SPINOFF: Gun Laws/Gun Control - Va Tech Massacre [Archive]

camberne

04-19-2007, 08:00 AM

Since this is a hot topic, I want to start with the process of buying a handgun in Virginia (as relayed to me by my husband who owns several guns- handguns and large BATF-regulated arms).

If you are buying a non-BATF-regulated gun from a private party (another individual), you are not required to do anything. No background check, etc. If you are legally able to own a gun (not a convicted felon), you can buy a gun from Joe Schmoe. Of course, this is how illegal gun traffic thrives.

If you are buying a handgun from a licensed dealer, you are required to fill out both a State and a Federal form. Once this form is completed, a phone call is made to the State Police and they do a "background check". This background check will bring up any criminal background and/or involuntary civil committment. If a person commits themselves voluntarily to a mental institution, this would not show up on the State Police's background check. Once the State Police do their check (which is now computerized and takes only a few minutes), the dealer is given an authorization number if the request is approved. A licensed dealer can only sell one handgun per month to any individual.

The dealer, Roanoke Arms, followed the correct procedure in issuing the handgun in this case and is not to blame for what Cho went on to do.

BlackMagicRose

04-19-2007, 08:03 AM

Thanks for making this! I was thinking of doing the same. I am currently researching the gun control laws in VA and just realised how really bad they are. They have an open carry policy. Meaning if you can buy a gun, you do not need a license to carry it openly (not concealed). Most states have this actually. Only seven states do not have this. If you have a CHP in VA you are exempt from the "one gun per month" rule and are allowed to carry on school grounds in their vehicles!!!!

BlackMagicRose

04-19-2007, 08:06 AM

chefker

04-19-2007, 08:06 AM

As a former gun owner (I sold mine--sale was fully documented--before DS was born), I just have to wonder why it's permissible to sell an individual one gun a month/potentially 12 guns in a given calendar year. I honestly don't understand why you'd need to buy more than one per year.

And, I wonder if there should be more tightening of restricting those with documented mental illnesses, allowing them to buy firearms. However, it's a double-edged sword--nobody wants to be accused of being 'prejudiced' against someone who is mentally ill. At the same time, I think most of us can agree that SOME revision of guidelines is needed, in the wake of this tragedy.

ETA: I don't think the Roanoke gun dealer did anything wrong--he did follow procedure per state law. I can only imagine how he must feel, knowing that weapons he sold were used in such a horrible fashion.

thedoorchick

04-19-2007, 08:11 AM

I honestly don't understand why you'd need to buy more than one per year.
Most commonly, gun collectors.

camberne

04-19-2007, 08:12 AM

I honestly don't understand why you'd need to buy more than one per year. Oh, to understand some of the people in the gun community... honestly, there are some people who just want to have one of everything. They want to see how it fires, how it feels, etc. My husband only has a few handguns, as his interest lies in larger stuff. I hate them all and refuse to carry or own one myself. As with anything that people have interest in, the newest, latest and greatest of whatever you like is worth having. My personal one is rubber stamps... for some people, that's handguns.

FreakinBecky

04-19-2007, 08:13 AM

I don't see what difference it makes if you buy one gun or 12 guns a month. Maybe you are a collector and that is your thing. It shouldn't matter.

All this was done with one gun and alot of bullets, so I don't think that arguement is relevant here.

In a free society things like this will happen. It is sad but true.

If you have a CHP in VA you are exempt from the "one gun per month" rule and are allowed to carry on school grounds in their vehicles!!!!

So what? That is your personal property, you should be able to carry anything LEGAL in there that you want to.

dionysia

04-19-2007, 08:14 AM

thedoorchick

04-19-2007, 08:15 AM

The difficulty in the gun-control debate is that there is little compromise between the "pry the gun from my cold, dead hands" camp and the "all guns are evil" camp.

ETA: Becky, he had 2 handguns.

Di

This is true - for so many, it's a matter of principle.

I know he had two guns, but did he use them both? Didn't ballistics indicate the earlier and later attacks were from the same gun? Sorry, I've forgotten that detail.

lawyerlee

04-19-2007, 08:16 AM

I don't see what difference it makes if you buy one gun or 12 guns a month. Maybe you are a collector and that is your thing. It shouldn't matter.
This is how I see it, too.

I don't like guns, but I respect the right of others to own them as long as we at least try to take precautions through background checks and strict regulation of the industry. I think we should be doing so much more than we are now to try to ascertain whether someone has a history of certain suspicious or dangerous behaviors. I generally believe people should have the right to live their lives as they see fit, including gun ownership, but there comes a point where some people pose too great a threat and their rights come up against the rest of our right to safety.

camberne

04-19-2007, 08:18 AM

camberne

04-19-2007, 08:20 AM

This is true - for so many, it's a matter of principle.

I know he had two guns, but did he use them both? Didn't ballistics indicate the earlier and later attacks were from the same gun? Sorry, I've forgotten that detail.Yes, he used both guns, but one of the guns was used in the earlier shooting which is why they know that he did both. The guns were purchased at least a month apart... I think it was longer, but I can't remember what the news said.

chefker

04-19-2007, 08:21 AM

I don't see what difference it makes if you buy one gun or 12 guns a month. Maybe you are a collector and that is your thing. It shouldn't matter.

It matters if one is stockpiling an arsenal, as with Ruby Ridge.

My point was, it's a 'want' if someone's a gun collector and buys 12 a year. It is not a 'need'.

dionysia

04-19-2007, 08:22 AM

Somewhat OT:
Personally, I have gone from the 'all guns are evil' camp a more moderate view, thanks in part to being married to someone who grew up with a healthy respect for guns and education about them that started when he was very young.

He and I still don't see eye-to-eye completely on gun control, but we've come closer in our views on the issue.

Di

batgirl

04-19-2007, 08:22 AM

What should the families sue the store owner for? Following the law? Where is his negligence? The shooter didn't "seem" to pass with flying colors...He completed all the requirements for legally purchasing a handgun in the state of Virginia. And no, it is not as easy as buying a gallon of milk, not in Virginia or any other state. Anyone who works for the FBI of all places should know better than that.
It said on the news that this particular gun owner sold guns that were used in an unusually large number of homicides. Can't remember how many, I'll have to look. And as far as the comment about as easy as buying a gallon of milk, that is not my quote, it is from the former FBI guy. My guess is that he is familiar with the issue

As for the waiting period, he bought the handgun five weeks before these crimes were committed. What sort of waiting period do you propose? (This is a serious question).
One of his guns was purchased 5wks ago, the other was purchased last week. And in both cases, he had NO waiting period.

It's easy for unstable wackos to get a gun in any state or country. Because, as I hope you already know, unstable wackos aren't particularly concerned with the law. This guy did buy the guns legally, but if he'd wanted them, he'd have gotten them, even if they weren't legal.
True, but the US is known to have MUCH MUCH MUCH more lenient gun laws than many other countries (see BlackMagicRose's comments about Austria, for example).

There were plenty of warning signs that this guy had problems (as evidenced by his classmates, teachers, and others), but where is the connection between those and his buying the gun? As someone else said, you can't limit someone's personal rights and freedoms just for being weird and antisocial. I don't think *anyone* could have predicted this. Of course, we all wish now that this guy had been locked up or sent away. But we can't lock up and send away everyone whose behavior seems "off."
How about preventing a guy from purchasing a gun after several stalking claims were made to the police about him?

Our gun laws suck in the country. Want to buy a gun, as a collector or sportsman, or whatever? Fine. Just pay a big sum of money for a permit and wait a short while for an extensive background check to be completed before you can pick it up.

lawyerlee

04-19-2007, 08:23 AM

It matters if one is stockpiling an arsenal, as with Ruby Ridge.

My point was, it's a 'want' if someone's a gun collector and buys 12 a year. It is not a 'need'.
Gotcha. It is certainly hard to argue one has a constitutional right to own as many guns as one desires. Not that I necessarily agree the Second Amendment embodies an individual right to possess a gun, but that is beside the point.

dionysia

04-19-2007, 08:26 AM

How about preventing a guy from purchasing a gun after several stalking claims were made to the police about him?

Emphasis on the word 'claims' though... I can go to the police and claim that my neighbor is stalking me. He always seems to be leaving his house the same time I am every morning. Hmmm... But that should not bar my neighbor from exercising his legal rights.

It would be different if Cho had been charged with or found guilty of stalking.

Di

chefker

04-19-2007, 08:29 AM

It would be different if Cho had been charged with or found guilty of stalking.

Di

True. Plus, one of his accusers declined to press charges against him. If she had done that, he would have had that on his record, no?

Of course, it's too late now for all the "shoulda, coulda, woulda's." :(

dionysia

04-19-2007, 08:29 AM

A few more potentially OT comments:

I swear if I hear one more person say "if one of the students had been armed, Cho would not have killed as many people!" The idea of a Wild West, vigilante society where we all carry weapons just in case we're ever in a similar situation as VT frankly scares the hell out of me.

I remember being taken aback by a sign I saw in the parking garage at the Junior League in Houston where I was attending a wedding reception: it said "No Handguns." Something I did not imagine existed, coming from New England.

Di

FreakinBecky

04-19-2007, 08:31 AM

batgirl

04-19-2007, 08:32 AM

Emphasis on the word 'claims' though... I can go to the police and claim that my neighbor is stalking me. He always seems to be leaving his house the same time I am every morning. Hmmm... But that should not bar my neighbor from exercising his legal rights.

It would be different if Cho had been charged with or found guilty of stalking.

Di

Yeah, Di, I know your right. It just infuriates me that with all the stuff coming out on this guy, how he was known to be so unstable in 2005 and before, that we couldn't prevent him from walking into a gun shop and getting an semi-automatic weapon.

dionysia

04-19-2007, 08:32 AM

Becky:
Do you have a source for that information? All I've read indicates that he used 2 guns during the shootings.

Thanks
Di

batgirl

04-19-2007, 08:33 AM

They found the other one in his room....he didn't use it in this instance.

Yeah, he had apparently already blown two people away with that one...

camberne

04-19-2007, 08:34 AM

How about preventing a guy from purchasing a gun after several stalking claims were made to the police about him?

Our gun laws suck in the country. Want to buy a gun, as a collector or sportsman, or whatever? Fine. Just pay a big sum of money for a permit and wait a short while for an extensive background check to be completed before you can pick it up.Just to address these two parts of your post... the stalking claims were made but no charges were ever brought against him for stalking. Maybe if they had filed charges, that would have prevented him from buying from the dealer. Even if they had just filed out and had been granted a restraining order against him, he wouldn't have passed the background check! Stalking is actually one of my platform issues due to my own family's issues when I was growing up... people don't take it seriously enough and just let it slide.

As far as the background check goes... what exactly do you want everyone to be checked for? What if someone tried to commit suicide 20 years ago, they sought and got treatment for their issues, and they are now leading a solid healthy life? Are they going to be prevented from purchasing a gun? It's easy to dig into someone's life after something like this happens and find reasons that they shouldn't have been allowed to do something... but not everyone is going to fit into a nice, neat mold that you want them to fit into.

FreakinBecky

04-19-2007, 08:35 AM

Our gun laws suck in the country. Want to buy a gun, as a collector or sportsman, or whatever? Fine. Just pay a big sum of money for a permit and wait a short while for an extensive background check to be completed before you can pick it up.

There is more to it than that. You can't have any type of criminal history, at least not in my state. And the waiting period is pointless if a person, with no criminal record or histroy, passes a BG check.

Now what I want to know is why "Resident Aliens" are allowed to buy guns. I didn't realize that was legal.

dionysia

04-19-2007, 08:36 AM

Yeah, Di, I know you're right. It just infuriates me that with all the stuff coming out on this guy, how he was known to be so unstable in 2005 and before, that we couldn't prevent him from walking into a gun shop and getting an semi-automatic weapon.

Oh, I'm infuriated too, don't get me wrong! But more of my anger is at the seeming inability for anyone to get this man help, even those who tried. I guess I'm more annoyed at the system that allowed him to slip through the cracks and my own personal dilemma at the rights of individual privacy on mental health matters vs. potential threat to public safety.

(From what I understand, semi-automatic still means Cho had to pull the trigger for every shot.)

Di

FreakinBecky

04-19-2007, 08:37 AM

Becky:
Do you have a source for that information? All I've read indicates that he used 2 guns during the shootings.

Thanks
Di

I thought that was in the CNN article that I read. I could be mistaken.

dionysia

04-19-2007, 08:37 AM

BlackMagicRose

04-19-2007, 08:39 AM

I do think there should be a psychological test in the US before you can purchase a gun in the US like there is here in Austria. I will have to get more details from my husband later when he is home from work (his dad owns guns for hunting and shooting ranges) about the details. Does this always stop psychopaths from getting guns, maybe not, but this would be a first step.

Like Camberne said "what should we check for." I do not think someone who had suicidal issues 20 years ago should not be allowed to purchase a gun, but a current psychological test may help.

camberne

04-19-2007, 08:40 AM

Oh, I'm infuriated too, don't get me wrong! But more of my anger is at the seeming inability for anyone to get this man help, even those who tried. I guess I'm more annoyed at the system that allowed him to slip through the cracks and my own personal dilemma at the rights of individual privacy on mental health matters vs. potential threat to public safety.

(From what I understand, semi-automatic still means Cho had to pull the trigger for every shot.)

DiThis is what pisses me off, too. Why, when a professor says that she will quit her job if they make her keep him in her class after another professor and students have complained about the same student, was he not at least put on a sort of probation with mandated school counseling and follow-up if they weren't going to suspend him?

All these people did their jobs correctly and brought their concerns to the administration and they were basically ignored. THAT bothers me.

And, yes, semi-automatic means that he had to pull the trigger for each shot.

fuzzy

04-19-2007, 08:42 AM

Well, my husband buys multiple guns a year. The difference (maybe?) is that these are rifles & shotguns and not handguns? Each year (well, maybe not EACH year, that may be over-reaching a bit) they come out with guns that include additional safety features and make hitting your target more likely. He hunts and wants to make sure the animal he kills dies as instantaneously as possible, so he's inclined to buy the latest and greatest.

Yeah, so we're gun owners. We both grew up with guns and, like Di's husband, education started early, as did a healthy respect for guns, generally. That said, I still see room for improving/tightening gun laws (in the interest of full disclosure, my husband would likely disagree -- he's only recently dropped his NRA membership).

One aspect of New York's *handgun* (not to include rifles and shotguns) law that I particularly like is that in order to get handgun legally, one must reside in a county for at least two years and be able to produce no less than five personal references. From what I understand, those that grant the permits are rather picky about who they believe to be an "acceptable" reference -- I am told that most applications are denied unless at least one law enforcement official is included and they generally look for "established" members of the community. This is in addition to going to safety classes and having background checks etc. While this wouldn't solve ALL the problems (and we know that criminals often obtain handguns illegally), it seems to me that the VT murderer would have difficulty getting five references from established community members.

FreakinBecky

04-19-2007, 08:43 AM

A Resident Alien is someone with Permanent Residency (a 'green card').

ETA: from http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/gun.laws/index.html
"Even though Cho is a resident alien, [John] Markell [of Roanoke Firearms] said, it was legal for him to purchase a firearm, and he presented three forms of identification: a driver's license, a checkbook with an address matching the driver's license, and a resident alien card. Cho moved to the United States from South Korea at age 8."

Di

Yes, but can these people vote? Can they hold public office? I don't think so. So why can they purchase firearms? He has been in this country for years, why did he never follow-thru and become a citizen?

dionysia

04-19-2007, 08:44 AM

I think a lot of it has to do with a fear of being sued, Alice. For a lot of colleges & universities, it's damned if you do (suspend/expell a student and the parents sue) and damned if you don't (student commits suicide while at school, parents sue MIT).

I think there is a lot of grey area when it comes to college students. Are they legally minors or legally adults? Do privacy laws (like HIPAA) apply to them? How much can they act in loco parentis?

Di

dionysia

04-19-2007, 08:45 AM

One aspect of New York's *handgun* (not to include rifles and shotguns) law that I particularly like is that in order to get handgun legally, one must reside in a county for at least two years and be able to produce no less than five personal references. From what I understand, those that grant the permits are rather picky about who they believe to be an "acceptable" reference -- I am told that most applications are denied unless at least one law enforcement official is included and they generally look for "established" members of the community. This is in addition to going to safety classes and having background checks etc. While this wouldn't solve ALL the problems (and we know that criminals often obtain handguns illegally), it seems to me that the VT murderer would have difficulty getting five references from established community members.

Wow, that sounds to me like a good way of going about it. I am sure that the 'cold, dead hand' folks find it burdensome.

Di

batgirl

04-19-2007, 08:47 AM

As far as the background check goes... what exactly do you want everyone to be checked for? What if someone tried to commit suicide 20 years ago, they sought and got treatment for their issues, and they are now leading a solid healthy life? Are they going to be prevented from purchasing a gun? It's easy to dig into someone's life after something like this happens and find reasons that they shouldn't have been allowed to do something... but not everyone is going to fit into a nice, neat mold that you want them to fit into.

There is a test that is required for state job applicants (and federal, too, I believe) that tests for mental stability. You can't get a job if you don't pass it. I can't remember what is called... make everyone who wants a gun take one of these tests. If they pass, great. Then they can pay a high fee for a permit (really high for semi automatic and fully automatic guns). Heck, make a gun safety class required. There has got to be a way to make the background check to be harder than reciting your abc's or something... Buying a gun should be legal, yes, but easy?

lawyerlee

04-19-2007, 08:48 AM

I remember being taken aback by a sign I saw in the parking garage at the Junior League in Houston where I was attending a wedding reception: it said "No Handguns." Something I did not imagine existed, coming from New England.

Di
We now have those everywhere, too, because our crack smoking legislature passed a concealed carry. :mad: :(

dionysia

04-19-2007, 08:49 AM

Yes, but can these people vote? Can they hold public office? I don't think so. So why can they purchase firearms? He has been in this country for years, why did he never follow-thru and become a citizen?

Honestly, do you think that citizenship would have changed anything?

FYI: rules for naturalization/citizenship:

"Resident aliens become citizens through naturalization. To apply for naturalization, most aliens must meet several requirements. They must (1) reside continuously in the United States for five years as lawfully admitted permanent residents; (2) be physically present in the United States for at least half of the time before filing the petition for naturalization; and (3) reside for at least three months within the district in which the petition is filed. Aliens must generally be at least eighteen years of age, although parents who are citizens can file on behalf of younger children. Literacy and educational standards must be met: unless physically unable to do so, aliens must be able to speak, understand, read, and write simple English. They have to show "good moral character"—an ambiguous term that includes not being a drunkard, gambler, or convict jailed for 180 days or more. They must exhibit an attachment to constitutional principles, essentially proved through a belief in representative democracy, the Bill of Rights, and political processes.

To ascertain an applicant's fitness for naturalization, a naturalization examiner conducts an informal hearing. The examiner questions the applicant and witnesses who can testify on her or his behalf, and then renders a decision. If denied, the applicant may reapply with legal representation; in some cases, federal district courts may determine naturalization or remand the matter to the INS with instructions. Finally, if approved, the applicant is granted citizenship at a hearing in open court after taking an oath of allegiance to the United States."

Di

batgirl

04-19-2007, 08:51 AM

Yes, but can these people vote? Can they hold public office? I don't think so. So why can they purchase firearms? He has been in this country for years, why did he never follow-thru and become a citizen?

Why does this matter?

fuzzy what you just stated about NY's hand gun policy... I think that sounds fantastic. And I agree, those types of hurdles should NOT be in place for hunting rifles.

FreakinBecky

04-19-2007, 08:54 AM

In this situation it may not matter. I was just saying that I didn't realize that was legal, then I was answering everyone's response.

dionysia

04-19-2007, 08:56 AM

Yes, it's legal.

Permanent resident aliens do have some of the same rights citizens do, though not all.

Di

emmjay

04-19-2007, 09:03 AM

I am also impressed after reading NY's handgun policy. I have a real issue with handguns (as opposed to hunting weapons) and I think that since they are the primary weapon involved gun violence, there should be stricter policies on purchasing them. And, although I generally support state legislation on most issues, I think gun control is something that should be mandated federally. What difference does it make if DC bans the sale of guns if a person can go 2 stops on the Metro to VA and easily purchase a gun there? I don't think it is logical or effective for different states to have different laws on guns.

Someone in one of my classes said something to the effect that things would have been different had the students or professors been carrying concealed weapons. I don't get this mentality at all. I don't see how the exceedingly remote possibility of being a victim of a violent crime justifies the general public arming themselves with deadly weapons. In fact, I think that increases the potential to cause more violence than it could ever prevent. I suppose that is something that is a matter of opinion.

My other thoughts about gun control are that I have no idea what is a practical solution. As much as I hate the mantra of "if you make guns criminal, only criminals will have guns", I think there is some truth there. Plus what about all of the handguns already in society? Was it Chris Rock who said that it doesn't matter if guns are illegal, but bullets should cost $5000 each so people would think twice about who they would shoot? Yeah, that is a joke but maybe it would work. Or would that just create a black market for ammo? It's a tough issue, and it's hard to think of any practical scenario to resolve it.

Sophia

04-19-2007, 09:04 AM

This CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/gun.laws/index.html) has some interesting info:

(CNN) -- When Cho Seung-Hui purchased two handguns this year, he apparently followed the letter of the law to get the weapons he eventually used in a shooting rampage on the Virginia Tech campus.

bold mine--yes, he used both in the shootings. Becky, maybe you were confused by the report that ballistics had shown one of the two guns was used at both locations. He used both guns at the second location.

Special Justice Paul M. Barnett, who filled out the certification and order for involuntary admission to a mental health facility, checked the box that said: "The alternatives to involuntary hospitalization and treatment were investigated and deemed suitable."

"Only if I order them into a hospital is there any effect on their gun rights," Barnett told CNN on Wednesday. (Read the judge's order - PDF)

Virginia and federal law prohibit the sale of guns to anyone who has been sent unwillingly to a mental institution.

Because Cho was not involuntarily committed to a mental institution, his appearance before the judge and his evaluation at a mental health facility did not show up when he bought the guns.

There's more, but I don't want to over-quote the source.

camberne

04-19-2007, 09:18 AM

I'm liking NY's laws from what's posted here. I also think that with any gun purchase at all (including shotguns) there should be a safety class requirement. That's not going to stop anything like what happened at Tech, but I just think that it makes sense.

As far as the testing goes... I don't think that it would fly. You're not guaranteed by the Constitution to have a job with the State. You are guaranteed the right to own a gun. A lot of what those tests are looking for (correct me if I'm wrong) is if your personality would suit the particular demands of a particular job... not for general "mental instability". Where a test *could* possibly weed out some applicants, there are many more who would pass that regardless.

I'll tell you that when my father flipped out, EVERYONE was shocked... there wasn't a more personable, friendly, "stable", "upstanding" and respected fellow than my father (by all accounts I've heard, I was very young when the worst happened). That didn't keep him from doing the things that he did and wouldn't have stopped him from buying a gun. I'm not trying to argue that it's a bad idea, but just making the point that it's not going to stop everyone.

FreakinBecky

04-19-2007, 09:20 AM

Ok, I was wrong about that then. However, I don't think that 1 gun would have done any less damage than 2 guns for this guy.

BlackMagicRose

04-19-2007, 09:50 AM

As far as the testing goes... I don't think that it would fly. You're not guaranteed by the Constitution to have a job with the State. You are guaranteed the right to own a gun. A lot of what those tests are looking for (correct me if I'm wrong) is if your personality would suit the particular demands of a particular job... not for general "mental instability". Where a test *could* possibly weed out some applicants, there are many more who would pass that regardless.

Yes, I am aware that people would pass the test regardless, but what is the harm in trying?? This would one step in preventing something like this from happening again. The tests we have here in Austria are psychological tests for mental stability.

imagirliegirl

04-19-2007, 09:56 AM

How about preventing a guy from purchasing a gun after several stalking claims were made to the police about him?

Well, unless he was tried and convicted of a crime, things like that aren't going to be on a background check and technically shouldn't prevent people from functioning in society. It's all about being innocent until proven guilty. I don't know if he was ever convicted of any crime (I'd figure not since his background check was clean) but unless he was, accusations aren't enough.

We own a handgun and I thought it was pretty easy to get. I don't know why I thought there was a waiting period but we didn't go through one. We just had (well, one of us) to pass a background check. Texas has concealed carry laws and we were going to take the classes but we are moving. I'm not sure of the laws in the new state but if they have concealed carry permits you bet I'll get one.

I am an upstanding citizen who owns a weapon to protect myself against those who aren't. I sleep a lot better at night when Brad's gone because I have that protection. I don't think incidents like this should affect gun laws. I think it's incredibly unfortunate and tragic, but it should not affect the rights of law abiding citizens.

The thing about this guy is, all he was ever guilty of was being weird. There are a lot of people who are loners or weird who don't mass murder. I don't know if we will be able to draw a line for situations like that. We can't start expelling kids and denying liberties to people who are weird. I just think situations like this will keep happening and changing that will be hard. And I don't think changing gun laws is going to fix it either.

ETA: He wanted to do this. If he hadn't legally bought the gun he would have bought it somewhere illegally. So it's about HIM, not about weapons. He pulled the trigger.

/tangent!

BlackMagicRose

04-19-2007, 10:44 AM

The thing about this guy is, all he was ever guilty of was being weird. There are a lot of people who are loners or weird who don't mass murder. I don't know if we will be able to draw a line for situations like that. We can't start expelling kids and denying liberties to people who are weird. I just think situations like this will keep happening and changing that will be hard. And I don't think changing gun laws is going to fix it either.

ETA: He wanted to do this. If he hadn't legally bought the gun he would have bought it somewhere illegally. So it's about HIM, not about weapons. He pulled the trigger.

/tangent!

I agree that he did it. Of course, but stopping him from owning a gun in the first place could have prevented this. I am not against people owning guns. That is fine. There is an answer here. It is not an easy one, but we have to start doing something.

I am so glad that there are background checks. I want to point out that we do not ever see how many people are stopped from owning a gun becasue of this. We only see the few who get through and do terrible things. Background checks, in reality, probably stop a lot of people. That is great. What steps can we take to make this system even better? Psychological testing is something that could be implemented. Again, will it stop everyone, no, but it is another step.

I do not think every person with weird behavior should be expelled, but he should have. A teacher threatened to quit because she was frightended of his behavior and students were scared of him. This is enough. People tried to get him help. Nothing was working. He was taking psychological medication without counseling. This should NOT be allowed either.

Are guns to blame? No. Is the school to blame? No. Are counselors to blame? No. HE is the one who did this. You are TOTALY right. There still are steps we have to take to make things a little less easy for someone like this to do terrible things. I do not want to take civil liberties away from anyone, nor do I want to ostracise someone for being "weird."

We can learn from this and do something about it, or do nothing. I just think this has to be a growing experience for us.

msnicolea

04-19-2007, 10:49 AM

I heard yesterday that 50% of guns involved in murders in Canada and approx. 80% of those in Mexico are purchased in the US. I find that staggering.

I can't write elaborately or eloquently right now about my thoughts re: gun control, but I will say this: our nation is drowning in violence and our gun culture, our near obsession with guns and ammo, certainly isn't making us safer.

PinkMartini

04-19-2007, 11:02 AM

I am an upstanding citizen who owns a weapon to protect myself against those who aren't. I sleep a lot better at night when Brad's gone because I have that protection. I don't think incidents like this should affect gun laws. I think it's incredibly unfortunate and tragic, but it should not affect the rights of law abiding citizens.

Ditto... We own 3 guns (2 handguns and 1 shotgun) and DH has a CW permit. We've both grown up around guns and taken gun safety courses. When DH is out of town, I feel much safer with the guns in the bedroom with me, but I doubt I'd ever have to use one, as we have a 150lb dog that would die to protect me and my DS. You can bet your ass that I'd use them if I had to though...

imagirliegirl

04-19-2007, 11:20 AM

A teacher threatened to quit because she was frightened of his behavior and students were scared of him.

It's a sticky situation. The human part of me says hell yes kick him out. He's weird and freaks people out. As a student I'm sure I would want him gone as well.

But the logical part of me knows that will never happen. We cannot just go around throwing people out of institutions for being weirdos or even for being in a mental health facility. Universities are not about to start doing it, either. Can you imagine the lawsuits? I don't see how they can just let people go when they haven't committed a crime. Even if they have committed a crime they still are allowed to attend. There are several registered sex offenders at my university and I hate it. Makes me feel really unsafe being there at night knowing who's around. But what can they do? Deny people access to education?

Anyway, I don't think this could have been avoided. Even if he hadn't been allowed to buy a gun. Even if he had been kicked out of school. He still would have done this. There are ways to illegally obtain weapons. Getting on a college campus is easy. I really don't see anything that could have produced a different outcome. It's really too bad.

ysolde

04-19-2007, 11:32 AM

I have gained what I believe is a deeper historical insight into where the Framers were coming from in talking to Europeans about gun ownership in Europe today, and how it is a throwback to the old days, when only nobles had the right to hunt.

In Europe, the right to hunt was reserved to the nobility, which meant that the vast majority of the population was restricted to a diet that was nutritionally deficient. Moreover, that small portion of the population allowed to hunt was the only portion of the population allowed to bear arms. The rest of the people were entirely dependent on the goodwill of the nobility for their safety and security in case of attack (and were subject to their whims and occasional violent behavior, without any means of self-defense).

In these countries, the descendants of these noblemen have somehow managed to retain their right to the hunt, which is now done for the sport, rather than for food or clothing (no one actually wears the fur of the foxes hunted, as far as I know, and does anyone actually need to eat the venison and fowl hunted? Some have a taste for it, but it is no longer a necessary part of one's diet).

When our ancestors came here, they could all have guns. They could hunt for food, defend themselves from enemies, even overthrow tyrannical monarchs. And these were not men with great names and great ancestors -- they were men with great minds and great ideals, something entirely new in a newly enlightened world.

The world has changed a great deal since the Constitution was drafted. We no longer need to hunt for food. Monarchs need not be overthrown -- they are figures of not so gentle mockery for a press eager to question their romantic choices, for they no longer rule people or nations. It may be time to take another look at the Second Amendment, in a world where the Information Superhighway is mightier than pen, sword . . . and gun. What were guns needed for in 1789? What do we use them for now?

FreakinBecky

04-19-2007, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by imagirliegirl
I am an upstanding citizen who owns a weapon to protect myself against those who aren't. I sleep a lot better at night when Brad's gone because I have that protection. I don't think incidents like this should affect gun laws. I think it's incredibly unfortunate and tragic, but it should not affect the rights of law abiding citizens.

Agreed. Same here.

BlackMagicRose

04-19-2007, 11:57 AM

The world has changed a great deal since the Constitution was drafted. We no longer need to hunt for food. Monarchs need not be overthrown -- they are figures of not so gentle mockery for a press eager to question their romantic choices, for they no longer rule people or nations. It may be time to take another look at the Second Amendment, in a world where the Information Superhighway is mightier than pen, sword . . . and gun. What were guns needed for in 1789? What do we use them for now?

I have wanted to say something similar, so I am glad you pointed this out. I to think the constution is outdated and needs revision, but this will never happen.

imagirliegirl Law suits are another topic. I think it is tragic that so many people are getting sued. There has to be limits somewhere. But you are right the school probably would have got sued. No, I do not think every "weirdo" should be kicked out, but at some point we have to draw the line and say "three strikes your out." Again, this takes time and a lot of red tape, but it is not impossible.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say he had brain damage or neurological problems. He was probably a psychopath (sorry, I said CLEARLY in my first post but decided to revise it, because I cannot diagnose anyone). He could not function from an early age. To put it bluntly...there was something broken in himm that could not be fixed. Of course, his brain is mush now so we can not study it so see what was wrong, but from the research I have done (I am NOT an expert on the brain, of course) certain lesions in the temporal lobe have been known to cause problems like personality defects. I do not even think we have the medical equipment powerful enough to find such small lesions.

So, I totaly believe he could not have been helped like all psychopaths. At least not without surgery. He was born with a problem that could not be fixed with our medicines. Hopefully we can find the reason for this some day.

jessesgirl

04-19-2007, 12:07 PM

If you are buying a non-BATF-regulated gun from a private party (another individual), you are not required to do anything. No background check, etc. If you are legally able to own a gun (not a convicted felon), you can buy a gun from Joe Schmoe. Of course, this is how illegal gun traffic thrives.

Um, from someone that actually has purchased a handgun, I would check into your local laws because I KNOW for a fact this is not how it is across the board, if at all. If you buy from a private dealer or person, you ARE required to go through an FFL.

Clubqueen

04-19-2007, 12:10 PM

snowzilla

04-19-2007, 12:31 PM

I couldn't agree with you more. The reasons for gun ownership back then were very different from today. We no longer live in that kind of society.

This is exactly how I feel. Thank you, ysolde, for putting it into words - this is one debate I feel strongly about, but I lack the right words to even want to go there. ;)

msnicolea

04-19-2007, 12:50 PM

Absolutely, ysolde.

emmjay

04-19-2007, 01:07 PM

I still don't understand why people need handguns to protect themselves. What is the likelihood of being the victim of a violent crime if you are not already involved in illegal activities? I believe it is very low. To me, getting a handgun to protect yourself in the unlikely scenario that you are attacked is the equivalent of not leaving your house in case you get hit by a bus. I'm sorry if that sounds rude to the handgun owners on this thread and that isn't my intent. I just don't understand.

Niobe

04-19-2007, 01:34 PM

I still don't understand why people need handguns to protect themselves. What is the likelihood of being the victim of a violent crime if you are not already involved in illegal activities? I believe it is very low.

I don't think most people who's houses get robbed are involved in illegal activities. Or store clerks working cash registers. Or people being mugged while walking down the street. Or people being car jacked.

fuzzy

04-19-2007, 01:34 PM

I, personally, wish that most gun owners would stop with the "we need them" argument. No offense to anyone who has posted here, but I'm in the camp who feels that -- in *most* cases -- the guns aren't going to help protect anyone or anything. Of course, that's assuming one is practicing proper/good gun ownership practices: one does not have a loaded weapon laying around and one stores their ammunition separately from the weapon, in a very secure, locked location.

Our guns (30 to 40, or so) are stored in a 700 lbs. safe that resides in the workshop of our basement. It uses a combination lock and it takes us multiple attempts to open it. The ammunition is stored in a separate, smaller safe in the closet of our bedroom. If anyone breaks into the house to murder us, we'd be long dead before we even got near the guns.

I'm of the opinion that anyone who stores a gun loaded is giving the rest of us gun owners a bad name. Again, no offense to anyoen in this thread, but that's how I feel.

****

That all said, I want to keep our guns. It isn't about *need*, really. Because I'd look like a fool, I think, if I told you we NEEDED them. But we want them, because we use them to get food. About 90% of the meat we eat is harvested locally. We don't trust our food sources (hell, just look at the pet food recall!) and even if we did, we don't support factory farming, both because of the way the animals are treated and because of their environmental impact. We make decent money, but buying organic meats is pricey. I'd rather do it this -- it makes us more conscious of our choice to eat meat; I mean, we have to face the animal we killed. We have to butcher it; we see its face. It's not some nice and neat package we pull off the grocery stores shelves. And, it helps us manage the wildlife on our properties (we live on ~19 acres and own and manage 180 acres that, in an agreement made with the state, will never be developed and has been deemed "Forever Wild").

I used to be militantly against guns, even though my parents owned them and I grew up with them. But having a gun and using it has made me, oddly, a little bit of a better citizen of the earth. I know that sounds hokey, but I really think its made me think hard about a lot of choices I did and do make.

Sorry for that tangent...as much as I know (or think??) we are the exception, I don't want you all to think that all gun owners have the cowboy-style/vigilante mentality.

emmjay

04-19-2007, 01:39 PM

I don't think most people who's houses get robbed are involved in illegal activities. Or store clerks working cash registers. Or people being mugged while walking down the street. Or people being car jacked.
Sorry, that isn't what I meant and I should have stated it differently. I am saying that the likelihood of having those things happen to any average lawabiding person is very low. And that a person is much more likely to be involved in a violent altercation involving guns if that person is already involved in illegal activities.

amygrrl

04-19-2007, 01:42 PM

in addition to what ysolde said... when the 2nd ammendment was drafted 'arms' meant muskets. the fired one shot at a time and then needed to be reloaded. reloading took a significant amount of time... and even a very skilled soilder could only get off 3 rounds per minute. plenty of time for folks to run or overtake the person. the framers of the constitution were not referencing and had no way to envision that the modern day 'arms' would include automatic and semi automatic weapons. i get really angry when i hear gun lobbiest talk about the 2nd ammendment and ignore the framers intent but then are strict constitutionalists on other issues. my thought is if you want your 2nd ammendment right to bear arms, great. go get a musket. i'll agree to that. anything else should be regulated and STRICTLY.

"The 18th century musket, as typified by the Brown Bess, was loaded and fired in the following way:-
Upon the command "Prime and load". The soldier would make a quarter turn to the right at the same time bringing the musket to the priming position, the pan is opened.
Upon the command "Handle Cartridge". The soldier would draw a cartridge. Cartridges consisted of a spherical lead bullet wrapped in a paper cartridge which also held the gunpowder propellant. The bullet was separated from the powder charge by a twist in the paper.
The soldier then bit off the top of the cartridge, with the bullet, and held the bullet in his teeth/mouth.
Upon the command "Prime". The soldier then pulled the dogshead back to half-****, flipped the frizzen up, and poured a small pinch of the powder from the cartridge into the priming pan. He then closed the frizzen so that the priming powder was trapped.
Upon the command "About". The butt of the musket was then dropped to the ground and the soldier poured the rest of the powder into the barrel. Once all of the powder was poured into the barrel, the soldier spat the musket ball into the barrel. Finally, the soldier would cram the rest of the paper into the barrel to serve as wadding keeping the powder and ball from rolling out of the barrel.
Upon the command "Draw ramrods". The soldier drew his ramrod from below the barrel. First forcing it half out before seizing it backhanded in the middle, followed by drawing it entirely out simultaneously turning it to the front and placing it one inch into the barrel
Upon the command "Ram down the cartridge". He then used the ramrod to firmly ram the wadding, bullet, and powder down to the bottom followed by tamping it down with two quick strokes. The ramrod was then returned to its hoops under the barrel.
Upon the command "Present". The butt was brought back up to the shoulder. The soldier pulled the **** back and the musket was ready to fire, which he would do on hearing the command "Fire".
This process was drilled into troops until they could do it by instinct and feel. The main advantage of the British Redcoat was that he trained at this procedure almost every day. A skilled unit of musketeers was able to fire three rounds per minute."

MLA

04-19-2007, 01:44 PM

-- it makes us more conscious of our choice to eat meat; I mean, we have to face the animal we killed. We have to butcher it; we see its face. It's not some nice and neat package we pull off the grocery stores shelves. And, it helps us manage the wildlife on our properties (we live on ~19 acres and own and manage 180 acres that, in an agreement made with the state, will never be developed and has been deemed "Forever Wild").

I used to be militantly against guns, even though my parents owned them and I grew up with them. But having a gun and using it has made me, oddly, a little bit of a better citizen of the earth. I know that sounds hokey, but I really think its made me think hard about a lot of choices I did and do make.

I have such respect for people who hunt their own food. I couldn't do it. I think you're right that it can make you a better citizen of the earth.

And I really appreciate your bringing up the fact that guns shouldn't be being used for protection since they shouldn't be stored loaded. Nor should they be easily accessible.

I've read/heard that most gun fatalities happen in households where people own guns, that it's more likely for someone who owns a gun to be killed by a gun than someone who doesn't. According to a 1993 study a person who lives in a household with a gun is 3 times more likely to be a homicide victim than someone who lives in a gun-free house. Now, I know that study was a long time ago, but I wouldn't be surprised if that statistic still holds true. So to say that guns are necessary for protection just seems wrong to me. It seems like an ill-informed opinion.

imagirliegirl

04-19-2007, 03:55 PM

I still don't understand why people need handguns to protect themselves. What is the likelihood of being the victim of a violent crime if you are not already involved in illegal activities? I believe it is very low.

Well, if a 250 pound man comes into my home with a knife how am I going to defend myself? The likelihood of that happening may be low, but it DOES happen. And I bet most people it happens to never think it would happen to them. I have the right to not live in fear in my own home. I have never broken a law, I am a responsible citizen. I'm sorry that weapons fall into the hands of the wrong people, but they are in the hands of the right people too.

I'm in the camp who feels that -- in *most* cases -- the guns aren't going to help protect anyone or anything. Of course, that's assuming one is practicing proper/good gun ownership practices

When I am home alone at night I keep the gun loaded (not cocked) within my reach. I am here and I am alone so keeping my gun that way isn't a threat to anyone except someone who doesn't belong in my home anyway.

When we are not here it is stored a different way. I just wanted to address that I don't think it's fair to say someone is being irresponsible if their gun is accessible for protection.

According to a 1993 study a person who lives in a household with a gun is 3 times more likely to be a homicide victim than someone who lives in a gun-free house.

I would think a large part of that is probably because people don't use them properly. They pull out the gun and say stop. You have to be aware that if you pull out a gun you better use it. I was raised around guns and that was one thing that was drilled into my head. If you give someone the chance to take your weapon away they will. So if you're going to produce it, use it.

lawyerlee

04-19-2007, 04:00 PM

thedoorchick

04-19-2007, 04:06 PM

I think I mentioned this before, but I think a great deal of the benefit of private gun ownership is that a would-be criminal knows the potential victim could be armed. If guns are illegal, then any criminals, who don't care about the law anyway, know that their law-abiding victims are sitting ducks. It's the source of the old but true, "If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws have guns."

Obviously it isn't always a deterrent, and no one would claim that it is, but it is better than the alternative.

I'm confused about how it is a false sense of security to have a handgun for protection in one's home, assuming you know how to use it and are prepared to do so?

I agree that someone who does not know how to fire a gun and is not prepared to use it, should probably not own one. I am one of those people. Some day I may learn to shoot and may get my license to carry, but until that time comes, I do not want to have the responsibility for a gun.
According to a 1993 study a person who lives in a household with a gun is 3 times more likely to be a homicide victim than someone who lives in a gun-free house.
I would like to see some support for this including details of the study and its assumptions. Intuitively, it makes little sense, but I will not dismiss it without more info.

lawyerlee

04-19-2007, 04:10 PM

I'm confused about how it is a false sense of security to have a handgun for protection in one's home, assuming you know how to use it and are prepared to do so?
I believe this for a few reasons. As others have said, you are supposed to store guns unloaded and locked away. This makes it extremely difficult to imagine a situation in which someone forcefully enters your home, but that you are able to get to the weapon, load it, and use it. Furthermore, if a huge guy comes after me, I have to imagine there would be a good chance he would overpower me and perhaps get the weapon from me. I certainly don't like my odds in that scenario. I think people are much more like to be able to protect themselves by learning and utilizing self-defense and survival techniques in such scenarios rather than feeling safe because she owns a gun.

emmjay

04-19-2007, 04:10 PM

Well, if a 250 pound man comes into my home with a knife how am I going to defend myself? The likelihood of that happening may be low, but it DOES happen. And I bet most people it happens to never think it would happen to them. I have the right to not live in fear in my own home. I have never broken a law, I am a responsible citizen. I'm sorry that weapons fall into the hands of the wrong people, but they are in the hands of the right people too.

Thank you for responding, in particular about your thoughts about not wanting to live in fear in your own home. I suppose my interpretation would be that a person who feels that they need a handgun for protection *is* living in fear, the fear that they might someday be in a statistically improbable situation. That is where I was coming from when I made the analogy to not leaving your house in case you get hit by a bus. That just isn't the way I think about things, so I guess that's why it is hard for me to understand. I'm sorry if this is coming across as rude - I really am trying to understand it.

I can appreciate that you come across as a reasonable person who seems to know how to handle your gun. I grew up in VA and lived for several years as an adult in TX and I have encountered several handgun owners. Let's just say that none of them inspired much confidence in me that they were the "right people" to own guns.

lawyerlee

04-19-2007, 04:32 PM

I would like to see some support for this including details of the study and its assumptions. Intuitively, it makes little sense, but I will not dismiss it without more info.
This link is to a PDF fact sheet from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence website, and it outlines the stats on the potential dangers of accidental death, suicide, and domestic violence when guns are in the home:

The Risks of Guns in the Home (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/home.pdf)
Brady Campaign (http://bradycampaign.org/)

Niobe

04-19-2007, 04:47 PM

imagirliegirl

04-19-2007, 04:47 PM

Let's just say that none of them inspired much confidence in me that they were the "right people" to own guns.

Oh, I think a lot of gun owners are idiots. I live in Texas where people are all about them. They own one because they can and because it makes them feel big. And I think that sometimes the most vocal ones are the ones who probably don't know how to properly handle the responsibility of owning a weapon. Sometimes I hear people talk and it scares me that they are so ignorant about owning a gun. You have to respect a gun and I think a lot of people fail to remember that. The second you stop treating it with care a respect is the second you accidentally shoot yourself.

That just isn't the way I think about things, so I guess that's why it is hard for me to understand. I'm sorry if this is coming across as rude - I really am trying to understand it.

Well let me tell you, I'm an insanely paranoid person. I worked with law enforcement for several years and I'm a CJ major so I hear all of these horror stories about what happens to people. So while the likelihood of being victimized in my own home is low, it is something that's spent a lot of time in my face so to me it's a huge issue. I don't think you're rude. Brad thinks I worry way too much, and he's right, but it's just something that concerns me a lot. Which is why I'm glad that I have the right to own a weapon. I know how to use it, I'm responsible with it.

Respectfully, I think this is a false sense of security.

Could be. But if I sleep at night and I feel secure, it doesn't really matter if it's false. Hopefully I'll never have to find out.

This makes it extremely difficult to imagine a situation in which someone forcefully enters your home, but that you are able to get to the weapon, load it, and use it.

I only speak for myself but if I am alone in the home I will keep the weapon loaded so it's actually pretty easy to imagine a situation in which the gun would be good for protection. I certainly don't store it that way, but if I am in the home alone, I see nothing wrong with keeping the weapon both loaded and accessible.

Just as a side note, we have an alarm on our home so I'd hear the siren go off and have at least a few extra seconds. I'm not going to wake up with someone standing over my bed and be SOL.

I just think people see the issue of gun ownership as too black and white. People want to either say they are evil or want to cuddle them at night. But there is a whole grey area full of people who are responsible and should be able to keep them.

It is truly a tragedy when weapons fall into the wrong hands. But I just still feel that people who want to do harm will and banning guns isn't going to change that. Look at the 9/11 hijackers, they used box cutters.

MLA

04-19-2007, 05:12 PM

This link is to a PDF fact sheet from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence website, and it outlines the stats on the potential dangers of accidental death, suicide, and domestic violence when guns are in the home:

The Risks of Guns in the Home (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/home.pdf)
Brady Campaign (http://bradycampaign.org/)

Thanks, lawyerlee, for answering that request since I've been away from the computer.

thedoorchick -- I've done a little more research, and it seems the 1993 study has been somewhat discredited -- or at least brought into serious question. Of course, I'm finding that info on pro-gun sites and not anti-gun sites. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any non-biased sites out there -- at least not that I can find.

thedoorchick

04-19-2007, 05:40 PM

I believe this for a few reasons. As others have said, you are supposed to store guns unloaded and locked away. This makes it extremely difficult to imagine a situation in which someone forcefully enters your home, but that you are able to get to the weapon, load it, and use it. Furthermore, if a huge guy comes after me, I have to imagine there would be a good chance he would overpower me and perhaps get the weapon from me. I certainly don't like my odds in that scenario. I think people are much more like to be able to protect themselves by learning and utilizing self-defense and survival techniques in such scenarios rather than feeling safe because she owns a gun.
I see what you are saying, and from your comments it seems that we are really not that far off from each other. I personally would not feel safer with a gun in my house because I am not experienced at shooting one. I don't like my odds in that scenario any more than you like yours. And I do agree that learning self-defense techniques is a smart thing for anyone to do.

But, that doesn't negate others having different experience with guns and being better suited to own one and its being logical that those people would rely on them for personal protection.

bookworm

04-19-2007, 06:43 PM

MLA

04-19-2007, 06:56 PM

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I have to say that the idea of psychological tests/profililng before buying a gun sounds extremely "1984" to me.

I'm firmly in the "I hate guns" camp. I support background checks. But psychological testing really seems to cross a line.

Why? There are lots of jobs that require psychological testing. Do you think that's over the line, too?

Personally, I like the idea of psychological testing, though I do worry about the implementation of it and the accuracy of the tests.

BlackMagicRose

04-19-2007, 07:39 PM

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I have to say that the idea of psychological tests/profililng before buying a gun sounds extremely "1984" to me.

I'm firmly in the "I hate guns" camp. I support background checks. But psychological testing really seems to cross a line.

They do it in Austria. They have done it for years.

The tests that they give have been made through years of research. I am sure they are still not perfect, but they help.

bookworm

04-19-2007, 07:39 PM

I don't know that I'd want a job that required a psychological test, but I think there is a difference between a private company doing it and the government requiring it. There is no "right" to have a job. (And I do think there is some wiggle room in the "right" to have a gun...particularly with that bit about a well-regulated militia... but in general I do not think the government should be collecting that sort of information about private citizens.)

ETA: What they do in other countries is the business of those countries (and their citizens).

And (not necessarily related to the above comment), I don't think the "security" trade off is worth the civil liberties sacrifice. But I seem to feel that way about a lot of things lately.

msnicolea

04-20-2007, 07:11 AM

That 1993 study has indeed been discredited--I'll post more info later.

Guns are used MUCH more often in unintetional deaths, suicides, and homicides than for self defense--it's not even close. If you did a risk analysis of people who have guns in their homes, you'd find that they are much more of a danger to themselves or family members than to any mythical perpetrator.

camberne

04-20-2007, 07:33 AM

Um, from someone that actually has purchased a handgun, I would check into your local laws because I KNOW for a fact this is not how it is across the board, if at all. If you buy from a private dealer or person, you ARE required to go through an FFL.Well, I wasn't posting that it was this way across the board, I was explaining what the laws are in Virginia since the shooter purchased his guns in VA. Since my husband not only owns and purchases handguns and is very familiar with the laws of Virginia, moreso than many of the law enforcement in the area when he's been approached regarding certain things they have believed him to be in violation of (and were, on the two occasions that I've been with him when this has happened, proven wrong) I am confident that the information he relayed to me is correct for the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Of course, I think that if people had to go through the same registration process for handguns as they have to go through to purchase a MG or DD, that would probably deter a few folks.

As for the false sense of security thing... I think any sense of security is just a mind game. Regardless of how trained you are, you can be caught in a situation that you can't defend yourself. That is true if you carry a weapon or not as well. However, if you feel more confident and secure for doing so, that's a good thing. Women feel more confident and secure carrying a bottle of mace or pepper spray with them, too... doesn't mean that they'll have the time or opportunity to get it and use it if they need to.

jessesgirl

04-20-2007, 01:10 PM

snowzilla

04-20-2007, 01:19 PM

I'm not sure how posting one news story about one person is even relevant when we're talking about statistical occurences. :confused: And frankly, the thought of an 83-year old brandishing a handgun frightens me.

PG-rated

04-20-2007, 01:31 PM

ITA with this. Especially in light of the fact that Washington D.C., where handgun ownership is banned, is number one for violent crimes per capita in the nation.
This is only true if you compare DC to state-level statistics for other areas. The Safest City Awards (http://www.morganquitno.com/cit07pop.htm#25) ranks DC at #19 on the Most Dangerous City List.

I'm not trying to say that DC is crime-free or anything, but it bothers me when people use that misleading statistic to make a point about gun violence.

chefker

04-20-2007, 01:33 PM

Thing is, there's always going to be an anecdotal story out there to support either side. No matter what the issue. There's tons of stories of kids getting into their parents' gun safes and shooting themselves/a friend/a sibling. And those types of stories, people will use those to support anti-gun legislation.

I'm on the fence, honestly. I'm not against guns--I used to have one for hunting. When DH and I decided to start a family, I sold it to my uncle without hesitation. Personally, I don't feel comfortable having a gun in the house with a child around. But that's just me.

I don't hate guns. What I do hate, is when people are irresponsible gun owners, certainly--and allow their kids access to them, whether intentionally or through neglect.

By the way, Connecticut has some of the toughest gun laws in the country--I'll try and dig those up. It made the VA laws sound quite pathetic, unfortunately.

Dally

04-20-2007, 01:37 PM

I'm also wondering about the DC statistic. Can we really say that's proof that handgun control doesn't work when DC is a city in the middle of a country where handguns are legal? It's not as if they are checking at the "border" of DC whether handguns are being brought in. The handgun controls in DC are pretty useless, I think, so I don't think that city is proof of anything.

As far as guns being a deterrent to crime, how does the U.S. compare to countries in which the entire country has much stricter gun control, like Canada, Great Britain, or even Australia? I'm not sure, but I'm curious. Does the U.S. have less break-ins and carjackings per capita than those countries? If not, shouldn't it if guns are really a deterrent to criminals?

Does anyone know where to find stats on this?

imagirliegirl

04-20-2007, 01:39 PM

I'm not sure how posting one news story about one person is even relevant when we're talking about statistical occurrences. :confused:

For what it's worth, I don't condone that old lady's actions at all. You can't just go around shooting at people or their things because you don't like what they are doing. If that were the case I would have shot my neighbors a long time ago.

But in response to the above quote, I think legitimate stories are relevant because a person who has defended themselves against an intruder doesn't really care what statistics say. The woman who shot a man in her home who turned out to be a serial rapist isn't worried about what some list says. You can tell people that statically their chances of getting killed by a drunk driver are low but what do statistics mean to someone who has lost a loved one to a drunk driver.

I'm sort of rushed so I hope that makes sense.

jessesgirl

04-20-2007, 01:42 PM

For what it's worth, I don't condone that old lady's actions at all. You can't just go around shooting at people or their things because you don't like what they are doing.

So it was ok for those three to steal from her? I didn't know that I was supposed to "like" someone stealing things from me. Otherwise, I get what you are saying, but that was not the point I was trying to make.

chefker

04-20-2007, 01:44 PM

This is from an article I read the other day in the Hartford Courant, detailing CT gun laws. Sounds like NY laws are even tougher though, from what I've read here.

Handguns Not Easy To Obtain In State
April 19, 2007
By RINKER BUCK, Courant Staff Writer The ease with which Cho Seung-Hui walked into a Virginia gun store and emerged with a deadly semiautomatic pistol the same day is a scenario that would not play out the same way in Connecticut.

A visit on Wednesday to two of Connecticut's largest gun dealers indicated that Connecticut's restrictive pistol-permitting law - among the toughest in the country - would have deterred a deranged shooter determined to obtain weapons quickly.

"Do you have a pistol permit?" asked a salesman at the busy Hoffman's Gun Center on the Berlin Turnpike in Newington. "Because if you don't have one, I won't even take one of these pistols out of the display case."

rest of article at link (http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-ctgun0419.artapr19,0,4195509.story)

It's just interesting to me, how much the laws vary from state to state.

jessesgirl

04-20-2007, 01:47 PM

snowzilla

04-20-2007, 01:49 PM

It scares you that she was able to defend herself? Wow.

Defend herself? She approached them, when she could have easily gone to a phone and contacted police.

katmg

04-20-2007, 01:49 PM

That all said, I want to keep our guns. It isn't about *need*, really. Because I'd look like a fool, I think, if I told you we NEEDED them. But we want them, because we use them to get food. About 90% of the meat we eat is harvested locally. We don't trust our food sources (hell, just look at the pet food recall!) and even if we did, we don't support factory farming, both because of the way the animals are treated and because of their environmental impact. We make decent money, but buying organic meats is pricey. I'd rather do it this -- it makes us more conscious of our choice to eat meat; I mean, we have to face the animal we killed. We have to butcher it; we see its face. It's not some nice and neat package we pull off the grocery stores shelves. And, it helps us manage the wildlife on our properties (we live on ~19 acres and own and manage 180 acres that, in an agreement made with the state, will never be developed and has been deemed "Forever Wild").

I used to be militantly against guns, even though my parents owned them and I grew up with them. But having a gun and using it has made me, oddly, a little bit of a better citizen of the earth. I know that sounds hokey, but I really think its made me think hard about a lot of choices I did and do make.

ITA. DH hunts and most of our meat consumption comes from that.

I do think that there has to be something that can be done to prevent tragedies like the shootings at VT. Perhaps it is more restrictive laws, perhaps it is ceasing to glorify guns and violence in our entertainment and media.

chefker

04-20-2007, 01:56 PM

Defend herself? She approached them, when she could have easily gone to a phone and contacted police.

That's what concerns me about that story too. Obviously she's a feisty old lady, but she confronted the thieves--thereby intentionally placing herself in harm's way. They were not in her face threatening her life--they were stealing shit from her.

She is damn lucky something didn't happen to her. If I saw someone stealing from me, hell no I wouldn't like it--but my first instinct would be to call the cops. Not to engage some criminals who might be better armed than me. That's just a dumbass thing to do.

jessesgirl

04-20-2007, 02:00 PM

Defend herself? She approached them, when she could have easily gone to a phone and contacted police.

And then what? Waited for the local LEO to show up and make a report. If they even showed up at all. By then the thieves would have been long gone.

Have you ever had anyone steal from you? I guess it would be an easy assumption to say it would be a stupid thing to do if you haven't, but I know I've had my car broken into many times, in which the LEO never caught the thieves and never even cared to make a report. I know if I had walked upon someone stealing my stuff, I wouldn't wait to call the cops and let them get away.

snowzilla

04-20-2007, 02:05 PM

And then what? Waited for the local LEO to show up and make a report. If they even showed up at all. By then the thieves would have been long gone.

And what if they would have been armed as well? Let's have a good old-fashioned shoot out over some scrap metal? :rolleyes:

snowzilla

04-20-2007, 02:07 PM

Have you ever had anyone steal from you? I guess it would be an easy assumption to say it would be a stupid thing to do if you haven't, but I know I've had my car broken into many times, in which the LEO never caught the thieves and never even cared to make a report. I know if I had walked upon someone stealing my stuff, I wouldn't wait to call the cops and let them get away.

Yes. I've had two vehicles stolen, and three vehicles broken into. Doesn't make me want to buy a gun.

jessesgirl

04-20-2007, 02:24 PM

That's what concerns me about that story too. Obviously she's a feisty old lady, but she confronted the thieves--thereby intentionally placing herself in harm's way. They were not in her face threatening her life--they were stealing shit from her.

She is damn lucky something didn't happen to her. If I saw someone stealing from me, hell no I wouldn't like it--but my first instinct would be to call the cops. Not to engage some criminals who might be better armed than me. That's just a dumbass thing to do.

Yes, yes, we could sit here all day and go around and around and think of "what ifs" and dream up all the worst case scenarios we want and still get nowhere. We have no way of knowing if she just jumped in head first or if she assessed the situation and did what she felt she had to do. I would tend to think it's the latter because she didn't shoot any of the thieves, but just made their getaway a little tougher. IMO, that shows clear thinking on her part. It's obvious those three thought she was just another helpless old lady. Maybe next time, they'll think twice about their actions.

I think what the gun grabbers fail to realize is that criminals tend to prey on those they think won't do anything to fight back and those that will wait for someone else to save the day. Making it harder for the civilian population to own a personal weapon is making it easier for the criminal to find their victim because they know they won't do anything to fight back. Do you really think they're scared of mace or pepper spray? No matter how many laws you place on the law-abiding American, there are still going to be those out there that will break that law, especially those criminals that are armed.

IIRC, wasn't it two students that brought down the VA tech killer? Go ahead and call them stupid, I doubt they will care. They felt they what they did was right and refused to let the LEO take their time to come in at the expense of more lives.

Not every person that owns a gun is quick to pull. Of all the people that I ever practiced shooting with, we all know that not every situation is a good situation to pull your weapon. You have to assess the situation and have good judgement.

PG-rated

04-20-2007, 02:52 PM

But in response to the above quote, I think legitimate stories are relevant because a person who has defended themselves against an intruder doesn't really care what statistics say. The woman who shot a man in her home who turned out to be a serial rapist isn't worried about what some list says. You can tell people that statically their chances of getting killed by a drunk driver are low but what do statistics mean to someone who has lost a loved one to a drunk driver.

I'm sort of rushed so I hope that makes sense.
This makes perfect sense to me, and it's one of the reasons this is an issue that's so tangled up in emotion. The problem is when people use emotional arguments in a response to a statistical argument, which is what's happening here. It is important to consider the emotional weight of each side, but using anecdotes in this manner is useless and generally just undermines the person who brought them up, since it suggests they don't have facts that will carry equal weight.

alisong

04-20-2007, 03:01 PM

IIRC, wasn't it two students that brought down the VA tech killer? Go ahead and call them stupid, I doubt they will care. They felt they what they did was right and refused to let the LEO take their time to come in at the expense of more lives.Wha? Didn't he shoot himself?

Here's an example of how guns cause crime: my BIL (an idiot, BTW) had a handgun stolen from under the driver's seat of his car. In a society where gun ownership is less common, a thief would never think to break into a car to look for a gun because it's just so unlikely there would be one.

thedoorchick

04-20-2007, 03:04 PM

jessesgirl

04-20-2007, 03:05 PM

Wha? Didn't he shoot himself?

Here's an example of how guns cause crime: my BIL (an idiot, BTW) had a handgun stolen from under the driver's seat of his car. In a society where gun ownership is less common, a thief would never think to break into a car to look for a gun because it's just so unlikely there would be one.

I'll have to research it now. I read in an article that two students went and retrieved their legally purchased and owned handguns and shot him.

ETA: I found it. Someone was relating the story to another incident a few miles from VA Tech where two students retrieved their weapons and took out the killer. My bad. My argument still stands though.

jessesgirl

04-20-2007, 03:06 PM

I don't quite understand this comment. I really don't think that guns in cars are so common that a thief would just break into any old car to steal one. The odds are not great that he would find what he was looking for, unless he knew already that it was there.

IOW, I think that even with today's level of gun ownership, it's still unlikely there will be a gun under the seat of a given car.

Ditto. I understand her point that her BIL was negligent in leaving his firearm in his car but he certainly didn't intend for someone to just take it. By her statement, she's making it sound like that her BIL had a direct hand in causing any would-be crime that might be committed by the thief that took his gun.

alisong

04-20-2007, 03:32 PM

Ditto. I understand her point that her BIL was negligent in leaving his firearm in his car but he certainly didn't intend for someone to just take it. By her statement, she's making it sound like that her BIL had a direct hand in causing any would-be crime that might be committed by the thief that took his gun.Well, I didn't say that, but I absolutely think BIL has a hand in any crime committed with that gun. He was completely irresponsible with its storage.

I'll agree that it's not "likely" that any given car you break into will contain a gun, it's probably the most common "unexpected bonus" a thief would find upon breaking into a car.

imagirliegirl

04-20-2007, 04:15 PM

So it was ok for those three to steal from her? I didn't know that I was supposed to "like" someone stealing things from me. Otherwise, I get what you are saying, but that was not the point I was trying to make.

Well no, it wasn't okay to steal. But you can't just go shooting people who steal from you. I can understand someone who's in your home or trying to assault you, but shooting someone's tires out so they can't leave is just not smart. Especially if she chased them down. She's lucky they didn't have weapons that they unloaded on her.

People like her are the ones who get guns taken away and used on them. She presented the fact that she had a weapon and shot out tires? Do you know how easy it would have been for those two guys to take her down and take that gun away? That was not a smart move at all.

thedoorchick

04-20-2007, 04:28 PM

I'll agree that it's not "likely" that any given car you break into will contain a gun, it's probably the most common "unexpected bonus" a thief would find upon breaking into a car.

If it's an unexpected bonus that a thief gets because he just happened to break into a car that had a gun inside, then how did the gun cause that crime? :confused:

jessesgirl

04-20-2007, 04:52 PM

Do you know how easy it would have been for those two guys to take her down and take that gun away? That was not a smart move at all.

Actually, no, it's not that easy to take down someone with a gun with your bare hands. You need a lot of training for that and I can tell you from experience, it's not easy and not something I would want to attempt in a real life situation. And I highly doubt that they even thought of trying to take her out. Afterall, she just shot out their tires. They still had every opportunity to do so, but it seems they had a little sense not to mess with someone with a loaded gun pointed at them.

jessesgirl

04-20-2007, 04:57 PM

Well, I didn't say that, but I absolutely think BIL has a hand in any crime committed with that gun. He was completely irresponsible with its storage.

What? You just said that you didn't say that but then you follow up with that you think he did have a hand in any potential crime that may have been committed with his stolen gun.

And with that kind of rationale, then I can go back and as an example, say that snowzilla was irresponsible for leaving her car where she did when it was broken into and stolen, because it gave the thieves transportation to commit more crimes and God forbid, vehicular manslaughter.

camberne

04-20-2007, 05:05 PM

Here's an example of how guns cause crime: my BIL (an idiot, BTW) had a handgun stolen from under the driver's seat of his car. In a society where gun ownership is less common, a thief would never think to break into a car to look for a gun because it's just so unlikely there would be one.Um, it's not irresponsible to leave your handgun under the seat of your locked car. There are places where you are not allowed to carry your handgun regardless if you have a conceal carry permit - any place of business that serves alcohol for example. So, my husband and I are out and decided to go to lunch. The place we choose also has a bar that serves alcohol. He leaves his gun, as by law, in the car underneath the seat while we are in the restaurant. Perfectly legal, perfectly responsible. But, I guess the illegal action of breaking into my car would be secondary to us leaving a gun in the car legally because someone may be going around breaking into cars to steal a gun?? Nope, not buying into that.

snowzilla

04-20-2007, 05:28 PM

And with that kind of rationale, then I can go back and as an example, say that snowzilla was irresponsible for leaving her car where she did when it was broken into and stolen, because it gave the thieves transportation to commit more crimes and God forbid, vehicular manslaughter.

Huh??? :confused: So much for rational debate. That made about this much sense ->.<-

imagirliegirl

04-20-2007, 05:35 PM

Actually, no, it's not that easy to take down someone with a gun with your bare hands.

I am just speaking as she is an elderly woman and I don't think overpowering her (especially 2 men) would have been that hard, gun or no gun.

Well anyway, I still think what she did was really stupid and not a great case for why people should be allowed to have guns.

jessesgirl

04-20-2007, 09:03 PM

Huh??? :confused: So much for rational debate. That made about this much sense ->.<-

If you had read my post, you'd have noticed that I was trying to be sarcastic. I'm not saying that I really do think you're to blame in anyway for leaving your car where you did for it to be stolen, I was using it as a reference to explain how you can't just blame someone indirectly or directly for a crime that may have been committed using something that was taken from you.

Get it now?

snowzilla

04-20-2007, 09:06 PM

No. Do you think you could perhaps use some diagrams? Maybe a yardstick or a pointing device? I'm a sloe lurner.

imagirliegirl

04-20-2007, 10:34 PM

No. Do you think you could perhaps use some diagrams? Maybe a yardstick or a pointing device? I'm a sloe lurner.

Oo! Pick me! I think I can help.

It.is.your.fault.for.leaving.your.car.unattended.s o.it.could.be.stolen.

I really can't talk slower than that, sorry. ;)

DarkHorse

04-21-2007, 04:31 PM

I have only the first couple of pages, and I honestly don't understand the lady and the car thing because of it. But I would like to put in my 2 cents on gun control. FWIW I don't like hand guns, I don't own them and I don't understand why people need them unless you are in a police-type profession. I do, however, respect people's rights to own them.

I think that the controls set by the government on guns are sufficient and don't need to be changed. (although the personal reference does sound like a good idea.) The majority of people who buy guns legally are going to use them correctly and be just fine. And even with psychological evaluations it is almost impossible to tell who will do what in the future.

Any criminal can get any gun they want, including fully automatic weapons, within 24 hours by buying them on the street. Therefore it is almost negligible that we even have restrictions on guns in the first place.

I also feel that the only reason we are talking about this is that guns were used in this horrible crime and they were purchased legally. If he had used something else to commit the crimes we wouldn't be having this conversation. If he had used a bomb to blow up the building we would be talking about possible restrictions on bleach and other components that were used to create the bomb. What if he had martial arts training and had used a katana to hack everyone to death? Then we might be talking about the implications of martial arts and restrictions on swords.

Everyone wants to blame something for horrible events that happen. It is just a part of human nature to do so. We also want to find ways to keep things like this from happening. But it is my opinion that if you take away the guns, then people will use something else, like knives, bombs, cars, whatever. People who are psychotic will do things no matter what resources they have available.

amygrrl

04-21-2007, 08:48 PM

Any criminal can get any gun they want, including fully automatic weapons, within 24 hours by buying them on the street. Therefore it is almost negligible that we even have restrictions on guns in the first place.

the real question here is how do the guns get on the street? they don't just appear from the magic gun fairy. and it's not like gang members are running smith and wesson. a large number of guns on the streets end up on the streets b/c of things like home robberies. guns *first* enter the market generally via legitimate means. joe blow goes and registers and buys a gun and it's all legal. then his house gets robbed or he decides to sell it to a corrupt dealer (and he doesn't know who's corrupt) or pawn it... and then they get robbed or they sell under the table.... then the guns end up on the street. so it's naive to think that legitimate gun sales and controls don't absolutely have an impact on what guns end up in criminal hands. if you limit the number of guns that get into the market via legitimate means, you'll also limit the guns that enter the criminal world.

DarkHorse

04-22-2007, 01:08 PM

so it's naive to think that legitimate gun sales and controls don't absolutely have an impact on what guns end up in criminal hands. if you limit the number of guns that get into the market via legitimate means, you'll also limit the guns that enter the criminal world.

You are absolutely right in this statement. But, do you really think that all the guns used by gang members are from robberies or under-the-table sales? There are just as many ways to get illegal guns as there are to get illegal drugs. Please also understand that there are millions of people in the rural areas who have all sorts of guns that cannot be traced to them. They are not stolen, or bought from a pawn shop, or registered. Did you also know that you can buy a gun for someone else as a gift and that it is totally legal?

I'm not trying to be snarky, but I come from a family of "Cold dead hands" and I married into a family of even "Colder dead hands." I also grew up in a rural area and you would be surprised at some of the guns that people have.

amygrrl

04-22-2007, 04:13 PM

DarkHorse - i totally get what you are saying about guns in rural areas... my 'people' are from east texas... it's very very 'country' and my extended family are all 'cold hands' sorta folks. and yeah, i have issues with all of those things.... while i would *prefer* if somehow all the guns in the world would somehow vanish, i know it's not realistic. and there are some very responsible gun owners. but in so many parts of the country, gun ownership is just not regulated well (like the gift issue you mentioned) and it just encourages more and more guns into the market place. and the fewer regulations all around, the more they get into the hands of the wrong people. and i get that in many ways it's an uphill battle with all the guns already in circulation, but i think it's a mistake to throw our hands up as a society and say 'well, the criminals already have them so let's not worry about regulating them.'

DarkHorse

04-22-2007, 05:07 PM

amygrrl Okay, I get what you are saying. When I said it was negligible for controls to be in place I was just stating as an offhand comment. I do agree that controls are necessary and I would love it if all handguns were illegal. Unfortunately there are just too many bad people out there and sometimes it almost seems like it doesn't matter. :(

PG-rated

04-23-2007, 01:20 PM

I also feel that the only reason we are talking about this is that guns were used in this horrible crime and they were purchased legally. If he had used something else to commit the crimes we wouldn't be having this conversation. If he had used a bomb to blow up the building we would be talking about possible restrictions on bleach and other components that were used to create the bomb. What if he had martial arts training and had used a katana to hack everyone to death? Then we might be talking about the implications of martial arts and restrictions on swords.
Well, of course. These are conversations that, IMHO, should happen. The big difference, as I see it, is that only where guns are concerned is the right to have the conversation routinely questioned. After the OKC bombing and other incidents, restrictions were put in place on the bulk sale of fertilizer and other bomb components. These restrictions put burdens on law-abiding citizens, and yet nobody freaked out about their way of life being stifled.

camberne

04-25-2007, 08:12 AM

Just thought I'd come and drop off a link that my husband sent to me... I finally had the opportunity to watch it (it's a Penn & Teller "Bullshit" episode on gun control that was shown on Showtime) and it has pretty good explanations for the reasons to not over-regulate (although critical of proponents of gun control).

http://www.washingtonceasefire.com/content/view/47/45/

artist

05-01-2007, 04:39 PM

I hate guns and always have. My hatred for guns increased more in the past year when my crazy H obtained one (without my knowledge) and was planning to harm me. He is someone who NEVER should have had a gun. If you are an alcoholic AND you have mental health issues AND you are an abusive person, you should NOT have a gun EVER! I don't care if you feel the need to shoot a duck and call it a "sport" or if you plan to shoot your wife, yourself, or others.

It seems as though it takes more effort to obtain a drivers' license than it does to obtain a gun. It also is quite a challenge for a victim of domestic violence to obtain an order for protection. Also, despite the fact that H was told by a judge to get rid of any firearms, nobody really officially enforced this. In otherwords, he may still have a gun for all I know. Lovely!

Make people do the MMPI test. Check their backgrounds. See if the police have ever been called because of them. Make them wait a period of time. Ask them some questions. Have some limitations. Insist on informing ALL/ANY people living with this person. Don't allow them in the workplace unless the workplace is the police station or the military. Insist on gun locks and storing them unloaded. Have MORE laws for people living with children.

I'm sorry, but I am pretty stubborn on this and nobody and nothing will ever change my mind or convince me otherwise. I absolutely HATE guns. I also can't stand hunting and I am a vegetarian.