999 figure at 258 million.3 According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 60.4 million approved (new and used) NICS firearm transactions between 1994 2004.4 The number of NICS checks for firearm purchases or permits increased 3.2% between 2003-2004.
Gun Owners.
The number of gun owners is also at an all-time high. The U.S. population is at an all-time high (294 million), and rises about 1% annually.5 Numerous surveys over the last 40+ years have found that almost half of all households have at least one gun owner.6 Some surveys since the late 1990s have indicated a smaller incidence of gun ownership,7 probably because of some respondents` concerns about "gun control," residually due, perhaps, to the anti-gun policies of the Clinton Administration.
Right-to-Carry.
The number of RTC states is at an all-time high, up from 10 in 1987 to 38 today.8 In 2004, states with RTC laws, compared to other states, had lower violent crime rates on average. Total violent crime was lower by 21%, murder by 28%, robbery by 43%, and aggravated assault by 13%.9
"Less Gun Control."
Violent crime has declined while many "gun control" laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive. Many states have eliminated prohibitory or restrictive carry laws, in favor of Right-to-Carry laws. The federal Brady Act`s waiting period on handgun sales ended in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported National Instant Check, and some states thereafter eliminated waiting periods, purchase permit requirements, or other laws delaying gun sales. The federal "assault weapon" ban expired in 2004. All states now have hunter protection laws, 46 have range protection laws, 46 prohibit local jurisdictions from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law, 44 protect the right to arms in their constitutions, and 33 prohibit frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry.10
Studies by and for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and even researchers who support "gun control," have found no evidence that "gun control" reduces crime.11
Crime.
The FBI reports that the nation`s total violent crime rate declined every year between 1991 2004.12 In 2004, the violent crime rate fell to a 30-year low, lower than any time since 1974. The murder rate fell to a 39-year low, lower than any time since 1965. The 2004 robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower than any time since 1968 and 1984, respectively. Since 1991, total violent crime has decreased 39%; murder and non-negligent manslaughter, 44%; rape, 24%; robbery, 50%; and aggravated assault, 33%.13 Between 2003-2004, the violent crime rate declined 2.2%.14 Concurrently, the most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics crime victimization survey found that violent crime is lower than anytime since 1973, when the first such survey was conducted.15
Notes
1. BATF, "Crime Gun Trace Reports (1999) National Report," Nov. 2000, p. ix (www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/1999/index.htm).
2. BATF, "Firearms Commerce in the United States 2001/2002" (www.atf.gov/pub/index.htm#Firearms).
3. National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Academies Press, 2005.
4. BJS, "Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2004" (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/pub/pdf/bcft04.pdf).
5. Bureau of the Census (http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html).
6. Gary Kleck, Targeting Firearms, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, pp. 94, 98-100.
7. E.g., BJS Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2002, Table 2.58, (www.albany.edu/sourcebook/).
You can't just pick and choose which stats you want to provide.
Dick Cheney? Good one. Sheesh...on that note Sheryl....
TED KENNEDY'S CAR = 1 DEATH
MY GUNS = 0 DEATHS
Lets ban Oldsmobiles!
OBTW....
A gun in the home makes the home less safe.
Firearms are used three to five times more often to stop crimes than to commit them, and accidents with firearms are at an all-time recorded low. In spite of this, anti-firearm activists insist that the very act of keeping a firearm in the home puts family members at risk, often claiming that a gun in the home is "43 times" more likely to be used to kill a family member than an intruder, based upon a study by anti-gun researchers of firearm-related deaths in homes in King County (Seattle), Washington. Although Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay originally warned that their study was of a single non-representative county and noted that they failed to consider protective uses of firearms that did not result in criminals being killed, anti-gun groups and activists use the "43 times" claim without explaining the limitations of the study or how the ratio was derived.
To produce the misleading ratio from the study, the only defensive or protective uses of firearms that were counted were those in which criminals were killed by would-be crime victims. This is the most serious of the study's flaws, since fatal shootings of criminals occur in only a fraction of 1% of protective firearm uses nationwide. Survey research by award-winning Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, has shown that firearms are used for protection as many as 2.5 million times annually.
It should come as no surprise that Kleck's findings are reflexively dismissed by "gun control" groups, but a leading anti-gun criminologist was honest enough to acknowledge their validity. "I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country," wrote the late Marvin E. Wolfgang. "I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. . . . What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. . . . I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology."
While the "43 times" claim is commonly used to suggest that murders and accidents are likely to occur with guns kept at home, suicides accounted for 37 of every 43 firearm-related deaths in the King County study. Nationwide, 58% of firearm-related deaths are suicides, a problem which is not solved by gun laws aimed at denying firearms to criminals. "Gun control" advocates would have the public believe that armed citizens often accidentally kill family members, mistaking them for criminals. But such incidents constitute less than 2% of fatal firearms accidents, or about one for every 90,000 defensive gun uses
In spite of the demonstrated flaws in his research, Kellermann continued to promote the idea that a gun is inherently dangerous to own. In 1993, he and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.
This study, too, was seriously flawed. Kellermann studied only homes where homicides had taken place--ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done--and used a control group unrepresentative of American households. By looking only at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. After reviewing the study, Prof. Kleck noted that Kellermann's methodology is analogous to proving that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted, "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Northwestern University Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, writing, "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion."
Look it up yourself. Go to FBI.gov or BATF.gov or gee, how about NRA.org. Nah, you wouldn't go to the NRA site I'm sure.
Good night all you anti constitutionalists! I'm going to bed, with my pistol by my side. I can sleep safe and sound knowing that I will REFUSE to BE A VICTIM.
If you want the simple truth, then compare the crime rates of states with concealed carry laws versus those without. Then compare pre-carry times in those states in comparison to post- carry. I think the answer will shock even you.
I would also recommend the NRA site, more specifically their section on "The Armed Citizen" Eveery month their various magazines feature true stories of no fewer than 10 instances in which personal firearms have saved the lives of their owners; most of which were late night home intrusion instances.
But, I just posted this in another article... I think it applies to you as well:
If guns kill people then forks made Michael Moore fat.
Yeah, I thought you would like that one. However there is truth in that pun. Case in point: Britain has a gun ban, and now they are also having to ban cheap imitation katanas? Why? because the gun ban didn't end the violence; instead it escalated, and the murderers have discovered a new weapon of choice.
Furthermore, if you know your history, you would know that the 2nd Amendment actually defended the U.S. from Japanese invasion in WWII. The thought of the armed citizens of the United States scared them. Admiral Yamamoto said: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
But what if we did have a gun-less society? You really think that crooks would willingly turn in their toys? Honest citizens would have their only means of protection stripped from them, and armed gangs would roam the streets. Cops would be too afraid to do their job, with many running in fear.
Wait, that did happen. Remember the aftermath of Katrina?
No, your point is mute. This incident at VT proves you wrong. How so?
First, the school was a 'anti-gun' zone. All firearms were illegal.
Second: a background check was done on the guy, and his record came back clean.
Third: you can't deny him his rights as listed under the 2nd Amendment (I bet I you are cursing that blasted Constitution and Bill of Rights as you read this) unless you are being racist, seeing as how he was a S. Korean.
Fourth: Criminals ignore the law and break it at their whim. The students living in this campus 'bubble' of the perfect gun control society quickly became his defenseless victims. I bet each of them would have gladly taken a firearm if you offered them one.
Fifth: the cops arrived too late to save any of them. He took his life before they could reach him. Just as the cops will arrive too late to save you or your family if a bunch of thugs decide to break into your home in the middle of the night to rape your wife and kill you and your kids.
No, this tragedy was a perfect example of how gun control FAILS.
If you don't like guns, then by all means it's certainly your right not to own any. But you also have no right to complain if you refuse to take the appropriate actions granted to us in the 2nd Amendment to defend yourself and your family; and at some point someone with murder on their mind does break into your home.
If that ever does happen, then part of the blame is on you for your inaction.
There's nothing wrong with asking questions. You are the ones that are the gun supporters - I freely admit that I hate guns - would never own one, would never fire one, would never touch one. I know nothing about this area other than the tragedies I read about in the paper every day concerning gun-related deaths and injuries.
By all means, you want to convince people of your beliefs, then educate me. But I want to know the ENTIRE story. Because I only see a partial argument on your side. I also see that whenever anyone asks questions of you folks that you are not comfortable answering, then you resort to ridiculous insults (like me cursing our Constitution - how absurd you sound).
You should be able to answer simple questions like that - if you can't (or won't) then don't expect people like me to stop asking them.
(And my point can't be "mute" - that means that I can't speak. The word you are looking for is "moot". )
The reality is that in the US we are working around the sides of the issue, because of the current interpretations of the constitutional right to bear arms.
I don't know the Glocks that well, but I heard a news report that a restriction recently expired that outlawed the 19-shot clips and limited them to 10 shots. That would have been great at VT the other day. I'm really sorry that that limitation expired.
I'm also sad that the mental health database is not adequately integrated with the background check database. Wow, that needs more work.
Steve Trammell: "Timothy McVeigh did not use a gun and he killed over 160 people. Remember April 19th, 1995."
Steve, McVeigh was arrested on a gun charge. Every measure that addresses the criminal use or access to guns will eventually help save precious lives. Let us resolve to prayerfully consider our support for these measures.
You both are also swayed by the anti-gun crowd propaganda.
Sheryl, you want me to educate you in guns. I'm more than willing, but are you going to sit down and listen? You haven't responded to the FACTS I've presented to you, You haven't responded to the tragedy that happened to me. I can't teach you if you are closed minded.
Trigger locks do nothing Mitch. Do you even KNOW what a trigger lock looks like? And what is the purpose of keeping the ammo LOCKED in a seperate room from the locked un loaded weapon? How is THAT going to keep me safe?
If you have children, you need to be RESPONSIBLE, there are MANY households, with young children and guns and they are all perfectlly safe. It's called being responsible for yourself and your family.
the NRA has a program called Eddie Eagle, do you know anything about the Eddie Eagle program? Yes a cut and paste WITH permission.
The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program teaches children in pre-K through third grade four important steps to take if they find a gun. These steps are presented by the program's mascot, Eddie Eagle®, in an easy-to-remember format consisting of the following simple rules:
If you see a gun:
STOP!
Don't Touch.
Leave the Area.
Tell an Adult.
Begun in 1988, The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program has reached more than 20 million children -- in all 50 states. This program was developed through the combined efforts of such qualified professionals as clinical psychologists, reading specialists, teachers, curriculum specialists, urban housing safety officials, and law enforcement personnel.
Anyone may teach The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program, and NRA membership is not required. The program may be readily incorporated into existing school curriculum, taught in a one- to five-day format, and used to reach both levels or simply one or two grades. Materials available through this program are: student workbooks, 7-minute animated video (available on DVD or VHS), instructor guides, brochures, and student reward stickers. Program materials are also available in Spanish.
The NRA is committed to helping keep America's young children safe. In efforts to do so, we offer our program at a nominal fee. Schools, law enforcement agencies, hospitals, daycare centers, and libraries may be eligible to receive grant funding to defray program costs. Grant funding is available in many states to these groups to cover the cost of all program curriculum materials.
The purpose of the Eddie Eagle Program isn't to teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children. The program makes no value judgments about firearms, and no firearms are ever used in the program. Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks and household poison, they're treated simply as a fact of everyday life. With firearms found in about half of all American households, it's a stance that makes sense.
Eddie Eagle is never shown touching a firearm, and he does not promote firearm ownership or use. The program prohibits the use of Eddie Eagle mascots anywhere that guns are present. The Eddie Eagle Program has no agenda other than accident prevention -- ensuring that children stay safe should they encounter a gun. The program never mentions the NRA. Nor does it encourage children to buy guns or to become NRA members. The NRA does not receive any appropriations from Congress, nor is it a trade organization. It is not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition.
Mitch and Sheryl, did you read this far?
But, thanks to the libs, this program, which EDUCATES is not allowed in most schools because it's "GUN" related, yet there seems to be no problem in educating our young kids about the gay lifestyle. Go figure.
Mitch, you are closed minded as well.
Good Day.
Thank you, Mitch, for answering one of my questions. This is pretty tragic.
Cindy, I don't buy into any propaganda - pro- or anti-. I like to make my decisions on factual evidence. People having good intentions or personal preferences does not substitute for factual evidence.. I simply asked you to answer some questions that I ask everyday when I read stories of gun-related deaths and injuries, especially with children who often have no say on the safety of their environments.
A pathological killer doesn't need a gun and, in most cases, can fly under radar for quite some time because nobody knows who he/she is.
Bottom line is what I said before. Guns are neither the problem nor the solution.
Somehow (and I sure don't know how) we need to identify, cure (if at all possible, which I doubt), monitor and, if necessary, incarcerate or eliminate people like this.