On Gun Control and the Virginia Tech Shootings
As I mentioned last night, I am getting a lot of hits from Google for my blog post on gun control in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings. There has also been some talk about the topic in public.
I am pro-gun control, but I do not feel that incidents like the one at Virginia Tech are germane to the issue. Gun control is mostly about firearm safety and making it more difficult for criminals to arm themselves; gun control also acts as a net to catch wanted criminals or known felons who attempt to purchase firearms.
The Virginia Tech shootings, like most other such rampages, really don’t apply to this issue one way or the other. While they increase our awareness of the issue and perhaps spur people to push for better gun control, they are not the kind of incidents that can really be prevented with better gun control.
According to reports so far, both guns were purchased legally; the shooter did not have a criminal record aside from a single speeding ticket. While he had a record of depression and other psychological difficulties, it was not so severe that any regulation of sales to a mentally ill individual would apply. Virginia even has a relatively strict law about how often you can buy firearms, limiting purchases to one per month; from what I gather, the shooter bought one gun in February, and the other in March. He bought handguns, not assault rifles or semi-automatics, if I understand the description of the weapons correctly. Virginia police destroy records of gun purchases after 30 days, in an apparent sop to the gun lobby. But it would not have made a difference had they kept the record on file for longer. Concealed weapons permits would also not apply, unless the shooter happened to be searched by police or security people between leaving his dorm room and arriving at the scene of the crime.
In short, this is the kind of incident that just doesn’t apply to the argument. Even a complete, nationwide gun ban would not necessarily stop this kind of violence.
That is not to say that gun control would not work; just as it would have yesterday or ten years ago, sensible gun control could stem a good deal of violence and crime.
Just not stuff like this.
Only Americans will say “I’m pro-gun” or “I’m pro-gun control”. For much of the rest of the world, especially in Europe, it’s not even a discusion: more guns means more violence.
A nice example is the mayor shooting in Japan. When I read about it: Japan has strict gun conrol, and there were a mere 56 shooting INCIDENTS (not deaths) in 2006.
More guns means more gun violence, that seems pretty obvious. I don’t understand were the discussion is always about…
Yeah, I know–I live here in Tokyo. But you know the pro-gun argument to that: gun deaths in Japan are low because Japanese people are culturally less likely to break the law. What a load of crap that is. Japanese people break the law all the time. It is a safer place than America, but not nearly enough to explain the low rate of gun deaths. And Japanese people–men, really–love guns. They sell gun replicas here which are incredibly realistic, and I’ve known many young Japanese men who get guns and go shooting when they go to the U.S. People kill each other over here just like everywhere else. The low level of gun violence here is due to strict gun control, not the culture.
But these arguments for gun possession, just like the arguments about the next Hitler ruling America or protecting the constitution or safeguarding liberties and freedom, all of them fall to pieces when looked at too closely. They argue that gun registration will lead to the next Hitler taking their guns away, but the same people don’t give a crap about car or telecom licensing or registration, even more important to safeguarding freedoms. They rant about the Bill of Rights and the founding fathers, but only because of the 2nd Amendment–when it comes to all the others, they’d just as soon scrap it all. They make a big deal about protecting liberty and freedom against a totalitarian government, but when Bush go fascist on them and starts repealing their freedoms and starts spying on them and so forth, they just cheer all the harder.
When it comes down to it, these people just have a hard-on for guns, and have no sense of responsibility when it comes to public safety.
So his gun purchases were acceptable according to the law. Who cares? All it proves are that the gun control laws are still too lax. Maybe we should be discussing that.
Well, I’m relatively pro-gun, I guess. I’m not sure I see the logic in saying “gun control wouldn’t have stopped the Va Tech incident” while also saying “gun control would lessen gun violence and crime”.
If it’ll lessen violence and crime, then why wouldn’t it have at least lessened the odds of THIS particular crime, or at least this type of incident?
Don’t get me wrong- I’m not arguing that it would or wouldn’t reduce either gun crime in general, or this type of incident. I’m saying that I’m not following your logic; either you think gun control would reduce the odds of crimes or you don’t.
If you think it would, then you should (IMO) say that it’d also reduce the odds of this kind of crime.
Now, as far as gun control in the first place… I’m an ACLU member and am disgusted with people’s hypocritical stance on the Second Amendment… but the opposite way of you, Luis.
I hate that so many righteous defenders of the Bill of Rights ignore the Second.
What it comes down to, IMO, is that the Second Amendment plainly says individual citizens can have guns. Period. To try and argue otherwise is, in my opinion, to allow one’s own personal feelings about the WISDOM of this idea to influence one’s reading and understanding of the actual amendment itself.
Like it or not, to argue in favor of gun control is basically to call for another amendment to the Constitution, striking out the Second Amendment. This is a tough thing to argue, because not only would it strike out a right long held by (and held dearly by many) Americans- a right found in the Bill of Rights. Americans react almost instinctively against the idea of amending the Bill of Rights.
Putting all that aside, I personally think that if even if we were able to dump the Second and put Euro-style gun control into effect, it would take not just years but decades to see true, meaningful decreases in crime.
There are tens of millions of guns out there, and merely outlawing them doesn’t have nearly as much effect as we might like; after all, shooting someone in the head is already against the law, and presumably someone who’s willing to break THAT law isn’t going to sweat a law saying “you can’t have a gun”.
Ultimately, there’s no reason we can’t have a nice, reasonable discussion about gun control. I just wish it didn’t take something horrible like this to get people’s minds on the issue, and I wish both sides wouldn’t jump on and use such a tragedy in a cheap manner for scoring cheap points.
Actually, new information has come out since this story first broke. Specifically, the fact that Cho had been declared mentally ill by an officer working for a public mental health institution, was directed by a magistrate to be evaluated, and in that evaluation was deemed “mentally ill.” Virginia’s system broke down on this one, but ultimately may not have prevented Cho from buying guns anyway.
And that, IMHO, is an issue which touches on gun control: that if a person has a record of repeated stalkings or, certainly, mental health disorders, the purchase of a gun by that individual must at least be red-flagged and evaluated by a judge or some other person trusted with the public safety. If no evidence of stalking can be found (in the case that someone is harassing this individual with false accusations), or if the mental health proclamation can be dismissed as harmless or irrelevant, then the sale could go forward. This is something I assumed would have been part of the “background check” I mentioned in my main post on this topic.
Paul: I disagree with you on the 2nd Amendment (see our prior conversation on this), but see it as a moot point because I see the right covered by the 9th.
I would also disagree with what I interpret your argument to be, which is that gun control (not gun bans) violates the 2nd Amendment. Especially since you draw on other amendments (re: the use of the word “people”) to justify your interpretation of the 2nd, you should also note that no other right in the Bill of Rights is absolute. Freedom of speech is limited in many ways, specifically to protect people from being harmed by the damaging abuse of this right by others. for example. Why is the 2nd alone free from restrictions to protect public safety? No matter where the right issues from in the BoR, it is not inviolate from restriction to protect others.
And finally, to answer your first question, even without the caveat about mental health that I noted above, no law can cover all the eventualities. Gun control can and does stop a great deal of crime–one example is that background checks have led to the arrest of thousands (I think maybe tens of thousands) of wanted felons who try to purchase firearms.
But if, for example, a person with no record of criminal behavior or mental illness suddenly decided they wanted to buy a gun and murder someone, and they crossed all the t’s and dotted all the i’s, gun control would not catch them. It doesn’t mean that gun control is ineffective, it just means that it can’t be counted upon as a complete bulwark against all gun crime.
Paul: It’s a little hard for me to see if you are talking about what many gun advocates refer to as “prior restraint” (taking preventative action rather than dealing with a crime that has been committed), or whether you are agreeing that controls can be applied as preventive measures before a wrong has been committed.
Let me first address prior restraint: it is a classification that does not necessarily have relevance when looking at the entire Bill of Rights. Instead, almost all the restrictions and limitations on rights are based upon the protection of others, ensuring the public safety; in effect, “your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.” Free speech is limited to prevent damage from being done; that it is limited to post-action punishment is a quality of the nature of speech, not a principle of constitutional law. Speech cannot be limited before the fact without completely limiting it, i.e. silencing people. People have a natural ability to speak; it is concomitant to possessing a human body. A gun is not. Speech cannot be prevented beforehand except with the threat of post-action punishment. The same is not true for gun control. Apples and oranges. There is no common denominator between the two when dealt with from that perspective.
However, from the perspective of maintaining public safety, there are clear correlations between gun control and limitations to rights like speech: both act to protect the people from egregious use of the right. That gun control can apply a filter both before and after the use of a gun does not mean that both cannot be applied, simply because the same is not applicable to another right.
Take the Fourth Amendment. That right is limited to probable cause. In other words, for a person to have that right (to be protected against search and seizure) limited, there only needs to be probable suspicion that they committed a crime; however, in many cases, that person actually did nothing wrong at all. In other words, it is not after-the-fact, nor is it limited by irresponsible actions taken by the individual affected. So the Fourth Amendment does not fit into either rubric.
However, ensuring that excessive use or abuse of these rights does not endanger others is a common factor. And gun control fits very well into that classification.Now, if there were a rash of problems happening from, say, people exercising their right to have a gun but the guns keep falling out of their pockets or holsters and going off and hurting people, sure, you’d have a good argument in favor of restricting that right to stop others from being harmed by it.Here, you seem to be saying that preventative measures are acceptable so long as the endangering problem can be identified. Can I take this to mean that you are for gun control so long as each gun control measure addresses a real problem?
In any case, I’d be interested in your thoughts on each individual measure that I have outlined in my gun control post. Here’s a list:
Gun training: same as for auto driver’s training, you have a potentially deadly machine. Knowing how and when to use it properly, how to prevent harm from coming to others, is a no-brainer. A gun is not something that should be wielded by the untrained. Ask any law enforcement officer. Or, for that matter, any responsible member of the NRA.
Gun licensing: a system to assure that training has been accomplished.
Registration (guns and ammunition): the same as with cars again, if a gun is used in a crime, it is used to track down the criminal. We have no problem applying this to cars; why should we with guns? This applies to the punishment side of the issue, so it even fits into that rubric. Perhaps it would assure people if said records could not be accessed without a warrant, that is to say, only if a crime has been committed. This would virtually mirror the Fourth Amendment limitations, which I take you accept as necessary.
Limiting gun purchases to one/month, three/year, exemptions for licensed collectors/dealers: addresses a “rash of problems” issue, that being gun smugglers between states. A very real and harmful problem, and a solution that would not limit the rights of the law-abiding citizen.
Background checks: a way to assure, as best as possible, that people who should not be carrying guns, especially felons or the mentally ill, are not able to buy them. This system also has proven extremely valuable in capturing wanted criminals. And again, it does not infringe in any way whatsoever against the ability of law-abiding citizens to purchase weapons.
Now, these measure are all in use, but not universally. The NRA’s lobbying has forced a “patchwork quilt” full of holes, allowing most criminals to slip through the holes. Apply these measures nationwide, and gun control becomes massively more effective.
These are the controls I have suggested. Please tell me which ones you find unacceptable, and why.
Gun control works to make it more difficult for these exact people to get their guns by applying a filter beforehand, without limiting the rights of the sane, law abiding population to have them. So, are you with me that there should be the controls I listed?
It is true that there are so many guns out there that it would take a while for the reservoir of unregistered guns to dry up. However, it does not mean that gun control should not be applied, however. It just means that there is a mess to clean up, and gun control will help to do that.
An interesting point you make, however, is that the law doesn’t matter to crazy people. I would point out that the same thing applies to criminals. That is an argument against the idea that only laws dealing with punishment should be applied to the problem (which I think might be your point). Since criminals and the mentally ill clearly are not held back by laws which punish them after the fact, the most effective deterrent would be instead to filter gun sales to help prevent them from getting one in the first place–or at least to make it harder and more expensive enough that it deters many and slows down the rest. And in the meantime, background checks continue to lead to arrests of more and more wanted criminals.
Well, what can I say? If you can answer the argument with specifics, I’d be happy to counter them. But I can’t do much with a simple statement that I’m just “plain wrong.” I think I’ve made my case. But, as I’ve said before, since I see the right residing in the 9th, I think it’s a moot point.
Well, it’s not so much that the other rights aren’t unlimited as it is that using them improperly is itself against the law.
Take the terrific old example (although it’s lost its impact with better sprinkler systems) of shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre. Is the freedom of speech itself restricted, or is it an irresponsible use of that freedom that’s restricted?
Plainly, it’s when you put others at risk by improperly using your freedom that it’s a problem. Sure, you have freedom of speech, but it’s against the law and wrong to use it to incite someone to violence, or to use it in a way that creates a stampede of panicked people, putting them at risk.
The analogy for a gun owner would be… what, exactly? It’s okay to own a gun, but you can’t go firing it off in a public place at random? That’s pretty fair- and let’s face it, it’s hardly a problem.
Now, if there were a rash of problems happening from, say, people exercising their right to have a gun but the guns keep falling out of their pockets or holsters and going off and hurting people, sure, you’d have a good argument in favor of restricting that right to stop others from being harmed by it.
But it’s a very powerful and very true argument by the “pro-gun-freedom” people when they point out that these things are NOT the problem with guns. The problem with guns are two main things: First, when bad guys use them to facilitate crimes, and second, when crazy people use them to take out others.
The first thing- let’s face it, robbing someone is already a crime. Banning guns from law-abiding citizens won’t do anything realistic to stop the bad guys here.
And the second thing… here’s about the only place where true gun control might help. The thing is that crazy people getting guns is already against the law, and since they’re crazy the law doesn’t matter much to them. Reducing the number of available guns would (presumably) eventually reduce the numbers of these incidents, but man, given the number of guns out there, I think it’d take a REALLY long time.
In this case, having a decent, effective registry- not of guns or gun owners, but of CRAZY people- might have helped. If Mr Cho had gone to buy his gun but been red-flagged as the moderately crazy guy he was, this might not have happened.
(Of course, if the mental health system were stronger, it might have been prevented that way, too, but a certain number of really whack jobs are going to slip through the cracks no matter what. Given that I’m considering counseling after I retire from ATC, perhaps I need to rethink my terminology here.)
In any case, you’re just plain wrong about the 2nd. It gives the people the right to have guns. But I’m willing to cheerfully accept you being wrong on this one.
You’re right about the registration-for-anything-else. In Western countries you could not have an “anonymous” cell phone, or an “anonymous” internet connection. In Virginia the gun-purchase details are kept for 30 days, then shredded. Gee, and internet providers are forced to keep all data for 100,000 years or so…
Luis, I am an NRA member and I own several guns(10+) and much ammunition. I have a concealed carry permit, and I practice often. I teach my 10 and 6 year old sons gun safety and how to shoot. I keep loaded guns in the house. We enjoy shooting and hunting as a sport. This being said, I would surrender all of my weapons and ammo if I were guaranteed, that no bad guys had the means to harm my family or I.
In my opinion, no guarantee can be made, not even in the face of strict gun control(GC). In fact throughout history strict GC aides and abets those with violent intent. Those who obey the law are not the problem that GC wishes to contend with; but they are the ones who GC ultimately negatively affects.
In an earlier blog and GC your analogy of automobile registration and licensing, you infer this as an effective way to prevent dangerous drivers from hitting the road. I believe it is true, that drivers education and testing help prevent novices from making simple mistakes, which could have serious consequences; just as firearms education does for novice shooters. Registration is more of a tax issue than anything, it really does not do much for safety.
Now ask yourself, how many licensed and unlicensed drivers, choose to commit crimes in or with their vehicles? Should we ban vehicles which are operated by dangerous drivers? The real problems on the road and with guns, are their operators, not the instruments they operate. What if a bad guy steals my registered gun or my, as you propose serial numbered ammunition, or my registered car and commits a crime with it? How has the registration process prevented or decreased crime? Should I be held liable if my registered gun is and ammunition are stolen and used in a crime? I could be since my name is all over it.
Criminals have no regard for the law, they will not be stopped by more laws, only the law abiding will be burdened. In the USA, it is illegal for felons to own guns, yet they have them.
Now my analogy:
It is a proven fact in nature and in society, that predators, prey on the weak and avoid the strong. A wolf will not attack sheep if sheep dogs are present. The sheep never see wolves so they think the sheep dog is unnecessary and dangerous, after all the dogs have weapons; sharp teeth like wolves, which makes the sheep nervous. The sheep prefer to focus their fear on the sheep dogs and their teeth, since the teeth are so sharp and obviously meant kill. The sheep want to ban or restrict all canines(wolves and sheep dogs) since they have those sharp weapons, which only have one purpose: cutting meat and crushing bones. One problem, the wolves don’t care what the sheep want and disregard the ban and restrictions.
Let the sheep think what they want; ignorance is bliss, is it not? I will continue to remain a sheep dog, with my weapons at the ready, to keep wolves at bey.
Liberal politicians will continue to make feel good legislation on the issue, it does not work in this harsh world of wolves. What wolves understand and obey is cold steel, whether that steel be my gun or a jail cell.
If you want to prevent crime, arm yourself and encourage others to do the same. If sheep get their way, the sheep dogs will be kenneled and with unforeseen circumstance, the sheep will be eaten.
James Siegfried
James:
Registration means that the gun (and possibly ammunition) is traceable, just as with automobile registration. It gives police investigating a crime the ability to trace ownership of the car/gun, giving them a starting point from which they can find a criminal. Better would be the test firing of every gun sold to start a registry of barrel striations, and the tagging of ammunition to follow its sale. Such measures could greatly help police to find those who have committed crimes with a gun, and the cost, when implemented universally, would be negligible. I have suggested this to pro-gun people before, and heard arguments such as, criminals can change barrel striations and can make their own untagged ammo–but then, car drivers can make their own fake license plates and file off serial number on parts, etc. Just because some criminals can evade identification efforts made possible through registration does not mean we should give up on tracking the other 98% (or whatever number) who don’t. But registration is as useful for investigating crimes, and as such, is as much a form of preventive safety as surveillance cameras and other measures that tell criminals, “we can track you if you commit a crime, so think again.” Sure, it doesn’t always work, but nothing works all the time, and it obviously works well enough as prevention to make it worthwhile; it serves a powerful purpose after a crime to find the criminal and therefore prevent more crimes in the future. It is most certainly not just a tax issue.
Oy. Why is it that everyone who responds to my gun control argument invariably tries to turn it into a gun ban argument? Read my lips: I … am … not … suggesting … a … gun … ban. I don’t know why, but almost every pro-gun person does this when responding to my posts which very clearly and definitively outline gun control arguments, regular as clockwork. I am beginning to think that pro-gun people have a mental block that prevents them from discerning the two very different concepts. The alternative is that they use gun bans as a convenient but dishonest straw-man argument.
Which is why I suggest the measures I suggested: licensing to train the users, registration to catch those who use guns for crime, background checks to stop irresponsible users from getting guns easily, closing loopholes to prevent illegal users from bypassing other controls. These are all pointed at stopping people, not the guns themselves. Why do you believe otherwise?
Just like with a car, you report it stolen. What’s the problem?
Are you suggesting we end automobile registration? Ask your local police officers about that. I am certain they will tell you that such registration leads to a great many criminals being caught. As would gun registration.
Since your analogy depends upon my arguing a gun ban (or gun control that would in any way prevent law-abiding citizens from acquiring guns), which I do not, it is a non-sequitur and irrelevant. Please find someone who is arguing for a gun ban and see how they react to the argument.