I’m going to just lay it on the line, no matter how we the public try to understand the myriad of whys and what ifs – there will never be an answer that satisfies all. Chances are that no matter how our society tries to address the needs of the needy the Cho Seung-Hui’s of the world are going to be angry. It is when these individuals have access to weapons (the type that load and reload with ease) where potential tragic event turns into a slaughter.
As the last few days have shown, every form of media has been inundated with information about the incident at Virginia Tech. Besides revealing the level of pain such tragedies illicit, little else has been uncovered by the coverage. (I will give credit to the CNN website for presenting detailed reports about the lives of the victims, which is a nice change from previous coverage of events of this nature where it was all about the killer.)
Perhaps I am the only one who feels this, but haven’t we been down this road before and how long must we go down the same path before we learn? Yet I doubt the mentality of my own countrymen when it comes to reasonable thought in reference to guns. If the Columbine massacre of high school students didn’t spark a movement for sensible gun control, will one involving college students? I am being cynical that Seung-Hui lied on his firearm application, the same one that allowed him to obtain a firearm despite having been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility as a danger to himself or others. Wait, someone lied about that? Well, isn’t that a shock!
The day after the shooting, I watched ‘Good Morning America.’ I didn’t expect the show to send both Diane Sawyer AND Robin Roberts. Even though this story is national news, it was awkward to see the women doing various interviews on the campus. What more could they really add to the coverage besides students uttering that it was frightening? Diane Sawyer asked of the University President, in her usual dim-witted way, if he was going to step down because some parents of the slain had requested it. It was as if she already assumed that the university (ergo the man who was currently sitting with her on national television) was at fault for allowing all of it to happen.
Sawyer asked him if he regretted not sending out a campus wide e-mail when the first shooting started. All I could think about was why would he have done that if the first two murders were believed to be an isolated event? Wouldn’t a campus e-mail so close to the time the police were gathering evidence be counter productive since investigators need a crime scene that is untampered with as possible? Is it fair to implicate this man, who most likely had not slept the previous night, that he was indirectly responsible for the bloodshed? If there is a proper modus operandi when a gunman is loose on a college campus that Ms. Sawyer knows about, then speaking as one lone voice in the audience, I am all ears.
This is not to say that there have been some aspects to this story that go beyond the mere inhumanity of it. Apparently, students during and after the shooting were using their cell phones and blackberries, actually recording the events as they happened. In other words, they were acting on journalistic instinct more than most journalists on the beat actually do (Diane Sawyer take notes).
Since I have no connection to the people who died or know anyone who does, it is hard to relate to this tragedy on a very personal level. Granted, my sympathies obviously are to the victims and their friends and family, but the void that I generally feel after these things happen only lasted a day or so. In comparison, 9/11 shook my world. Columbine and the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing are within a day’s drive from me. It is this void, more than mentally unstable people lying to obtain guns, that bothers me because I wonder if it is because I’m getting used to it.
By now, almost by instinct, we know the process. The perpetrator/s will have huge anger issues, which they wrote about or gave other signs of their displeasure (assuming they are already dead). In retrospect, people will ask themselves why weren’t the signs heeded. There will be, of course, discourse about gun control but this will be countered by the shoot’em up advocates who think tragedies such as Virginia Tech could be avoided if only more people were packing heat. As my dear father said, “God bless the poor professor who gives the student from ‘Deadwood’ a D.”
Already there have been copycat threats that have shut down schools and universities across the nation. This will spur the gun control discussion until it becomes muddled and a new crisis emerges and we Americans are distracted by the next big story. Soon it will be April ’08 and news magazines will do pieces on what has happened since. Of course, if it was a lesser body count then the American public would not even mark the anniversary – although April is becoming a pretty deadly month domestically.
Already school shootings are a cliché, as a writer, I have used it as a metaphor several times. After Columbine school shootings replaced work place shootings, specifically shootings at federal post offices, which coined the phrase, “Going postal.” We will have the same discussions over the same things, but no resolution to change what is so apparently broken. Does it really impinge on the vaguely written Second Amendment if everyone who wanted to purchase a gun had to wait for a background check? I’m not saying that such a thing would be a solution, but at least it would be a step in the right direction. Too many times the villains in these situations were able to obtain firearms through legitimate means by illegitimate statements. Guns (such as the ones that fire automatically) are too dangerous not to be centralized in some fashion.
Suffice to say, judging by the past, we, who are not directly involved, will nod our heads for the senselessness of it all then go on the way we were until the next time it happens.
© 2007 Westerfield
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 52
Too many times the villains in these situations were able to obtain firearms through legitimate means by illegitimate practices. Guns (such as the ones that fire automatically) are too dangerous not to be centralized in some fashion.
Just this afternoon, my husband came to my desk and told me he wanted to show me something and to type in an address on my Google bar. I thought he wanted me to check on some equipment he needed for our business, so I complied. Imagine my horror when the page opened and it was a catalogue page for a business that sold automatic rifles and other firearms... ON THE NET!
For $1300.00 you can now buy their newest model which they advertise with these words For years this legendary Swiss made rifle has been restricted to law enforcement and military sales where it has continuously built on its reputation for outstanding performance, accuracy and durability. The wait is over. The new U.S. made *** *** begins shipping in late Fall – because the time has come
Scary enough for you?
Here are some facts about gun crime and ownership in the US
Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:
"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)
* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)
* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
Florida United States
homicide rate -36% -0.4%
firearm homicide rate -37% +15%
handgun homicide rate -41% +24%
(3)
* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)
* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)
* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)
How about this one that proves your lie
Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)
* In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." (16c)
* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12
How about the Brady Bill that you talk about doing so much good?
The Brady Bill was implemented on February 28, 1994. This law established a national 5 business day waiting period on handgun purchases through licensed dealers. It also required local authorities to conduct background checks on handgun purchasers. The majority of Democrats voted for this bill and the majority of Republicans voted against it. Bill Clinton signed it into law. (18)(19)
* In July of 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to require states to perform Brady Bill background checks. At that point, 27 states had laws requiring similar background checks and 23 states did not. (20)
* As of December of 1998, an amendment to the Brady Bill replaced the five business day waiting period with a national "instant" felon ID system. Dealers are required to conduct this background check on all gun purchases, not just handgun purchases. This amendment was added to the Brady Bill before the law was voted out of Congress. The majority of Republicans voted for this amendment and the majority of Democrats voted against it. (18)(19)
* During the first 17 months of the Brady Bill, 7 people were convicted of illegal attempts to buy handguns. (17)
* Between implementation of the Brady Bill in March 1994 and year end 1997, there have been 242,000 background checks that have denied prospective purchasers permission to buy a handgun from licensed gun dealers. Out of these, 9 people have been convicted of illegal attempts to buy handguns. (21)(22)
* In the early 1990's, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms reported that 7% of armed career criminals obtain firearms from licensed gun shops. (3)
* The Brady Bill was implemented in February of 1994. In 1997, the number of violent crimes committed with firearms had fallen 25% since 1994, while the overall number of violent crimes had declined 14%. (18)(23)
More guns mean more violence not according to the facts:
Right-to-carry laws require law enforcement agencies to issue handgun permits to all qualified applicants. Qualifications include criteria such as age, a clean criminal record, and completing a firearm safety course. (13)
* In 1986, nine states had right-to-carry laws. (14)
* As of 1998, 31 states have right-to-carry laws, and about half the U.S. population lives in these states. (3)
* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:
"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)
* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)
* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
Florida United States
homicide rate -36% -0.4%
firearm homicide rate -37% +15%
handgun homicide rate -41% +24%
(3)
* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)
* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)
* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)
How about the scourge of the gun laws assault weapons, which I personally see no need for but since you want facts:
* The "Assault Weapons Ban" was enacted on September 14, 1994. The majority of Democrats voted for it, and the majority of Republicans voted against it. Bill Clinton signed it into law. (24)(19)
* This bill banned the manufacture, possession, and importation of semiautomatic assault weapons for civilian use. Guns manufactured before September 14th, 1994 were grandfathered. Guns manufactured after this date (for use by the military, police, and government agencies) must be marked with the date they are manufactured. (24)(41)(47)
* To identify an assault weapon, this bill uses objective criteria, along with a list of 19 specific guns. (24)
* For example, semiautomatic rifles which accept a detachable magazine are classified as "assault weapons" if they have two of the five following features: folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, grenade launcher, threaded barrel for flash suppressor. (24)
* An assault weapon, as defined by this bill, does not include fully automatic machine guns. Since 1934, a civilian must obtain permission from the U.S. Treasury to legally own a fully automatic weapon. (3)(64)
* In April of 1999, Bill and Hillary Clinton held a press conference on gun control legislation. Hillary Clinton stated:
"And since the crime bill was enacted, 19 of the deadliest assault weapons are harder to find on our streets. We will never know how many tragedies we've avoided because of these efforts." (25)
* Assault weapons were involved in less than 1% of homicides before the assault weapons ban took effect in 1994. The same is true as of 1998. (3)
* As of 1998, about 13% of homicides involve knives, 5% involve bludgeons, and 6% are committed with hands and feet. (3)
* The Clinton administration prosecuted 4 people in 1997 and 4 people in 1998 for violating the assault weapons ban. (22)
Wait armor piercing bullets how many police officers have been killed because of them?? Your hero Bill Clinton, amongst the best panderers of all time and best lip biter.:
ARMOR PIERCING BULLETS
* Armor piercing bullets have been referred to in the media as "cop killers." (37)
* In October of 1996, Bill Clinton met with the widow of Police Officer Jerome Harrison Seaberry. Later that day at a political rally, Clinton said:
"I still think we ought to ban those bullets that are built only for one purpose, to pierce the bullet-proof vests that our police officers wear. I don't see why we need those things out there. … Today, I met with the first -- the family of the first one of the police officers hired under our Crime Bill, killed in the line of duty. I met here in Louisiana, in Lake Charles I met with that officer's widow and two beautiful, beautiful young sons. And I thought to myself, you know, if people like these folks here are going to put their lives on the line for us, the least we can do is tell them if they put on a bullet-proof vest, it will protect them from being killed. That's the least we can do for them." (66) (67)
* Officer Seaberry was killed in a car crash. No guns or bullets were involved. (68)
* As of 1998, no law enforcement officer has ever been killed because an armor-piercing bullet defeated a bulletproof vest. (3)
School shootings?? Here you go:
SCHOOL SHOOTINGS
* Federal law 18 USC Section 922 generally prohibits anyone under 18 from possessing a handgun. It also prohibits licensed firearm dealers and collectors from selling handguns to anyone under 21 years of age. (41)
* Laws in the United States generally prohibit the sale, possession, or use of cocaine. About 200,000 American children, age 12-17 used cocaine in 1997. About 2.5 million 12-17 year olds (11.4%) used an illicit drug in 1997. (37)(43)
* Federal law 18USC Section 922 generally prohibits civilians from having guns in school zones. (41)(51)
* Seven days after the 1999 Columbine school massacre in which 12 students and a teacher were murdered, Bill and Hillary Clinton held a press conference on gun control legislation. Bill Clinton stated:
"And we smile about that, but there are some people who would be on this platform today who lost their seats in 1994 because they voted for the Brady Bill and they voted for the assault weapons ban, and they did it in areas where people could be frightened."
"Do we know for absolutely certain that if we had every reasonable law and the ones I'm going to propose here that none of these school violence things would have happened? No. But we do know one thing for certain; we know there would have been fewer of them, and there would have been fewer kids killed in the last several years in America. We know that for certain. We know that." (Applause) (25)
* In about 5 years since enactment of the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban in 1993, there have been 9 "school massacres." (53)
* About 6,000 children were caught with guns at school in 1997 and 1998. Out of these, 13 were prosecuted by the Clinton administration Justice Department. (52)
* In October of 1997, sixteen-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death and then went to school with a rifle where he shot 9 students, killing 2 of them. Assistant Principal Joel Myrick raced to his car, retrieved a .45 caliber handgun, and used it to subdue Woodham until police arrived. (51)(53)
Other odds and ends since we want to see the facts:
ACCIDENTS
* 1995 Fatal Accident Totals
Motor Vehicles 43,900
Falls 12,600
Poisonings 10,600
Drownings 4,500
Fires 4,100
Choking 2,800
Firearm 1,400 (1.5% of fatal accidents)
* For Children 14 and Under
Motor Vehicles 3,059
Drownings 1,024
Fires 883
Choking 213
Firearm 181 (2.7% of fatal accidents)
Falls 127
Poisonings 80
(8)
* There were 259 fatal firearm accidents for 15-19 year olds in 1995. (8)
* There were 6,319 fatal motor vehicle accidents for 15-20 year olds in 1996. (9)
* As of 1998, 37,000 National Rifle Association (NRA) Instructors and Coaches are conducting firearm safety and proficiency programs that reach nearly 700,000 participants a year. (8)
* In 1988, The NRA developed a gun safety program for schoolchildren (pre-K through 6th grade). As of 1998, the program has reached about 10 million children. The goal of the program is to teach children what to do if they should encounter a firearm. Children are taught to "STOP! Don't Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult." (8)
* The NRA's 3 rules of gun safety are:
1) Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction (whether loaded or unloaded).
2) Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
3) Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to shoot. (8)
And let's just check out what the Constitution and Thomas Jefferson had to say:
In the Bill of Rights, the second amendment to the Constitution reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
* Gun control proponents have argued that the use of the word "people" in this Amendment, refers not to the civilian population of the United States, but to the State National Guard Units. (54)
* Gun rights proponents have argued that the use of the word "Militia" in this Amendment, refers not to the State National Guard Units, but to the citizens of the United States. (54)
* James Madison was responsible for proposing the Second Amendment and was one of three authors of the Federalist papers. The Federalist Papers were published in newspapers to explain, argue for, and support ratification of the Constitution. (55)(56)
* In Federalist Paper 46, James Madison argued that a standing federal army could not be capable of conducting a coup to take over the nation. He estimated that based on the country's population at the time, a federal standing army could not field more than 25,000 - 30,000 men. He wrote:
"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."
"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." (56)
* Quotes from Thomas Jefferson, the author of The Declaration of Independence:
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
--Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785.
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent..., or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. (57)(58)(59)
If you are interested in the sources for all these facts they can be found at this website http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm
If guns were banned in my state.. I could, as well as my babies, be very much dead. Then I'll be the one haunting those who took away my right to defend my family and I would haunt, not easily to the grave would I go.
I don't care what the law says, I will never allow a gun in my house and I don't want to live in an area where they are carried freely. I always wonder about things like ....How do I know that isn't a bad guy carrying that gun and not just an overly afraid other customer in the store with me? What if someone that flips out with road rage has a gun? What more damage can he do in that one moment of losing his or her temper? etc.
On a personal note, I suffer from depression. The last thing I need around my house on those really bad days is a sure fire way to kill myself right there in my house.
I will never vote for anything that has the possiblility of putting more guns in more peoples hands. You can give me all of the stats that you want, but I know that it would do nothing to improve my feeling of safety or the safety of my friends and family.
I don't know what the solution is, but neither banning guns altogether nor making it a simple process to acquire one are viable answers.
And what about the many crimes committed with guns obtained illegally?
Also scary is the that ennui you mention in your article. Have we become so anaesthetized to such horrific crimes as the massacre at Virginia Tech, that, as you state in your article, most barely blink an eye when such tragedies occur? I know I haven't, but it seems to me that there is quite a large population of people out there who have. And that scares me, more than anything else I, you or anyone else has written here or elsewhere. The preventing of future tragedies such as this one go well beyond the issue of gun control.
David, tell me, you appear to blame the gun for your daughter's shooting, how about the shooter? I've been shot, more than once, I've never been thrilled with the experience but don't hate guns because of it any more than I hate the saw that just missed taking a finger off. Guns are tools, nothing more, they are not imbued with magic powers.
Gwen, you react out of fear, not out of some reasoned examination of the issue. There is no arguing with your fear, no dissuading you.
Audrey, maybe you've heard of the Brady Law? When it went away, a national background check system was implemented, but civil liberties advocates and advocates for mental health demanded that records of involuntary commitments not be included. This allows those who have been committed for cause to still buy guns. You will not hear people who want more gun control say we should include those records in a background check, they are the very ones who fought against it. Including those records makes sense so why the big fight about it? Could it be that some people WANT these shootings to happen or don't care if they do? The answer is definitely not more guns or less guns, that's for sure.
It's important to remember the Constitution that features the second amendment -- and yes, I own a handgun -- had the British in mind when they spoke of a militia. I'm conflicted on this issue, because while I am a gun owner, I also live in 2007 and see people much more poorly wired together easily obtaining guns. There is a murder in my town at least once a week -- by gun. You can get a gun in South Carolina in 15 minutes: I did. It's quicker than that if you go to the gun show that's in town every other weekend and buy it from the guy who claims he needs an Uzi to hunt deer.
Also, the people who are railing and hijacking entire articles like Lisa's are strangely quiet on the slow leak in our first amendment rights. So guns are sacred but the PATRIOT Act doesn't matter? Let me ask you -- if your phone can be tapped illegally by your own government, what do you think those people would do with your guns?
Finally, and this is at least the third article in which I've mentioned this, the idea that it's possible to lock down a college campus the size of a small town is ludicrous. Not even Bob Jones University is that restricted. Campus police deal regularly with DUIs, parking tickets, and public drunkenness -- they did the best they could in an unprecedented situation. To blame the college president is absurd; it makes more sense to blame George W. Bush for the attacks of September 11 than to hold this man accountable for a tragedy his school had done everything in their power to prevent.
That internet gun example you gave sends chills through my heart. Isn't that a step backwards?
Chris, thank you for your lengthy comment. If guns of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century were as lethal as the ones today, I am sure when Jefferson would have rethought some of his positions. I guess I don't understand this all or nothing mentality. I think too many gun advocates see any sort of gun control as a slippery slope when in fact I think it encourages responsibility with firearms. The fact that many states and cities are more restrictive about smoking then citizens driving or walking around with a guns is creepy. To actually see banks have signs that warn customers not to enter the premises with weapons really should be a given. I think many gun advocates preach about their safety, but as someone who doesn't own a gun (although there is nothing that prohibits me from doing so) I feel more unsafe around people with guns than without.
John, great point. I also have to confess, I wonder if the website he gave is funded by the NRA, thus the statistics are skewed in favor of gun enthusiasts.
Napoleon Blowapart, funny comment. Chris's dreams indeed! Heaven forbid if our society ever had to live as they did back in Jefferson's day because most of us would starve with a vegetable garden growing outside our doors.
Christopher, yes those things kill, but alcohol and tobacco tend to kill slowly (assuming you aren't referring to something like drunk driving) and those the individual has some control, but firearms tend to be a different kettle of fish. If someone is shot and lives we always talk in terms of "if it was only a quarter inch closer to the heart" they would have died. Often guns are used as long time remedies for short silly conflicts.
Kathleen, thank you. I just cleaned it up some today.
Genevieve, that's a nice story and I'm glad you have both children and a locked gun of which you have easy access. I do hope and your children will never feel the need to haunt anyone after you all have passed.
David, how terribly sad. I watched a girl slowly die because she had been shot in the throat. It was one of those events that defines the me of today.
Gwen, you made some excellent points. True story and sort of humorous now that it is years later. I had a friend who moved out west to some isolated place with her boyfriend. During one of her visits back to K.C. she wore a raccoon hat (a la Davy Crockett) and sprouted a whole anti-government position. During a brief conversation the two of us had in the car to the bar where we were going to listen to some music, we debated about gun control (obviously, me for and she against). She brought up something and I said (more less lied) that of course I could understand why someone like her would need a gun (don't all raccoon wearing people do?). A few drinks into the evening, she decided to go up on stage and then sort of browbeated these musicians (all old – a few of them had played with Charlie Parker) because she thought THEY were playing off key. She was very angry and her boyfriend had to intervene and the whole time I was thinking 'Oh yeah, someone like her needs to be packing some heat!' In other words, I felt that I was compelled to lie (something I don't do often) to her because I was afraid of her. It has been my observation that the people who want guns the most are exactly the ones who shouldn't have them.
Audrey, thank you. I think there is middle ground. Politicians needs to stop thinking in terms of 'what's best for the NRA and what is best for society at large.' Although I do not hunt, I know people who do. Although I do not own guns, I know responsible people who do. I do not see the problem with a waiting period.
I think the ennui is also about the war. We read how many people were killed and even though I never supported the Bush administration I feel indirectly responsible for what is happening there. Every day I hear of another suicide bombing I can't help but think if we never invaded those people would be alive – thus I am warn down and feel numb.
Charles, thank you! It was a nice surprise!
Mark, you make some very interesting points. I think overall, it is the easy access of guns that it a problem. Although despite what I said above, I do think it is a tad harder to get guns today than say a few years ago after the Brady Lay went off the books. Although I am a civil rights advocate in most areas, I do believe that the mental health stability of a person should be considered before being given a gun. I guess that is a gray area and one that should be hashed out. I do not believe felons should be granted access to guns.
Vicky, I think that by speaking out we make a difference because it leads to discussion which leads to the ballot box.
Kris, Amen! Locking down the campus, pleeeze! I think that sort of idea works great on paper but implementation is a different manner. Sure, there can be a general plan, but each situation, which would result in such an action, is different. People are just looking for a scapegoat that is still alive.
Easy access to guns needs to be addressed. Too many times people who shouldn't even something as deadly as an overstuffed pillow walk around with massive gun collections. I know that 'Time' once did a cover of how many people within a week or a month had been killed by guns. It just took my breath away.
Let's focus on the pain and loss of the victims, survivors and their families; focus on all the people that could not have prevented this, and on the inanimate objects that were involved.
Although talking about those things won't change a damn thing, talking about these points is infinetly more comfortable to the psyche, and it makes people FEEL like they are doing something significant about this tragedy.
Let's not talk about the loose nuts that were behind the triggers, or what caused their cheese to slide off their crackers. That would just be too hard, too distasteful, even if it it is the only way to find a real solution to stopping thse types of things.
Well crafted article, Lisa.
Yes, I say in droll voice, a stabbing is not a good thing. I guess I should add that my aversion to guns isn't only that they kill and can be used improperly, but because I am accident prone and I don't think the combination of both is good. BTW, when I use the garbage disposal it is with caution. I cut food with blunt knifes too!
I hope everything is cool in your world!
John, I would also love to see people trying to conceal their muskets!
I do have to admit though, there is no right to bear arms in this country. It is a privilege. Otherwise no government agency would be able to restrict it. They would not be able to permit, license, limit, infringe or impose waiting periods. We have a National Guard. That is our "well regulated militia" and it is in desperate need of recruits so if you are thinking about disputing me on this point, please feel free to enlist in any branch of your choosing and you can fire whatever weapon you desire.
I don't think banning guns is the solution here. The individual that committed this crime wanted to hurt people. A gun was an easy way, I admit. But, if he didn't have a gun, he would have set another fire or put rat poison in the food at the commons. I just don't think everytime a tragedy occurs and a gun is involved we need to blame the gun. We don't blame the components of the bombs strapped on suicide bombers anymore than we should blame guns here. Does being a gun-owner cloud my judgement or does someone who has never had a course in the proper handling, storage and respect of firearms, never fired a weapon, never had to live in a neighborhood where helicopters circle overhead nightly, never had to defend themselves against an attacker - do they allow that to cloud their judgement?
The fact of the matter is that you have the right to not have firearm if you choose not to. Contrary to what you believe, I not own a gun. I choose not to. Funny thing about this issue, many of the people who are so eager to elminate or sever erode peoples' Right to Choose to exercise their constitutional right, are vehemently decrying the supreme court decision that makes a procedure that is literally 5 inches from infanticide illegal. Guess some rights to choose are more important than other.
Thank God that I live in Australia where we have far stricter gun laws than the USA - there has been no massacre since the one at Port Arthur, Tasmania, after which our gun laws were tightened even further. This had overwhelming support by Australians, despite our local gun lobby (with help from their American counterparts) opposing it.
Are Americans so afraid of each other that they have to 'pack heat' even in their schools and bedrooms? How many more massacres will the USA endure before it is accepted that this is insanity? Say, enough, no more - and to hell with the lunatic gun lobby!
Very good, thoughtful article.
You hit the nail on the proverbial head...We do not have the right to own guns in this country, it is a priviledge for being a law abiding, sane person, just like driving on our roads is so closely monitored. If I drive drunk, I give up some rights to drive, if I do so twice or more, I may have to give up my right to ever drive on our roads legally. If I am subject to seizures, or severe mental problems I may lose the right to drive also.
I don't think we can enact gun control to ban guns, but we sure can enact some huge hurdles to get over before you can buy a gun of any type. Gun toters worry me just as much as drunk drivers, and we spend a lot more on policing the latter. I'm all for good citizens being able to buy a gun for protection or hunting purposes, but not without a huge background check that includes any mental health concerns.
Internet gun sales should be banned entirely. Why not make prospective gun buyers have to go to their local police department to apply for a gun buying permit, and subject them to an extensive background check. We are talking about killing machines these folks are buying, not golf clubs! This would not prevent illegal sales, but in the VT case, it could have raised some flags if his mental problems had showed up with his local police department.
I think the Columbine students bought or stole all their weapons, so this would not matter in that case. I think we may see a future where all teachers are trained by SWAT, and armed with both tasers, and guns to protect our students. This is happening way to often now to avoid arming our teaching community to protect our students. Especially since we have yet to have a terrorist attack on a school....
I've been a firm believer since before 9/11 that our airline stewarts, pilots, and school teachers need to be trained, and armed to counter attacks against us and our children. Whether it be tasers or guns or a combination....we are at war with anyone who would attack our children....or us...
We are still learning how poorly we communicate in times of crisis. Just as the communications on 9/11 were pathetic, so were the communications at VT. Professors should have direct contact to campus police via radio or pagers or cell phones, and all buildings should have been locked down minutes after the first murders occured. This is not an attack on VT police or campus policy. Just a recommendation to any school where a murder has occured, and the suspect is at large. I'm sure we will see huge changes in all school's policies after this....to not include all teachers in campus security is certainly a very big mistake we have all not realized until now.
In 1982 Morton Grove, IL enacted a ban on ownership of hand guns entirely.
That same year Kennesaw enacted an ordinance REQUIRING every head of household within the town limits own a gun.
What do you suppose the results of this simulataneous opposing experminents in real world environs were?
In Kennesaw over the next 15 years the were a total of 3 homicides, 1 involved a gun. An overall decrease of crime involving guns in total of approx 85% over that time.
GUN OWNERSHIP MANDATORY IN KENNESAW, GEORGIA
Crime Rate Plummets - Why Doesn't The Media Visit Kennesaw?
"The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes. The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998. With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you? The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence. The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish. There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crime & Corruption
See other Crime & Corruption Articles
Title: 25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'
Source: WorldNetDaily.com
URL Source: http://worldnetdaily.com
Published: Apr 19, 2007
Author: staff
Post Date: 2007-04-19 14:33:28 by Magician
11 Comments
Crime rate plummeted after law required firearms for residents
Kennesaw, Ga., City Hall
As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.
In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.
The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.
Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.
By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268.1.
This was not what some predicted.
In a column titled "Gun Town USA," Art Buchwald suggested Kennesaw would soon become a place where routine disagreements between neighbors would be settled in shootouts. The Washington Post mocked Kennesaw as "the brave little city … soon to be pistol-packing capital of the world." Phil Donahue invited the mayor on his show.
Reuters, the European news service, today revisited the Kennesaw controversy following the Virginia Tech Massacre.
Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: "When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area." Kennesaw is just north of Atlanta.
The Reuters story went on to report: "Since the Virginia Tech shootings, some conservative U.S. talk show hosts have rejected attempts to link the massacre to the availability of guns, arguing that had students been allowed to carry weapons on campus someone might have been able to shoot the killer."
Virginia Tech, like many of the nation's schools and college campuses, is a so-called "gun-free zone," which Second Amendment supporters say invites gun violence – especially from disturbed individuals seeking to kill as many victims as possible.
Cho Seung-Hui murdered 32 and wounded another 15 before turning his gun on himself.
FAIR USE NOTICE: The above may be copyrighted material, and the use of it on LibertyPost.org may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available on a non-profit basis for educational and discussion purposes only. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 USC § 107. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
So as you can see while there was a small, but noticeable drop in the rate of homicides in Morton Grove, the overall crime rate actually increased more than in the surounding areas which had no such ban. It doesn't seem to be unreasonable to intuit that knowledge that criminals had not to fear a citizen who may armed confronting them drew them to this town.
This isn't personal Lisa, just trying show real world results that semmingly fly in the face of intuitive assumption.
I'm in total agreement with you and appreciate the information you provided. However, we part ways in calling those with other opinions liars.
Dave,
I do not agree with arming teachers and airline hostess in any way! You are asking to provide the gun which is used for radical purposes!
And law abiding citizens of the United States do have the right, not privilege, of owning arms, guaranteed to "the people" in the second amendment of our constitution which states that this right "may not be infringed."
Everyone,
I hate to see this again deteriorating into the old "I hate guns" and "I love guns" type of argument. If you hate them or love them, just keep doing so, it's irrelevant!
I was raised around guns and most households in this are are sure to boast one or more guns. I've seen them carried to school by students (years ago) to show a buddy or to take hunting after school with never a problem. I certainly don't fear guns any more than automobiles or chain saws. But I have a healthy respect for firearms and certainly don't want them pointed at anyone I care about!
My youngest son's best friend was accidentally killed by someone at a party mis handling a gun. My oldest son's best friend was killed by a lady driving drunk! These were equal tragedies! Not reasons to call for the abolition of guns or the abolition of the private automobiles!
Canada has approximately the same ratio of guns to people and only a fraction of the gun deaths so it cannot be just the number of guns. If you want to kill a lot of people and don't have a gun, how about an IUD?
Frankly, I don't know if I could squeeze the trigger to kill a human being if my life was threatened but I do want the right to try!
But to get back to the problem of massacres, we need to recognize that we may not be able to prevent all danger to all people all the time! We may never prevent mass casualties altogether, sad to say.
But we need to address the causes and possible methods of prevention for this as opposed to a gun control argument. The violence lust in our society is pervasive and intrinsic in these events. Mental illness usually plays a role. Therefore, instead of arguing gun control which won't effectively take place in less than a hundred years, lets look at such things as video games in which it is encouraged to kill cops. And rap music which graphically glorifies violence!
Violence has always been a part of our lives. When I was young, nursery rhymes and stories had violent endings. But never before was graphic and realistic violence so in your face and a part of our lives. We pointed toy guns at each other, or sticks if no toy guns were available, yelled "bang bang, you're dead" and acted out a lot of things. But most of us could not imagine the gore displayed on single episode of CSI, and that is one of the good shows!
I'm not proposing censorship! It doesn't work either. But I am proposing that if the American people actually want to see these things end they must learn to sacrifice whatever thrills are necessary to to reintroduce civility and respect back into our society! If the networks learn that people don't want to see it they will refrain from giving these psychos the platform and publicity they so desperately want!
The solution is out there waiting, and it's waiting on us! We are the ones with the ability and the tools to eliminate most of this type of thing. We need only to collectively commit ourselves to a less violent society and live our lives, teach or kids and provide an example to accomplish this.
We do have restrictions on guns. They cannot be legally sold over the internet or mail order unless they are delivered to a physical store to be picked up in person with the legal requirements met. You may not own an automatic weapon without a permit. This was upheld in 1939 by the Supreme Court.
Lets use this as an opportunity for change in America rather than as an opportunity to push our own biases onto others and enact meaningless legislation that makes someone get reelected and makes people fell a security that is not there!
Jennifer, I agree and disagree. I agree about a waiting period and as the incident shows in Japan, even with total gun control things happen. Yes, I think the young man was determined to do harm to people, but at the same time, access to a gun allows him to do a lot of harm in a short period of time. If someone wants to poison or harm a great number of people by other means, it takes more planning and more thought (often thought that may make them want to reconsider their position). Since I have lived in bad neighborhoods before I know the feeling, but I was always more concerned about the person who had some sort of obsession over me (who could access a gun) then someone doing random harm to me. God, those helicopters are freaky, aren't they?
Chris, I think you are misunderstanding my position then I am yours. Quite frankly, anything with the NRA attached to it is tainted information as far as I am concerned. I am not for the total banning of guns, although that would be something I would do if I alone ruled the world, it isn't something that I as an American citizen see as a practical solution. There are too many dangerous firearms being distributed around our country, not for protection per se, but because they earn money for the companies that make them. Really, who needs an Uzi for a house break in or for hunting. Those weapons are used to terrify the populace not to make anyone feel safer. All I am for is a step (or two or three) towards making guns harder to obtain.
Ron, when that day comes I'm moving to Canada…or Australia…or Great Britain…or India.
I am Magi, Amen! I think there is a lot cultural commonality that Australia and the U.S. share, thus if you Aussies can do, so can we Yanks!
Alice, amen, amen!
David, good to see ya back! I totally agree. How tragic must it be for family and friends to attend the funeral of a loved one who was shot by accident. I think even Chris's statistics would pan out that to many needless deaths occur in this manner.
David, well said!
Napoleon, I would encourage her to get a big dog then a gun. Most likely in situations where she might encounter problems she more likely than not would have more access to her dog than her gun.
Kris, you are welcome! I too believe in moderation. BTW, your earlier comment mentioned the Patriot Act and made some brilliant points. Just wanted to give you a shout out about that!
Amanda, sooooooo correct on that. Using an automatic weapon in your own home to stop a burglary would probably mean you would do more damage to your property than any criminal, let alone the accidental deaths that could occur!
Dave, great points. If memory serves me correctly though, I think the Columbine kids purchased the guns legally but they falsified some information. I also think I remember reading that if there had been a waiting period, the boys bought the guns at a gun show, that their information would have proven to be false thus they would not have obtained the weapons.
I'm with you about how the campus police reacted, but not on dismissing the campus. We don't dismiss entire neighborhoods after someone is shot. As long as an incident is believed to be an isolated event, I think the less panic the better. Also, as someone who has worked as an educator, the last thing I would want as part of my job requirement is how to act as if I am a member of the SWAT team. Let's face it, educators aren't paid enough, and that Rambo training is one more responsibility they don't need. I would much rather not allow violent students to attend a regular public school than for teachers to have to feel they must open a can of whoop ass. I can just see the lawsuits about unfair whoop ass treatment now.
Chris, I didn't offer any statistics nor did I make any argument for absolute gun control either in the article or on the thread. Further, gun restrictions of any sort won't have an affect on crime statistics until later on down the road. That's like going on a diet for a day and expecting to drop ten pounds by the next morning.
Jerry, how true. Are you suggesting bullets should be regulated as well?
James, I agree with what you said, and thank you for the well-though out comment. Overall, though I think the issues you described having a million different solutions depending on the situation. I just tend to believe that the easiest way to curve some of the violence is trying to stem those who would use such weapons for mayhem to not have access to them. No matter what it will be an imperfect situation, but at least addressing access to guns is the first step.
The first thing all of us were taught was there is NO such thing as unloaded gun. Most gun deaths happen when "unloaded" weapons accidentally discharge. The best way to cut down or eliminate most of accidental gun deaths is though education. I tend to see the accidental deaths ijn much the same as you. A drunk driving homicide is no different when you get right down to it. Someone did not respect the potential lethality of something that were reaponsible for the responsible care and or operation of.
I think background checks and a 7-14 day waiting period on purchases are reasonable. I see absolutely no possible reasonable reason why someone would have a compelling need for semiauto matic machine guns.
I dislike the way the issues and some others tend be polarizing, with both viewpoints painting the other as all supporting the most extreme views of it.
I just don't want to see this as used to advance a political agenda. That is nothing short of wallowing in the blood of the dead.
Christene, the secret service has always known that to be true, if someone is willing to sacrifice their life to kill some one (in their case the president) there is very little that can be done to stop them before hand.
Are we all friends now??? :-) Except for Nappy, your'e still a turd
A very long time ago our family lived in quarters attached to the family run country tavern. We were all hunters and guns were plentiful. At that very young age I used to wonder what I would do if someone robbed our tavern. I wondered if I should and if I would, shoot my own deer rifle at their car as they drove away.
I was very young and very tempted though I seemed to know that it would not be a 'good' idea ... but I sort of 'wanted' the opportunity.
I have mostly lived my life rural in the far northwest, everybody was said to have guns and seldom ever locked their homes because they knew that all potential criminal types were well aware of what country people with their guns would do to them if they trespassed to that degree. I now live very rural in northwest Montana, those conditions are even more true here.
Our entire society (based upon media depictions) seems excessively violent and competitive to a fault. Thus it is no surprise to me when these 'shootings' happen. Guns may make it easier, but those inclined to kill will surely find a way or method. Now we have this higher 'score' of those KIA to be competitively surpassed by the 'next' perp that wants to set a new record. That is just the highly valued American Way ... is not such 'competition' great ?
Actually, nothing really to be afraid of folks, the likely-hood of having such an experience is very slim.
So it is not the weapons which worry me as much as attitudes in general. Due to obtaining a spiritual awareness (relationship with) of God some years ago, I no longer fear anything or anyone and now cannot see myself killing hardly anything (except some insects), most certainly not people, so the fact that I have guns in the house (left over from before) should not be a threat to anyone.
Any 'problems' are still of the people more than the material. It is the violent mentality that should be worked on. The profit concept is what causes more problems, the selling of violence to people obsessed with fear and hatreds only reinforces such. Like begets like.
Bullets are regulated! If you buy cartridges which are of a type known to be used in hand guns you have to produce the necessary ID and sign for them. It struck me strange when I couldn't buy .22 ammo without this caution but I could buy all the shotgun shells I wanted!
If the people of this country are not willing to make the effort to change our society and give up our fascination with violence it is simply proof that we really don't find the actions of such as the young man in Vermont to be all that objectionable! That is sad and holds little hope for the entire world when you project that to a societal level!
Chris I liked what you said, but since you didn't direct it to me, I'll just give you a shout out. The thing about the FBI statistics about people who do these things is that there are no statistics about people who didn't go through with something because for whatever reason they couldn't get a hold of a firearm.
Jerry, I agree with you as far as people who live in rural areas versus urban, but I think it is easier to address violence through some gun control then to fight things like video games and such. To me, that is more of a parental issue.
James, I agree that perhaps we should be more aware of violent images, but once again, I think it is easier to address easy access to guns. I stand corrected about bullets.
I'm curious, why do you think it would be "easier" to address access to guns? It strikes me more as impossible. If you changed the constitution in a years time and ordered all handguns surrendered, it would take a hundred or more years to accomplish this and you still wouldn't have them all! And I don't believe you could ever get that change to the constitution ratified to start with.
Such things as violent images in games, etc. are something that we can start immediately doing something about on a personal level if we wish. Therein lies the rub, not enough people seem to care so they blame it on something over which they have no control and nothing changes!
Thanks!
I agree!