Exactly What "Stronger Controls" Would Those Be?

A New York Times editorial about the Virginia Tech mass murder states, "What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage and such unbearable loss." My question, now that we have a little more information about the criminal (though I stress far from complete information): What stronger controls over weapons would likely have stopped him from committing the murders, or even led him to kill fewer people?

Note that I'm not asking what controls would have prohibited him from doing something. Murder law, and for that matter the gun control law that banned firearms from campus, already prohibited him from committing mass murder. That didn't seem to help. I'm curious what "stronger controls" would likely have stopped a would-be mass murderer from killing, or at least killing as many.

Graig (mail):
A number of articles mention the "lax" gun laws in Virginia; few mention the "strict" gun laws of Massachusetts, among others, that might (I am unsure of the precise answer) allow the same individual (a clean-record resident, irregardless of immigrant status) to purchase a firearm. To those that believe that even Massachusetts is too lax, this information is irrelevant. To those that believe Massachusetts has struck the correct balance, or perhaps gone too far, this information is immediately relevant.

My first thought is that this is the consequence, not of conscious ~bias~, but rather of a group of writers completely unfamiliar with firearms, except, as their state's laws insure, in the hands of criminals or those with a disproportionate need for them.
4.18.2007 3:33am
Gene Hoffman (mail) (www):
It seems that the editorial answers its own question (if unintentionally):

"in which an unstable or criminally minded individual had no trouble arming himself and harming defenseless people."

It seems to me that we should be strengthening nationwide CCW privileges with reciprocity and federal pre-emption of "gun free zones." Those steps would decrease the number of defenseless people he could harm.

In fact it would at least have a chance of a non zero positive impact in a future event. It may even be a potential deterrent to these events (though I haven't been persuaded that the relevant research is statistically significant no matter how anecdotally persuasive it is.)

-Gene
4.18.2007 3:51am
logicnazi (mail) (www):
Well the obvious ones would be a complete ban on handguns, ban on handgun sales to non-citizens, requirement of psychological evaluation before being issued a handgun licence.

As far as crazy technical measures you could require that all (non-police) weapons respond to an RF disabling field which would prevent them from firing. This field could be broadcast inside campus buildings. Alternatively you could require that all guns make a radio and GPS report whenever they fire which allows the police to remotely disable the gun and any guns in the area.

Still I think this is a bit of a silly academic exercise because as has already been pointed out on this blog there is no good reason to infer general policy from rare incidents like this.
4.18.2007 3:53am
NicholasV (mail) (www):
As somebody pointed out at timblair.net that reportedly the perpetrator was on anti-depressants, and I believe I read an article earlier which said the same thing. I'm not sure how accurate either report is. If true, perhaps that was a warning sign that something was not right. However, it seems to me a bit extreme to disqualify people from gun ownership because they are on such drugs.

I can imagine that there are people who only have mild problems where it could be unfair. But, perhaps it might make sense that someone on psychiatric drugs would need a mental health check before purchasing a firearm.

Of course we have the benefit of hindsight. Even this may not have been enough.
4.18.2007 3:54am
logicnazi (mail) (www):
Gene:

Uhh, no one will ever run into the problem of not enough defenseless people to kill. Even if we are every other person in the nation that's still plenty of defenseless people.

Besides, given the context here that is just about how bad it is to kill them. Do you really think that it becomes less bad to shoot these students if they happen to have guns in their bag? It might end up reducing the number shot but it's just as bad to shoot them.
4.18.2007 3:55am
Malvolio:
Well the obvious ones would be a complete ban on handguns, ban on handgun sales to non-citizens, requirement of psychological evaluation before being issued a handgun licence.
As they say, every man has a plan that will not work. Did this guy even use a handgun? Even if he did, and even if he did fail the psych-eval, and even if he couldn't steal, or borrow, or build a handgun, couldn't he just have used a rifle or shotgun?
As far as crazy technical measures you could require that all (non-police) weapons respond to an RF disabling field which would prevent them from firing. This field could be broadcast inside campus buildings. Alternatively you could require that all guns make a radio and GPS report whenever they fire which allows the police to remotely disable the gun and any guns in the area.
Crazy is a good choice of adjectives. Even assuming we could build such a device, and retrofit it on the 200-million-odd guns already in the country, wouldn't your average criminal just take the battery out?

People are trying to solve the problem of Evil with tactics better to suited to tax-collection (in the case of legislative steps) or to finding your lost car keys (with all the gadgetry).
4.18.2007 4:18am
Eugene Volokh (www):
logicnazi: How would a ban on handguns have reduced the number shot? Even killers who comply with the ban would buy rifles or shotguns, which are generally more lethal than handguns. If for some reason they want a shorter weapon, a rifle + a hacksaw = a short-barreled rifle. A ban on handguns strikes me as a complete nonstarter here.
4.18.2007 4:21am
David Maquera (mail) (www):
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the Oklahoma City bomber utilize legally available materials to achieve his murderous goal??? Even if the gun control lobby realizes its highest aspirations of removing every type of assault gun from the market, that still is not going to stop a psycopathic loner who goes off his meds from becoming a mass murderer.
4.18.2007 7:35am
martinned (mail) (www):
L.S.,

Then again, I'm personally quite pleased to be living in a country where I wouldn't even know where to begin to look if I wanted to buy a gun to shoot up the university with.

When it comes to the US, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. It's always been a gun crazy country, and you couldn't take peoples' guns away if you tried. (Prohibition, etc.) The only thing to do is for the authorities to take the long term approach (not likely, I know) and start by cutting the supply of new guns. Allow fewer to be produced/imported, levy taxes on them similar to the taxes on other "bad goods", etc. Obviously, there comes a point where such regulation becomes so intrusive that it violates the people's 2nd amendment rights, but that is a different issue.
4.18.2007 8:16am
fundude:
Great to see Americans fighting back against the incredible anti-US comments about this tragedy from the other side of the world. Please keep them coming!
nzherald
4.18.2007 8:18am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Certain acne meds have been associated with increased likelihood of suicide. Meds are not simple. Problem with psych meds is the guy who is taking them, or not, is not in a real good position to know when he needs them. Had a friend who was bipolar and said his meds made him feel as if his mind was wearing a glove--when he was up--and only slightly less bad when he was down. And he's not a genuine nutcase. Much worse and, when he was up, the question would be, why ruin such a great day by taking a $%#&pill?
I think the gun control laws worked about as well as could be expected. Of the 20,000 plus people on the campus, only one guy was armed. Hard to figure how to do better than that. You know of any other laws which have that level of compliance?
4.18.2007 8:27am
PersonFromPorlock:
Well, I have sent the New York Times the standard letter I send 'anti gun violence' papers at times like this:

To the Editor:

A practical, commonsense way of reducing gun violence -- especially in the schools -- would be a federal law prohibiting, or at least seriously limiting, the interstate reporting of sensational gun crimes like Virginia Tech for five working days.

Such a law would not affect local coverage, where there is a need for the immediate dissemination of information, but would make the event 'old news' when it was finally reported nationally and therefore unlikely to get the massive publicity that invites further, copycat violence. Even a small reduction in today's intense coverage of such events might, by
not stimulating some potential gunman to action, save lives.

While 'gun' laws are hard to enforce because of the easy concealment of firearms, the public nature of 'news' would make enforcement of this law virtually automatic.

Because the delay would be short and serve a compelling government interest, it should pass constitutional muster; the Brady law serves admirably as a precedent here. While First Amendment absolutists will cavil, the simple fact is that it is as wrong to hold that the Press Clause protects a media 'right' to lethally endanger the public as it would be to hold that the Religion Clause protects human sacrifice.

Sincerely,


For some reason, even though the suggested law would clearly be 'worth trying' (a standard rationale of the Left), no 'anti gun violence' paper has ever published it.
4.18.2007 8:29am
margate (mail):
If we outfit every student on every college campus with an M-16, and allow them to carry the weapons with them to class, then they'd be able to protect themselves from the students who want to kill them. No?

Same goes for US Postal workers. Give them all M-16s so they'll be ready when another worker goes "postal".

And each and every American should have an M-16 at home and in their car. The better to protect themselves from criminals with guns.

This is the only way law abiding Americans can maintain law and order.
4.18.2007 8:52am
George Lyon (mail):
Margate: If we outfit every student on every college campus with an M-16, and allow them to carry the weapons with them to class, then they'd be able to protect themselves from the students who want to kill them. No?

Why not F-16s or tanks? Sarcasm aside, Margate, try thinking back to the shooting a couple years ago at Appalachian Law School a short distance from VA Tech. It was two ARMED (with their concealed carry handguns) students who stopped the shooter from killing more students and staff. Armed defense works in practice, daily. There is no evidence to support the view that handgun prohibition works. Alcohol prohibition did not work. Drug prohibition is not working. In fact, each of those two contributed to the slaughter of human life.
4.18.2007 9:27am
Pete Freans (mail):
If the initial reports are true, the assasin purchased two weapons, a 9mm Glock and .22 Walther, 30 days apart. While the 30 day waiting period may hinder the straw purchases of firearms, it has absolutely no effect on hindering genocide.

It has been reported that the VT assassin had taken anti-depressant medication in the past and VT faculty were aware of his depression. Apparently one of his course assignments, which he read aloud in class, suggested that he wanted to kill particualr students in that classroom. If you were a gun dealer, would any of the above information give you pause? Should federal/state law prohibit the sale of firearms to individuals with a history of latent mental issues? Assuming both firearm sales were legitimately done, the issue of hidden or seething rage in my view is something that deserves the most attention.
4.18.2007 9:29am
rbj:
margate, an M-16 is a very poor choice for a personal protection weapon, it's big &bulky compared to a handgun when you need a quick reaction to a developing situation. Nor does it make any sense to arm everyone. Some poeple have moral/ethical issues about killing even in self-defense, others would simply freeze. For them a gun is not only useless, but a potential danger as a shooter could grab their weapon. But for some people, perhaps a few professors, or students in leadership positions (such as R.A.s), allowing them to carry a handgun and have extensive training (including some martial arts training) would be more effective.
4.18.2007 9:33am
Reggie Hammond:
Pete: What, gun dealers should be responsible for knowing what someone wrote for a college assignment?
4.18.2007 9:41am
Eric Rasmusen (mail) (www):
What should happen when lots of people realize that person X has an alarming probability of committing murder,but he hasn't committed any crimes yet? That seems to be the case here. It seems the evidence was insufficient to commit him to a mental hospital (and can a non-relative ever do that anyway?)but enough to worry people. A start, I suppose, would be to warn people such as professors with whom he comes in contact (though that wouldn't have helped in this case). Are such warning legal ?
4.18.2007 9:44am
Pete Freans (mail):
Reggie:

I did not suggest that gun dealers are required to review the creative writing of prospective gun owners.
Forgive me for the lack of sources on this point, but allow me to offer this: a collegue of mine called me several months ago and he told me how difficult it was for him to purchase a firearm in state of New York. In his particular county, which I believe was Rochester, the chief of police requires a prospective gun owner to present written references/approval of several neighbors (I believe it was between 8-10, but I'm not certain) within a certain geographical area of one's residence. Assuming Virginia law required this, would the purchase have been approved? If the law required interviewing employers, co-workers, classmates, and/or teachers, would that Glock have been sold?
4.18.2007 10:11am
Bill Harshaw (mail) (www):
Nothing is going to happen.

But to answer Prof. Volokh's challenge, I'd think a law that required two co-signers for a gun purchase, giving them a little liability if the buyer uses the gun in a crime, might help, at least in this case where Mr. Cho seems to have had no friends at all. It's sort of a take-off on "friends don't let friends drive drunk". "Friends don't let angry people get efficient means of venting anger."

BTW, there was a recent study on suicide--a very high percentage of suicide attempts using guns succeed, a very low percentage of attempts using drugs succeed.
4.18.2007 10:12am
rarango (mail):
The general point in the NYT editorial, like that of most gun control advocates, sounds great. The devil is always in the details and as far as I can see even a total absolute ban on hand guns would result in raising the price of handguns on the street thru black markets, but is not going to make handguns nor murders committed by deranged people stop. This terrible situation is an outlier--as others have repeatedly noted, there is not a heck of lot any law or policy can do to stop a deranged person from commiting mayhem. See, for example, the person in texas who drove his pickup into a Luby's cafeteria. In that case, I don't recall calls for banning pickups. This is silly posturing, pure and simple by gun control advocates.
4.18.2007 10:32am
uh clem (mail):
What stronger controls over weapons would likely have stopped him from committing the murders, or even led him to kill fewer people?

Here's one that might have worked: A requirement that any firearm purchase by an enrolled student be reported to the school. Or that all firearm purchases be recorded in a database available to schools so they can check if their residents are buying guns.

Yes, I would have problems with such a law due to privacy concerns, and yes it may well have driven the purchase underground - either to a gun show (where rules about background checks and paperwork are routinely flouted) or to the illegal black market.

Anyway, the best way to prevent events like this is better mental health screening and counseling in our universities - easy to say, very hard to implement. If gun control (or anti gun control) is your hammer, this problem looks like a nail. It doesn't look like a nail to me. Which isn't to say that there aren't any nails, just that this isn't one.
4.18.2007 10:40am
The Cabbage:
students in leadership positions (such as R.A.s)

RAs? I take it you haven't been on a college campus recently...
4.18.2007 10:44am
Ryan Waxx (mail):
Well, given that the deadliest (so far) school attack was done by bombs and not guns, I think we all should be grateful that the media pressured the government to make bombs illegal and saving us from that threat ever again.
4.18.2007 10:46am
Some Guy (mail):
PersonfromPorlock,

That is the most creative, insightful thing I've seen written on the subject of gun control for twenty years. Good work.
4.18.2007 10:52am
uh clem (mail):
I don't recall calls for banning pickups.

Well, I certainly don't want to ban pickups. But I am a strong supporter of the idea that pickups be licensed and insured, and that pickup truck drivers have a drivers license and have gone through some form of driver training and testing.

Same with guns. Granted, the licensing and insurance process would not have stopped either the VT shooting or the Texan who drove his pickup into a Luby's cafeteria. That's why neither extrordinary event should drive the legislative process.

Back to Eugene's original question, here's another thing that might have stopped the shooting: compulsory liability insurance for every firearm - I don't know what this would cost per year, but if it was $500 a weapon the shooter would be looking at an additional G to obtain his two pistols and that might have been enough to put the brakes on things. Or not - speculation is just that.
4.18.2007 10:53am
Ryan Waxx (mail):

Back to Eugene's original question, here's another thing that might have stopped the shooting: compulsory liability insurance for every firearm.



That's a wonderful idea. If overtly stripping a right from the citizens won't pass constitutional muster, surely just jacking the price of that right up to where only rich people can actually exercise it is ok, right?

And while we're at it, we can bring back poll taxes, too!

And who says the left doesn't respect our freedoms?
4.18.2007 10:58am
Houston Lawyer:
The obvious solution is to give English teachers the right to lock up their students who turn in troubling papers.
4.18.2007 11:03am
Paddy O. (mail):
This whole discussion seems to be missing the main issue involved. The primary weapons that brought this tragedy wasn't the guns. It was this guy's emotional and psychological state. We don't need to address the gun laws, we do need to address how a guy like this slips through and becomes such a monster.

It's not about gun control, it's about making changes so that these sorts of people are not created by whatever gets to them, and if they are there are pathways where they could be helped. From all accounts this guy was tagged as being emotionally off. We need to ask how he could have been helped and how we can reach those in a similar place much more than we need to ask how to control guns. Someone emotionally that warped will act out on their craziness, and gun laws won't impede them. We need to address the core issues, and that's not about guns. Guns are only the tool in this case. This guy needed psychological help months ago, not gun laws.
4.18.2007 11:05am
TomB (mail):

Well, I certainly don't want to ban pickups. But I am a strong supporter of the idea that pickups be licensed and insured, and that pickup truck drivers have a drivers license and have gone through some form of driver training and testing.


And that is so effective in stemming the deathtoll on the highways, isn't it? Vehicles are licensed and insured and the drivers are trained and licensed, but it doesn't stop the carnage, does it?
4.18.2007 11:10am
Random3 (mail):
I don't see any new lessons in gun control policy arising from this incident. These are the same arguments that have been made on both sides of the issue for years and years. Personally, I think that so-called "gun-free zones" are only gun free for the people who follow the rules. Murder is illegal everywhere, so if you set out to commit premeditated murder, well, violating the gun-free zone isn't going to bother you too much. The main thing I take away from this incident is that the people who live through such events are the ones that decide that they are going to take control of their own safety and escape the situation. The people in Professor Loganathan's classroom - for whatever reason, those people did not escape, perhaps they did not even try to escape - and many of them died. The people in Professor Librescu's classroom decided that they were going to try to live that day, and that they were not going to wait on the authorities to take care of them. In large part due to the heroism of the Professor himself, most of them escaped, and lived. The lesson is that if you are ever in such a situation - take control of your own life. Resist violently and escape immediately. In a situation where people had decided to resist, there is no way one man armed with only 9mm and 22-cal handguns could have murdered 32 people.
4.18.2007 11:17am
uh clem (mail):
And that is so effective in stemming the deathtoll on the highways, isn't it? Vehicles are licensed and insured and the drivers are trained and licensed, but it doesn't stop the carnage, does it?

Compared to the alternative, it certainly helps. If you insist on a 100% solution, you'll never find one. Do you seriously advocate repealing no-fault insurance laws, drivers licenses, speed limits, traffic lights, etc.?

Why do these discussions always degenerate into a childish insistance that any public policy initiative that's not perfect must be bad?
4.18.2007 11:18am
olivier (mail):
Maybe you should have a look at gun laws in industrialized countries where the firearm homicide rate per 100,000 people and the % of homicides by firearm is lowest than in the US... it should not be very difficult: they all do better than the US in that department.
4.18.2007 11:20am
Ryan Waxx (mail):

Why do these discussions always degenerate into a childish insistance that any public policy initiative that's not perfect must be bad?


No one said that banning people who aren't rich from exercising their second-amendment rights was 'not perfect'. It is, however a UNCONSTITUTIONAL method of removing rights(again, see the poll taxes example). Forgive me for assuming that unconstitutionality was a concern of readers of a law blog.
4.18.2007 11:29am
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
BTW, there was a recent study on suicide--a very high percentage of suicide attempts using guns succeed, a very low percentage of attempts using drugs succeed.
But was the study controlled by sex?

The problem here is that not all suicide attempts are equal. A distinct majority of suicide attempts are by females, while the opposite is true for suicide successes. Why? Because a lot of the females aren't really trying to kill themselves, but rather just to appear to be trying to kill themselves. Not that some of those attempts don't work, but rather, a lot of those may be screw ups.

So, yes, if you want to have a very good chance that your suicide attempt will work, then, by all means, use a gun. And if all you are doing is crying for help with your suicide attempt, then use drugs. But banning guns is a silly way to reduce suicides. Around here, I know of a couple tall bridges that would work just fine. And you can always sit in your running car in your garage with its doors closed.

That is not to say that you can't kill yourself with drugs with fair certainty, but rather, that is a lot harder than with a gun. A friend of mine managed to do so with codeine. Apparently, if you take too much, you throw it up too quickly, and too little, it isn't fatal. But this person had been engaged to a PharmD and worked in a hospital, so knew this, and dosed appropriately. Added, this person would have frozen to death if the codeine had not been effective.
4.18.2007 11:34am
Mike Rosenberg (mail) (www):
First, the Washington Post is reporting that "Two government officials said he had been treated for mental health problems." There is no indication of what problems or when -- and I have concerns about a breach patient doctor privacy impeding a patient's effort to seek help (it isn't a medical ethics issue -- ethics are that the medical practitioner is expected to report a patient who is a risk to himself or others), but it seems that the process of disqualification for mental illness could have been strengthened (adding names to a federal data base that is checked as part of the background check and extending the sworn statement of the purchaser beyond involuntary commitment). (Note: except from the outcome and the writings, there is no way to even guess, at this time, if the condition for which the shooter was seen would have been disqualifying.)

Second, while I don't support a ban on private ownership of handguns, Eugene's claim that individuals would just go to long guns (with or without hacksaws) strikes me as a reach. Even cut down, a long gun cannot be concealed as easily, because of the stock. Once could, I suppose cut that, as well, but handling a (former) long gun with no stock and a shortened barrel would be awkward, at best.

Third, the idea of *more* guns on campuses is just plain silly. The number of armed civilians on each of the campuses all the time just waiting for an event that occurs rarely is more likely to create problems than solve them. Campus shooters don't use campuses because they are soft targets; they use them because that's where they feel aggrieved. We don't see hardened criminals debating whether to attack a police station or school and then pick the school, because there are fewer guns there. We see students shooting up their own schools. As a side bar on this issue, the last thing police responding to a shooting need is to have to distinguish between the shooter and any number of other folks running around with guns.

Frankly, I don't have an answer in our society. Demythifying firearms might help us move from the types of all or nothing solutions proposed by both ends of the spectrum to seeking better solutions, but I don't have a lot of faith there is a solution, even then. It may be that we're a society with a strong tendency to resort to violence and, with the means already out there in such profusion, we have to accept that there really is no answer.
4.18.2007 11:36am
Sean O'Hara (mail) (www):
Someone emotionally that warped will act out on their craziness,


Correlation error. Homicidal maniacs tend to exhibit Trait X does not mean that everyone who exhibits Trait X is a homicidal maniac.
4.18.2007 11:37am
olivier (mail):
Paddy O said: This guy needed psychological help months ago, not gun laws.

I strongly believe both issues are linked, not separate. In a society where guns are glorified, and the mythical hero is a Marlboro-type cowboy or a Marine with a big gun, any troubled kid in search of a self-image will go for a gun. Psychological help doesn't exclude tighter control over guns, or changes in the obsolete US constitution, like the preposterous right to bear a weapon. Don't forget that this guy bought his 2 guns absolutely legally. If such weapons were not available in stores, he might have tried the same with a knife, as it so often happens in the UK, where such mass-murders are exceptional. I wonder how many more Virginia Tech massacres are needed until gun-fetichists surrender to this evidence.
4.18.2007 11:42am
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
The general point in the NYT editorial, like that of most gun control advocates, sounds great. The devil is always in the details..
On the one hand, we have opportunists, like the Brady bunch, trying to leverage this into more stringent gun controls. But I think the NYT is practicing what I think of as liberal problem solving. If a problem is identified, then pass a law against it. Or start a new government program to solve it. If that one doesn't work, do another one, then another one. But never bother to look back and see how well the previous attempts at solutions have worked. In short, it is better to feel good about doing something, anything, than to actually spend the time and effort to figure out the best way of solving a problem.
4.18.2007 11:47am
TomB (mail):

Compared to the alternative, it certainly helps. If you insist on a 100% solution, you'll never find one. Do you seriously advocate repealing no-fault insurance laws, drivers licenses, speed limits, traffic lights, etc.?


How does licensing and registering vehicles "help" keep accidents down?

But my point is that you cannot in any way, legislate away incidents like this.
4.18.2007 11:48am
TomB (mail):

Third, the idea of *more* guns on campuses is just plain silly. The number of armed civilians on each of the campuses all the time just waiting for an event that occurs rarely is more likely to create problems than solve them.


On what do you base that statement?
4.18.2007 11:50am
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
Besides, given the context here that is just about how bad it is to kill them. Do you really think that it becomes less bad to shoot these students if they happen to have guns in their bag? It might end up reducing the number shot but it's just as bad to shoot them.
But in situations like this, the potential victims, if they actually did have guns in their bags, would have plenty of time to get them out of their bags and shoot back, reducing, likely significantly, the death toll.
4.18.2007 11:53am
Ryan Waxx (mail):

If such weapons were not available in stores, he might have tried the same with a knife.


Or if the profs were armed, he might have been gunned down himself in mid-spree. How many more Virginia Tech massacres are needed until anti-gun-fetishists surrender to this evidence?


as it so often happens in the UK, where such mass-murders are exceptional.


Despite the knife bans. Oh, wait, you didn't want me to mention the UK knife bans?
4.18.2007 11:54am
uh clem (mail):
ME: >> Why do these discussions always degenerate into a childish insistance that any public policy initiative that's not perfect must be bad?

Ryan: > No one said that banning people who aren't rich from exercising their second-amendment rights was 'not perfect'.

I wasn't responding to you, Ryan. I was responding to someone who panned the automotive laws in our country as ineffective. That point is childish. Yours is not.

Your point about pricing it out of reach of ordinary people is one for which I have much sympathy. OTOH, if someone elects to engage in activies (i.e. owning a gun) that have a societal cost it is not unreasonable to ask that person to pay his share. Insurance is the usual way to spread out costs and risks, and it's actually worked well for automobiles. Why not guns?
4.18.2007 11:55am
jdwill (mail):
What about having taser stations similar to a fire extinquishers / alarms behind glass at key locations? That is, 'break glass in case of emergency', zap maniac and subdue.

That way, you don't have to arm huge numbers of individuals, but an unarmed crowd has another recourse beyond cowering behind desks or blocking doors available. It has the additional advantage of being nonlethal and unlikely to cause blue on blue fatalities.

The supporting legal argument could be that if you want to override your states CCW laws for your campus / hospital / government office, then you are legally responsible to provide a means of non-lethal resistance to the population that makes themselves vulnerable in your domain. Either that, or you are responsible to have visible security personnel in all such venues (that show up PDQ).
4.18.2007 12:09pm
whit:
"If true, perhaps that was a warning sign that something was not right. However, it seems to me a bit extreme to disqualify people from gun ownership because they are on such drugs. "

there are TONS of cops on antidepressants who obviously can carry a gun fwiw, let alone civilians. and cops have higher standards in regards to mental fitness than civilians do (cops have to pass MMPI, etc. whereas citizens just have to be "not crazy" essentially)

you can't take away somebody's civil right (gun ownership) or career (cop) because of mental illness. you have to prove a lot more than merely the existence of depression or the taking of anti-depressants.

i find it hilarious that in many other blogs (democraticunderground.com etc.) that the same people that would be fighting for EVERY SINGLE other right for mentally ill people think that merely cause the guy wrote some disturbing essays, that his right to possess should have been rescinded
4.18.2007 12:14pm
WHOI Jacket:
Jdwill, that's actually a reasonable suggestion.
4.18.2007 12:17pm
Charlie (Colorado) (mail):

If we outfit every student on every college campus with an M-16, and allow them to carry the weapons with them to class, then they'd be able to protect themselves from the students who want to kill them. No?


No. M16s are unusually expensive because of the usual MILSPEC issues, and the NATO 5.56 isn't all that good for stopping power. Plus it's heavy and clumsy as a day to day weapon; it's like carrying a three foot long purse.

Issue the good old 1911A1 ACP 45 caliber pistol, and I think you're on to something.
4.18.2007 12:19pm
c. l. ball (mail):
I like PersonfromPorlock's letter since it raises some good points, but it is flawed to the extent that what gun control law's address is the capability, not the intent (which is what the press law aims at).

I don't think a hand-gun/machine pistol ban would have stopped this massacre, but that doesn't mean that regulation (from mere licensing and registration to a ban) does not reduce the massacre rate. Volokh's question is unfair: what would have stopped the massacre is unknowable; what would reduce the likelihood of massacres in general is knowable. As olivier points out, other industrialized states with extensive regulation have lower firearm homicide rates and possibly rampage killing rates (say 5+ homicides in one incident). We should discount those rates for gun possession levels (how many guns, legal and illegal, are in circulation to avoid endogenizing the regulatory effect's on gunownership). If the lower rates remain, then there is a good argument for burdensome regulations as means to reduce rampage killings and high homicide rates.

The argument in favor of gun-control regulation would be that regulatory hurdles increase the likelihood that would-be rampage killers (who often plan and prepare methodically) would be less able to acquire the more deadly means or would be arrested on other charges in their attempt. If Cho tried to illegaly purchase a banned gun and banned ammunition, he might have been caught (and might not have). We don't have speed limits to stop speeding but to reduce it.

Of course, from what we know of US rampage killings most of the adults (18+) have sought or had friends or family seek mental health counseling and had trouble getting it. Many depressives report difficulty getting help even when they have suicidal thoughts. The better rampage killing prevention strategy would be to improve mental health care services, not ban handguns.

The carry-concealed argument has flaws too. Imagine the fratricide potential if dozens of people start running around with guns during such a shooting.
4.18.2007 12:20pm
WHOI Jacket:
Whit, what's truely ironic is what happened to the "Those who sacrifice their liberties for security deserve neither" crowd.

They don't want the government looking at their library cards no matter what, but they are perfectly fine with the government taking away their 2nd Ammendment rights, in fact, they are perfectly willing to surrender them.
4.18.2007 12:21pm
Dr. Scott (mail):
If someone elects to engage in activies (i.e. owning a gun) that have a societal cost it is not unreasonable to ask that person to pay his share.

There are also substantial social benefits to the private ownership of guns. Before we can fairly talk of insurance against risks, we must also look on the other side of the ledger and consider those benefits. If we do the accounting fairly, we may well discover that legal gun owners deserve a subsidy.
4.18.2007 12:21pm
Charlie (Colorado) (mail):

Maybe you should have a look at gun laws in industrialized countries where the firearm homicide rate per 100,000 people and the % of homicides by firearm is lowest than in the US... it should not be very difficult: they all do better than the US in that department.


Including the ones, like Switzerland, in which gun ownership is effectively universal.

Here's a creative thought: maybe, since we know that these kinds of mass killings also occur in places like South Korea and Germany, where gun control is both stringent and onerous, and we know that gun violence has increased in the UK when guns were severely restricted, and we also know that places like Switzerland with lots of guns don't seem to have the problem, maybe, just maybe, we don't actually have any evidence that the problem is connected with guns at all?
4.18.2007 12:24pm
Mike Rosenberg (mail) (www):

Third, the idea of *more* guns on campuses is just plain silly. The number of armed civilians on each of the campuses all the time just waiting for an event that occurs rarely is more likely to create problems than solve them.

On what do you base that statement?


VT has 25000 students on campus, perhaps 1500 teachers (professors and instructors) and heaven knows how many administrative and custodial staff -- as well as it's own police department. They are spread across 100+ buildings (this from VT's web site. To have a "defender" available to react in a timely manner would have require several hundred armed individuals on VT campus 24/7 to react to an event that has occurred on two university campuses in the past 40+ years (UTexas and Virginia Tech). Extend that coverage across all universities and colleges and you'd end up with tens of thousands of individuals carrying arms every day over 40+ years (even that isn't accurate, since it sets the range at the first and last actual occurance, if there are 40 years between such incidents, the more appropriate time duration would be 80 years). If only one of those individuals was involved in a fatal incident (out of mistaken zeal, anger or accident) per year, you'd have as many fatalities as have occurred in the two incidents whose effects you are trying to diminish. (and it's dubious that, even then, had there been individuals at UTexas, they could have lessened the Whitman carnage).

Note also that the "civilian" has to be able to identify the appropriate target -- which means that the individual has to be caught with gun in hand to be identified. This will only occur after some number of casualties have already occurred and the number of casualties prevented are only those which would have occurred *after* the perpetrator was deactivated. (How's that for a euphemism?)

Note I include only UT and VT because, while there have been other incidents, they have been at focussed targets and the shooting took place in a short time period, not allowing for a reaction from outside the immediate location.
4.18.2007 12:25pm
Captain Holly (mail):

Well, I certainly don't want to ban pickups. But I am a strong supporter of the idea that pickups be licensed and insured, and that pickup truck drivers have a drivers license and have gone through some form of driver training and testing.


Captial idea, clem. I don't mind licensing of gun owners one bit IF the license is truly like a driver's license.

For example, my Utah's driver's license is honored by all 50 states and allows me to drive my car on any public road anywhere in the US, including places such as Chicago, New York, and Washington, DC. I don't have to register my car as soon as I enter a different state, and as long as I'm just visiting and obeying all traffic laws I don't have to let the local police know I'm even there.

Plus, I don't need a driver's license to buy a car, just to drive one on public roads. If I wanted to, I could buy a car, park it in my garage and not register it -- as long as it stayed on my property, it wouldn't be any of the government's business.

And let's not forget I can buy a car on the internet from a private citizen, drive to another state, and pick it up without being required to show any form of ID whatsoever.

So, if your proposing to license guns exactly as you license cars, then I'm all for it. But I suspect like most gun control advocates, you're simply proposing yet another way to hassle gun owners.
4.18.2007 12:26pm
WHOI Jacket:
Dr. Scott, a free rider issue. I suggest a case where a town has 50%, no 30% firearms ownership and the armed populace is properly equipped and trained. If a burgler/rapist/home invader is consider action in the area, might their actions be deterred by the posibillity of encountering an armed individiual in said home. Should the societal benefits of such deterrance count in the 30%'s favor?

The example I point to is Kennasaw, GA (northwest of Atlanta) where town law mandates the possession of a firearm in each household. This fact is widely broadcast in the community.
4.18.2007 12:27pm
Ryan Waxx (mail):

OTOH, if someone elects to engage in act ivies (i.e. owning a gun) that have a societal cost it is not unreasonable to ask that person to pay his share.


It is unreasonable to place undue burdens on the exercise of a right. Sending the exercisee a bill is usually seen as unreasonable.

Yearly elections are certainly more costly than the occasional school shooting. And yet poll taxes are struck down as an undue burden.

The fact is, the only mechanism of insurance that might have actually prevented this tragedy would have been the additional cost. You yourself said:


but if it was $500 a weapon the shooter would be looking at an additional G to obtain his two pistols


That's not 'shared costs'. That's explicitly trying to limit people who can exercise the right by legislatively jacking up the price. And if you tried to submit a bill that admitted that that was your goal, it would not survive judicial review by even the most liberal of judges. That's why sugar-coating the ban with phrases like 'share the cost'

The MAJORITY of rights have a societal cost - just think of how many ways we could have stopped this guy by ignoring search and seizure rights, for example. Or jailing all people who appear mentally ill. Therefore simply pointing out that rights have a cost cannot be considered a justification for removing them unless the exerciser pays 'insurance'.

I don't recall the G9 protesters being required to insure their protest rallies. You don't think that their rampages have a societal cost?
4.18.2007 12:30pm
TomB (mail):

If only one of those individuals was involved in a fatal incident (out of mistaken zeal, anger or accident) per year, you'd have as many fatalities as have occurred in the two incidents whose effects you are trying to diminish.


That's an awfully big assumption there, and merely an exercise in speculation. Your argument is exactly the same as opponents of concealed carry the past decade. They all predicted carnage as fender-benders turn into gunfights. Yet that didn't happen.

All of the people who would have been carrying that day already carry, without incident. What is it on a college campus that would cause them to act different?
4.18.2007 12:32pm
therut:
uh clem--------I do not agree with your assumption. Who says firearm ownership is a negative societal cost? Where is your PROOF that it is a negative? I would disagree with you. I could just as easily say the places that disarm citizens are a negative societal harm. As a matter of fact, I think they are. I think the one who should pay the cost(I really do not think anyone should but using your logic)are those who demand I be disarmed. I actually have a lawyer already set to file a lawsuit if I should ever be harmed or killed because of a "gun free zone" law.
4.18.2007 12:33pm
Ryan Waxx (mail):
c. l. ball: If what you say is true, or even remotely honest, then those enlightened countries who pass such laws should see murder rates drop through the floor when within a year or 2 of passing the bans.

...Right?
4.18.2007 12:36pm
whit:
part of the problem with people accepting concealed carry is that they do not SEE (obviously... it's concealed) the # of people routinely carrying concealed without incident.

i've carried for 20 years, and nobody would know i carry, except for the one time that i had to use it an off-duty capacity.

people who live in cities like seattle (very very anti-gun) would be TERRIFIED to have a lot of gun totin' people around them, but that is exactly what there is. lots of people carrying guns concealed.

if people really knew how many people were routinely carrying guns w/o incident, it would not be as scary to them
4.18.2007 12:37pm
Kazinski:
I'll tell you which laws could have at least reduced the death toll, and make it much less likely that such mass shootings would be successful:


Mandatory National Guard or Reserve service for 18-19 year olds in this country.

No gun-free zone exemptions to "right to carry" laws.


I think it would be much less likely that classrooms of young adults that have had military training would react so passively to a lone shooter. And if one or two of them were packing so much the better.
4.18.2007 12:42pm
Porkchop:
In case anyone finds it of interest in this discussion, I understand from a parent of a former Virginia Tech student that VT students are not all babes in the woods in respect of firearms knowledge and possession. The campus police department rents firearms lockers to students for storage of hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. (This is southwest Virginia, after all.) It appears that any student could have checked out his own long gun (or handgun if 21 or older, I suppose -- I don't know for a fact that there are also handgun storage facilities,though) and done the same thing as Cho. Presumably, Cho could have rented a locker from the police department for his handguns if he had wanted to and stored them there until he was ready to proceed.
4.18.2007 12:42pm
Ryan Waxx (mail):
I actually have a lawyer already set to file a lawsuit if I should ever be harmed or killed because of a "gun free zone" law.


More, please. Bans have consequences, too.
4.18.2007 12:45pm
Mark Jones (mail):
Uh Clem said: "and yes it may well have driven the purchase underground - either to a gun show (where rules about background checks and paperwork are routinely flouted) or to the illegal black market. "

Which is a load of BS. Licensed dealers at gun shows are required to go through all the same checks and procedures they follow in the normal course of business. And if they were inclined not to do so, trying to circumvent the law in front of hundreds or thousands of people (including lots of cops at every gun _I've_ ever attended) would be bone stupid.

PRIVATE transactions between two ordinary citizens are a different matter--and that's the case whether they're at a gun show or sitting at someone's kitchen table. And it always has been different. The "gun show loophole" being so casually implied here is a lie.
4.18.2007 12:59pm
john w. (mail):
To answer Eugene's original question, there is *NO* conceivable law that can prevent a determined psychopath from carrying out a mass murder.

But one policy change that would significantly reduce the risk of this type of crime would be to do away with the asinine concept of "gun free" zones. The people who commit these atrocities may be crazy but they aren't stupid; they understand perfectly that if you want to kill the greatest number of people with the least effort, you ought to go after dis-armed victims.

The University administrators &politicians who disarmed these students/faculty/employees and then failed to protect them have blood on their hands, as do the editors of the New York Times.
4.18.2007 1:00pm
K Parker (mail):
uh clem, regarding this:
a gun show (where rules about background checks and paperwork are routinely flouted)
So do you have actual knowledge or evidence of specific cases where this occurred? Beause I'm quite sure the BATF would like to know about it--like all law and tax enforcement agencies, they do investigate things after-the-fact.

Mike Rosenberg,
The number of armed civilians on each of the campuses all the time just waiting for an event that occurs rarely is more likely to create problems than solve them.
May I emphasize that saying "is more likely to" is just a less fancy way of saying "here's my unfounded conjecture"? Instead of just hypothesizing, why not compare the number of accidental, spur-of-the-moment, and misidentified-target shootings in Washington State (which has a shall-issue permit system with absolutely no training requirement) to one of your gun-control paradises like New Jersey. (Hint: we come of looking pretty good.) I think that comparison is a valid proxy for what would happen if students at VTI were allowed to concealed-carry. Remember, it's only students who are 21 and have passed the permit process that would qualify (which is why I think my state comparison is meaningful.)

c. l. ball, what's more to the point than olivier's cherry-picked stats is this: there is not a simple correspondence between gun availability and either homicide or suicide rates in industrialized countries; the rates are all over the map.

Dr. Scott, before the present festivities in the Middle East dried up the supply, one could argue that gun-owners did enjoy a bit of a subsidy in the form of cheap surplus ammo.
4.18.2007 1:01pm
whit:
as a WA state resident, i heartily agree.

btw, as a (former) graduate student, i was prohibited by college policy (not law) from carrying on school grounds here.

i carried my handgun concealed anyway. i was willing to accept expulsion/suspension (although i would have challenged it in court) vs. be forced to give up my right to self-defense.
4.18.2007 1:07pm
uh clem (mail):
That's not 'shared costs'. That's explicitly trying to limit people who can exercise the right by legislatively jacking up the price.

Who said anything about the legislature setting the price?

My (ahem) modest proposal is to require liability insurance on weapons - it would be up to the actuaries to determine what this would cost. If guns are as benign as some say they are (i.e. the vast majority of firearms are never used to shoot anyone) then this insurance should be cheap. If posession of a gun on the premises actualy decreases the burglary chances it should result in a reduction of your homeowners premium, just like smoke detectors. I doubt that this is the case, but who am I to tell the actuaries how to crunch the numbers.

The $500 figure that I pulled out of my posterior is sheer speculation, and I thought I flagged it as such. If that figure prevailed it might have stopped Cho. "Or not - speculation is just that."

If I wanted to price it out of reach, I would simply propose a $100,000 annual license fee per firearm and leave it at that. That's not what I'm saying. Neither is anybody else that I've heard.
4.18.2007 1:08pm
whit:
what you are saying, in essense, is that there should be a fee for exercising your constitutional right, and this would necessarily discriminate against those with less money, from exercising that right.
4.18.2007 1:12pm
K Parker (mail):
Mike,
Note also that the "civilian" has to be able to identify the appropriate target
So noted. Unfortunately for your point, Law Enforcement has a worse record at shooting the wrong person than do permit holders.
4.18.2007 1:14pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
The answer is easy: stronger controls over immigration. Make the person who wants permanent residency jump through the hoops being proposed for gun purchasers. Pass a federal law similar to the law just passed in Okalahoma (awaiting the governors signature) on illegal aliens. Most illegal aliens come from Mexico which itself has almost triple the murder rate of the US. Many Mexican illegals know how to obtain counterfeit identification and tap into a criminal support network to get guns.

I don’t think this is answer is the one that the New York Times wants. But speaking of the Times, how about making the Times carry a warning label on the front page in big block letters that reading this paper could be detrimental to a person’s intellectual health. From the famous KC Johnson blog Durham in Wonderland:


Among all publications, the New York Times stood out for its faulty coverage of the case. From the outrageous writings of sports columnists Selena (“lily-white”) Roberts and Harvey Araton to the transparently pro-Nifong slant of Duff Wilson, the paper of record went out of its way to keep the hoax alive.
4.18.2007 1:19pm
Riskable (mail) (www):
Rather than attacking the means that enabled his killing spree (guns) it would be much more pertinent to attack the cause. Everyone and their mother has their philosophies regarding appropriate arms control but even if we banned guns outright homicidal maniacs would simply use other methods.

I'm much more interested in the subtle details surrounding this case...

1) The killer was on medication to treat his mental ills.
2) The pharmacy on campus is not open on weekends.
3) The killer's rampage happened on a Monday.

I'd be interested in knowing if he was out of medication and was forced to wait until Monday to get it. VT could do well in manning that pharmacy 7-days a week. It might be the "quick fix" that everyone seems to be looking for.

-Riskable
http://riskable.com
"Women don't want to hear that they're pretty. They want to hear that their air is alluring and that they're clever with complementary configurations."
4.18.2007 1:20pm
uh clem (mail):
what you are saying, in essense, is that there should be a fee for exercising your constitutional right

Well, yes. I'm not some kind of welfare ideologue that thinks the government should provide firearms and ammunition to the populace free of charge. Of course it costs money to buy and maintain a firearm and that cost should be borne by the individual. Do you feel differently?

The insurance idea merely completes the "total cost of ownership" equation.
4.18.2007 1:22pm
Ryan Waxx (mail):
How on earth do you reconcile:

Who said anything about the legislature setting the price?


With:

if it was $500 a weapon the shooter would be looking at an additional G to obtain his two pistols and that might have been enough to put the brakes on things.


?

Your explicitly stated goal was to stop the shooting by making the purchaser unable to buy the weapon. That is a repugnant argument to anyone who cares anything at all about rights. Do not now pretend that the increased cost is merely a fortunate side-effect of insuring it.

You ARE advocating the legislature set the price, with insurance companies as the proxy. Do you think that if the government subcontracted out searches and seizures it would suddenly become legal?
4.18.2007 1:23pm
whit:
yes, the cost should be borne by the individual. he must purchase, or manufacture his own firearm

just as the government should not be required to provide everybody pens and internet connections so they can exercise their first amendment rights
4.18.2007 1:26pm
Ryan Waxx (mail):
And just as people who vote should pay for that right, eh?

Please try to stay consistent - I know its hard...
4.18.2007 1:30pm
uh clem (mail):
Licensed dealers at gun shows are required to go through all the same checks and procedures they follow in the normal course of business....
PRIVATE transactions between two ordinary citizens are a different matter--and that's the case whether they're at a gun show or sitting at someone's kitchen table.


This is correct. What you fail to mention is that about 40% of gun sales are between "ordinary citizens" rather than licensed dealers. (cite) This is a loophole in the background check rules large enough to drive a truck full of fertilizer and fuel oil through.

I'm not sure what percentage of sales at gun shows are via non-licensed vs. licensed dealers. Do you have a figure?

The point is that it's very easy to legally obtain a gun without a background check.
4.18.2007 1:33pm
olivier (mail):
"Here's a creative thought: maybe, since we know that these kinds of mass killings also occur in places like South Korea and Germany, where gun control is both stringent and onerous, and we know that gun violence has increased in the UK when guns were severely restricted, and we also know that places like Switzerland with lots of guns don't seem to have the problem, maybe, just maybe, we don't actually have any evidence that the problem is connected with guns at all?"

I'm afraid you get your facts wrong. In the 25 past years, 18 mass shootings occurred in the US (including 5 in US schools since 1998) against 1 in Germany (in a school in 2002), and 1 in Korea (1982). Switzerland, which you wrongly believe is immune of this kind of tragedies, saw a mass-shooting in 2001, which left 11 people dead in the parliament of Zug.
I hope you get the connection.
4.18.2007 1:37pm
Ryan Waxx (mail):
What *YOU* fail to mention is that this is NOT a gun show loophole... citizens can sell to each other weather they are at a gun show, or placing a classified ad, or selling to a neighbor.
4.18.2007 1:39pm
TomB (mail):

I hope you get the connection.


Yes. There is no connection between gun ownership and mass shootings.
4.18.2007 1:40pm
uh clem (mail):
Your explicitly stated goal was to stop the shooting by making the purchaser unable to buy the weapon.

No. My explicitly stated goal was to answer Eugene's question: What stronger controls over weapons would likely have stopped him from committing the murders?
4.18.2007 1:41pm
Ryan Waxx (mail):
And I'm afraid YOU have your facts wrong, olivier. Germany is WHAT percentage the size of America? That's flunking the basic honesty test.
4.18.2007 1:41pm
Ryan Waxx (mail):
No. My explicitly stated goal was to answer Eugene's question: What stronger controls over weapons would likely have stopped him from committing the murders?


Exactly. And you suggested that if the weapon was more expensive, that might have prevented the murder.

How many times do I have to quote your own words right back to you? You can't spin your way out of this, because you are already on the record.
4.18.2007 1:43pm
Mike Rosenberg (mail) (www):
TomB (4.18.2007 11:32am):

Nah, it's not a big assumption at all.

I'm sure there are some folks who claimed that "blood would be running the streets" -- just as there are some who see CCW as the end-all and be-all to solving our "crime problem". Both are wrong. As Gary Kleck (no gun grabber he) noted in response to John Lott's "study", in all probablity CCW didn't reduce crime -- because studies showed that there was no significant increase in the number of "law abiding" people carrying after obtaining a license than there were before. Besides, one a year is hardly blood running in the streets -- any more than 32 such deaths

As for rage shootings, we see it many times a year (and yes, there are millions of guns available in the general population, bot merely tens of thousands) -- primarily in domestic disputes, but also in escalating brawls. And we see incidents of students at Halloween and real estate appraisers being killed in cases of mistaken interpretation of their intent. These single shootings don't get a helluva lot of attention by the general population -- they're one day stories and local ones at that (unless a wife shoots her preacher-husband). But there are 1000's of such incidents each year (1500 resulting from accidents alone). Even Bob Barr and Dick Cheney and FBI agents in New Jersey and police in NYC and members of the military forget the basic rules of gun safety and target acquisition sometimes. You expect RA's and those ivory tower elitists to do better when they are a potentially lethal situation?
4.18.2007 1:43pm
Gekkobear (mail):
But at least some posters here understand that a gun ban would work.

It isn't like you could google "zipgun" and go to www.thehomegunsmith.com and get instructions on what you need from home depot to make your own gun and/.or ammunition with easy to follow instructions and pdf documentation.

This will really work, we can just get the genie back in the bottle. And for our next trick, we'll unscramble eggs.

Hmm, it looks like a repeal of the 2nd amendment would require a repeal of the first amendment so you can stop any distribution of the means to make guns, ammunition, etc.

We may have to burn certain books in libraries that have this sort of information, purge parts of the internet, etc. then the final step. But book burning, censorship, and severe restrictions on speech is a crucial step for removing all guns from society. Which will surely be a net good.

I'll take my stay in an uneducation-camp for unlearning illegal knowledge properly, and then the gun ban can really go well. I mean, losing knowledge that should only be possessed by the Government (who we all love and trust) isn't a great hardship.

Big Brother is my friend.
4.18.2007 1:46pm
Ryan Waxx (mail):
Rosenburg: You make much of the single-person shootings, but you've just shot the pro-restrictions argument through the heart, so to speak.

Those kinds of murders can be done as easily with a knife or other weapon... and a ban, or registration, etc would have absolutely no effect on that.
4.18.2007 1:50pm
uh clem (mail):
What *YOU* fail to mention is that this is NOT a gun show loophole...

Ok. So we agree that there is a loophole in background checks. We seem to disagree about the extent to which this loophole is exercised at gun shows vs. other venues.

Do you have a figure about what percentage of gun show sales are through licensed dealers? Does it really matter?
4.18.2007 1:50pm
Noops (mail):
And I'm afraid YOU have your facts wrong, olivier. Germany is WHAT percentage the size of America? That's flunking the basic honesty test.


Not to mention the fact that Germany had one fairly large incidence of government related mass killings (this statement is not intended to be imflamatory or offensive, just illustrative), which is exactly the type of tyranny our Second Amendment was, in part, designed to help prevent.
4.18.2007 1:52pm
dwlawson (mail) (www):

If the initial reports are true, the assasin purchased two weapons, a 9mm Glock and .22 Walther, 30 days apart. While the 30 day waiting period may hinder the straw purchases of firearms, it has absolutely no effect on hindering genocide.


No doubt this was a tragedy...but genocide? Please. This in no way compares to, say, the Holocaust.

Though it is very saddening for me to note the murder of a Holocaust survivor by this punk. I was inspired by his heroism in saving the lives of his students.
4.18.2007 1:52pm
dwlawson (mail) (www):

Well, I certainly don't want to ban pickups. But I am a strong supporter of the idea that pickups be licensed and insured, and that pickup truck drivers have a drivers license and have gone through some form of driver training and testing.


I believe I can buy a pickup for use on my private property and not have it registered in any way nor would I need a driver's license to operate the pickup on my private property.

But as a resident of Chicago, I can't own or operate a handgun on my private property.

Also, I don't recall the Right to Keep and Operate Pickups mentioned in the Bill of Rights. (being sarcastic, I suppose the 9th covers it).
4.18.2007 1:57pm
Noops (mail):

I was inspired by his heroism in saving the lives of his students.


I also was incredibly inspired and touched by Liviu Librescu's actions. It deeply bothers me that someone like this should survive something so terrible, to be gunned down later in such a heinous way.
4.18.2007 1:57pm
dwlawson (mail) (www):

Maybe you should have a look at gun laws in industrialized countries where the firearm homicide rate per 100,000 people and the % of homicides by firearm is lowest than in the US... it should not be very difficult: they all do better than the US in that department.


I don't want to be a European. My ancestors didn't found this country to be Europeans.
4.18.2007 2:01pm
abb3w:
Let me slightly agree with Kazinski. I don't think his particular suggestions are the best approach, but the direction is correct. You want to reduce the number of such incidents and the number of deaths resulting?

Teach our citizens to stop cowering in fear!
4.18.2007 2:04pm
Mike Rosenberg (mail) (www):
K Parker (4.18.2007 12:14pm)


Note also that the "civilian" has to be able to identify the appropriate target


So noted. Unfortunately for your point, Law Enforcement has a worse record at shooting the wrong person than do permit holders.


On one hand, I noted earlier in one of my posts that was a problem (reference to the NYPD and military).

On the other, I'm not at all sure it's true that they have a worse record -- nor am I sure how to tell, since there is little or no way to determine the denominator in the ratios -- for either group.

On the third hand, (what can I say? This one takes three hands) remember that the police are (supposedly) trained to select targets under stress. If their record is poor, how good can the record be for those who lack at least equivalent training? Long ago, I enjoyed plinking. Got pretty good on the standard NRA bulls-eye taregts with a bolt action .22. But I wasn't shooting at anything that might be shooting back. Later, I did military service (2 years -- there was a draft back then) and we trained against guys in black pjs (that'll give you some idea how long ago, if the draft comment didn't). Amazing how fast I could empty a clip -- even with the rifle set on semi, at a sound that signified nothing. I did my service in Germany and, on occasion, we'd have guard duty at an ammo dump in the German woods. One night we heard six shots (we had six rounds in our clips. I have no idea why six, but that was what we had). This time, someone (not I) had fired live rounds at a sound. Investigation the next day showed hoof marks at the fence -- and no blood (or wild pig carcass).

Sometimes, under stress, we forget our training -- if we've ever had it -- and the idea that someone may shoot back can be stress inducing for the military and the police. Imagine how stress inducing it can be for a "civilian".
4.18.2007 2:07pm
dwlawson (mail) (www):

you. I could just as easily say the places that disarm citizens are a negative societal harm. As a matter of fact, I think they are. I think the one who should pay the cost(I


It appears that 32 people paid the ultimate cost for this disarmament.
4.18.2007 2:09pm
Christopher Cooke (mail):
Here is a point that no one has mentioned. I am not sure that gun ownership or gun control laws are as good a predictor as to whether these types of killings will occur as the rate of violent crime. Societies that are more violent and lawless have more killings, and the US has more of these crimes than most of Europe because we live in a more violent and lawless society than Western Europe. The pinnacle of a lawless and violent society is Iraq, which has all kinds of killings (many not gun-related) but we do not have stray so far for examples, look at the crime rates in Columbia or Brazil.

I see no good solution for the Virginia Tech tragedy. The main lesson I draw is that maybe we should keep guns out of the hands of the seriously mentally ill and violently inclined who live among us. But, I don't know how we can screen such people predictably. The comment about better immigration screening seems unfounded, at least in this circumstance. The killer came to the US 15 years ago, as n 8 year old boy. His parents by all accounts are model immigrants whom any country would be glad to have. So, I doubt any heightened screening of resident aliens would have caught the killer.
4.18.2007 2:09pm
TomB (mail):

I'm sure there are some folks who claimed that "blood would be running the streets" -- just as there are some who see CCW as the end-all and be-all to solving our "crime problem". Both are wrong. As Gary Kleck (no gun grabber he) noted in response to John Lott's "study", in all probablity CCW didn't reduce crime -- because studies showed that there was no significant increase in the number of "law abiding" people carrying after obtaining a license than there were before. Besides, one a year is hardly blood running in the streets -- any more than 32 such deaths


I never said anything about reducing crime, so almost your entire post is a strawman. I'm pointing out that your fear of armed people on campus is completly unfounded because these people are already armed and we see that concealed carriers are almost never involved in crime.

You can fear law-abiding citizens with guns, I'll fear the criminal with one.
4.18.2007 2:22pm
Noops (mail):

On the other, I'm not at all sure it's true that they have a worse record -- nor am I sure how to tell, since there is little or no way to determine the denominator in the ratios -- for either group.


The only related statistic that I could find is in the 1989 edition of the Journal of Quantitative Criminology which has study showing:

Likelihood of an innocent bystander being shot in a police involved shooting: 11%
Likelihood of an innocent bystander being shot in a civilian involved shooting: 2%

I don't have better info for std dev. and it's almost 20 years old. Some training doctrine has changed.
4.18.2007 2:27pm
whit:
fwiw, the reference about NYPD is kinda silly

NYPD has over 35k officers

making literally tens of thousands of felony arrest, suspicious contacts etc. in short period of time

a VERY VERY small # of those are "bad shoots". statistically speaking, they have a very low officer involved shooting rate, and a very low "bad shoot rate " as well

when you are making scores of thousands of felony arrests a year, and hundreds of thousands of contacts etc. per year, you need to keep those #'s in mind before stating that NYPD has any tendency to shoot the wrong person.
4.18.2007 2:30pm
uh clem (mail):
...places that disarm citizens are a negative societal harm.


Have you communicated this to your elected representatives? Did you mention airport security and the TSA when you did?
4.18.2007 2:32pm
Closet Libertarian (www):
Two NYT's policies might prevent future similar incidents (both with costs that outwiegh the benefits):

1. Metal detectors at all campus entrances. Extremely expensive and intrusive but could make such an incidence less likely on campus.

2. DC style bans on guns and ammunition in all of US. Would take years to have any effect at all and then incomplete. Also, would severely curtail all the positive uses of guns.

As to a policy I would actually support:

3. Arming teachers or students. Maybe extra requirements beyond concealed carry.
4.18.2007 2:35pm
Mike Rosenberg (mail) (www):
K Parker (4.18.2007 12:01pm):


May I emphasize that saying "is more likely to" is just a less fancy way of saying "here's my unfounded conjecture"? Instead of just hypothesizing, why not compare the number of accidental, spur-of-the-moment, and misidentified-target shootings in Washington State (which has a shall-issue permit system with absolutely no training requirement) to one of your gun-control paradises like New Jersey. (Hint: we come of looking pretty good.) I think that comparison is a valid proxy for what would happen if students at VTI were allowed to concealed-carry. Remember, it's only students who are 21 and have passed the permit process that would qualify (which is why I think my state comparison is meaningful.)



Actually (and surprising to me), in 2002, New Jersey had 3.2 firearm deaths per 100,000 and Washington (State) had 9.2 -- almost three times as many. That's from *all* causes (and NJ has the Sopranos, Washington State does not) and sourced at statehealthfacts.org.

I tried for a better (and more striated) source, but CDC's WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, 1999 - 2004 is down at the moment.
4.18.2007 2:38pm
Noops (mail):
On the third hand, (what can I say? This one takes three hands) remember that the police are (supposedly) trained to select targets under stress. If their record is poor, how good can the record be for those who lack at least equivalent training?


You're assumption that police have proper training, and therefore civilians who don't might be worse is a poor one. There are a host of ancillaries that don't allow for conclusions here:

Cops often DO NOT get the training they really need for high stress scenarios. You would be shocked how easy the DPSS qualification in Oregon is. On top of that, even the ones who do, don't often continue to do so. Shooting, especially in high stress environments, is a perishable skill (it's also related to physiology and fitness vis-a-vis stress reactions). Many police only do the minimum to qualify on an annual basis. Many police see shooting/weapons handling/tactical training and doctrine the same way they see paperwork, a necessarily evil part of their jobs.

On top of that, to get this type of training, they often have to pay out of their own pockets to attend small-arms and tactical academies (ditto for ammunition), and police aren't exactly the highest paid bunch around.

I have done considerable formal training (which I've had to pay for). I do it every year, and practice a lot. I did find personally that I reacted worse in force-on-force training scenarios when I was unfit because my physiological responses (blood pressure etc) were exaggerated. I've talked to many others who've had the same experience. I admit, anecdotal though. So I now workout every day. Some police stay fit, some don't.

I've trained alongside military, local police, and federal agents in formal environments and passed the Oregon DPSS course under much tougher conditions than actual police are required to do. At least on an anecdotal level, I can say that you're assumptions are incorrect about police training.

That doesn't mean they're entirely incorrect. There are plenty of agencies that give good training, and plenty of agents and officers that do get it on there own. There are also loads of civilians in these courses (usually the majority in my experience). Maybe because it's a hobby and interest to many civilians, they shoot, practice, and train more than police who see it as necessary part of their jobs. Maybe not. This is all anecdotal, but I think some of your base assumptions are incorrect.
4.18.2007 2:40pm
Jim Hankins (mail):
Two other mass killers of note:
Hector Escudero 96 victims
Julio Gonzales 87 victims

Guns weren't used, so these folks aren't much remembered.
4.18.2007 2:40pm
whit:
noops, what u say is in accord with my many years as a firearms instructor - for mostly cops, but some civilians too.

cops are, on the whole, pretty mediocre shots

citizens are, ime, about the same, or maybe even a little better (those that bother to get CCW's)
4.18.2007 2:43pm
Mike Rosenberg (mail) (www):
Ryan Waxx (4.18.2007 12:50pm):

You make much of the single-person shootings, but you've just shot the pro-restrictions argument through the heart, so to speak.

Those kinds of murders can be done as easily with a knife or other weapon... and a ban, or registration, etc would have absolutely no effect on that.



I'm not making a "big deal" of "single person shootings". If anything, I'm suggesting that mass shootings proportionately attract more attention than single person shootings. If April 16 was a "normal" day -- more folks died from single person shootings (deliberate and accidental) than died at VT. How many incidents can you cite?

On knife attacks, they tend to result in lower mortality rates than gun attacks (Frank Zimring, analyzing the nature of wounds from both and concluded it wasn't a matter of degree of intent to kill).

Finally I haven't argued "pro-restriction" at all -- in fact, I've noted I have no solution and, in fact, I think there is none (that has to do with guns, anyway).
4.18.2007 3:00pm
Sebastian (mail) (www):
You guys can carry on an academic debate about aggregate benefits, drawbacks of civilian possession of guns all you want. But I do know something very important to me:

No mass shooter is going to pull something like this off within earshot of me without having to deal with substantial return fire.


At that point, if he doesn't wish to become quickly dead or incapacitated, he will have to concentrate all his attention on me, at which point he needs to be either a) lucky or b) a much better shot than me. I wouldn't bet on b, and even if he's a, he's most likely going to take a few hits himself.

Call it machismo, insane thinking, or whatever you want. But I don't think anyone has a right to remove the choice from someone, to not go gentle into that good night. To me this has always been about letting people choose how they provide for their own personal security, and this recent incident is just a tragic example of how the system can fail to protect those it often demands rely on it. No thanks.
4.18.2007 3:13pm
Mike Rosenberg (mail) (www):
Noops (4.18.2007 1:40pm):


You're assumption that police have proper training, and therefore civilians who don't might be worse is a poor one. There are a host of ancillaries that don't allow for conclusions here:


Fair enough (including unquoted portion of your post) -- which is why I said "(supposedly)".

That there tend to more "civilians" in the programs than LEO's isn't surprising -- there are more civilians with guns than there are LEO's. But what bothers me most is the requirement for CCWs in states that have more stringent requirements (defined as the ability to prove one can usually hit what one aims at on a target range) do not require testing under stress -- presumably the only time such individuals would be called on to use their skills legally. That many LEO's have inadequate training is not a positive reason to expand the number of situations where civilians without the training may be called on to take action.

Please note that I'm ambivalent on CCWs in general. The best data tends to show they have no noticeable effect on crime either way (i.e., what effect they have is, at most, insignificant compared to other factors). I suspect this is because, as Gary Kleck, notes, the arrival of CCW permitting hasn't changed the frequency with which individuals carry -- only the legality for those who carry, regardless.
4.18.2007 3:25pm
logicnazi (mail) (www):
To be clear I was NOT suggesting that the restrictions I mentioned be made policy. As I said in my post it seems silly to retroactively legislate to stop this incident. However, it is not correct to dismiss someone's claim that this incident should have been stopped. Probably it could have been but this doesn't mean it would be good policy to enact such a law.
4.18.2007 3:27pm
logicnazi (mail) (www):
Eugene,

The reason my suggestions (if you want replace handgun by any sort of gun) aren't very compelling is because I just think it's silly to make gun policy in relation to this sort of action.

In particular one should really be worried about the general run of the mill gun crime one sees. This sort of gun crime wouldn't be touched by laws about psychological screening or the like. I was just throwing out answers to your question because you seemed to be skeptical there could be any law that would have prevented this situation.
4.18.2007 3:31pm
Mike Rosenberg (mail) (www):
Sebastian (4.18.2007 2:13pm):
No mass shooter is going to pull something like this off within earshot of me without having to deal with substantial return fire.


IMO, statements like that don't help the cause. "Substantial return fire" is the sign of a wild shooter. If you can't hit your target with a well placed shot, "Substantial return fire" is more likely to add to the casualty count than reduce it.

Not that it doesn't happen, even by police. NYPD has at least two incidents where officers provided "substantial return fire" -- even without being fired upon (both victims were unarmed).

But we don't need more folks blasting away. Suppose another "you" arrives as you are returning "substantial fire". At whom is that person going to fire? If he has no visible identification and is pointing a gun at you, how do you know not to fire at him, as well?
4.18.2007 3:39pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
It is now coming out that Cho was not only referred to campus police for his increasingly bizarre (including stalking) and suicidal behavior but even agreed to a short-term voluntary commitment at a mental health facility at the request of the police. When the three day waiting period for handguns was dropped the gun lobby ensured us that the instant background checks were entirely adequate. This case shows that that promise was completely fraudulent. At the very least we should institute more extensive background checks for gun purchases so suicidal and deeply disturbed individuals cannot walk into a gun store and walk out with a deadly concealable weapon half an hour later.
4.18.2007 3:40pm
Jeek:
His parents by all accounts are model immigrants whom any country would be glad to have.

Model immigrants, except for the whole "they raised a homicidal psychopath" thing...
4.18.2007 3:43pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
IMO, statements like that don't help the cause.

I wasn't going to respond to Sebastian because I knew if I did I would just be accused of being another pansy assed cowardly liberal. But Sebastian's comment is actually one of the reasons I detest concealed carry laws. The last thing we need in a situation like this is every civilian in earshot or with a police scanner rushing to the scene trying to save the day. All it will do is add to the confusion of an already completely chaotic situation. What do you think will happen to Sebastian when the SWAT team rounds the corner and encounters Sebastian with his gun drawn?
4.18.2007 3:46pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
Model immigrants, except for the whole "they raised a homicidal psychopath" thing...

From all indications, his age, the description of his behavior, the downward spiral, there is a very good chance that he was suffering from schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is a serious disease that is every bit as real as cancer, heart disease, or diabetes. It is not his parents' fault and if he suffered from this debilitating disease, he is not even responsible for his own actions.
4.18.2007 3:51pm
Noops:

When the three day waiting period for handguns was dropped the gun lobby ensured us that the instant background checks were entirely adequate. This case shows that that promise was completely fraudulent.


I don't even remotely see how this case shows that promise's fraudulence. The police declined to file for any orders or restrictions, as did the institution.

So without the filings, this person would have waited 3 days, and gone back to get his gun. It seems like institutional failure to me that the police didn't file any information that would have been raised on an any type of background check
4.18.2007 3:58pm
WHOI Jacket:
J.F Thomas.

The POS apparently waited a little over a month between purchases. How would a 3 day period deter that?

Waiting periods basically ensure you see the lines that formed in LA during the Rodney King riots. Looters on your block? Sorry, we'll get back to you on that shotgun in two weeks.....
4.18.2007 4:03pm
jdwill (mail):
JF Thomas,

Can you provide some links or references to your post at 4.18.2007 2:40pm?
4.18.2007 4:12pm
whit:
riots?

those weren't RIOTS

those were "social justice uprisings"

:l
4.18.2007 4:17pm
Sebastian (mail) (www):
When the three day waiting period for handguns was dropped the gun lobby ensured us that the instant background checks were entirely adequate. This case shows that that promise was completely fraudulent. At the very least we should institute more extensive background checks for gun purchases so suicidal and deeply disturbed individuals cannot walk into a gun store and walk out with a deadly concealable weapon half an hour later.

He waited long enough to overcome Virginia's one gun a month. Waiting periods don't deter people intent to commit these kinds of acts.

So let me explain what is meant by "substantial return fire". You shoot until the threat has stopped. I am confident in my ability to make hits at reasonable distances, and I know what the limits of my aim are. Once you've neutralized the threat, you check for other threats, then holster the weapon. Yes, there is a risk that someone could shoot you mistaking you for another shooter. I think it's a small risk, but it's there. But in 8 or so incidents that we've been able to recall over at SayUncle, it's never happened.

The problem I have with most of you who fear armed citizens is that you assume police officers are immune from the same problems. They are not. If you trust police officers to walk around armed you should trust license holders too.
4.18.2007 4:18pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
J.F. Thomas writes:

All it will do is add to the confusion of an already completely chaotic situation. What do you think will happen to Sebastian when the SWAT team rounds the corner and encounters Sebastian with his gun drawn?
What are the chances that SWAT is going to enter the building just as Sebastian draws his gun? It could happen, but relative to the far higher risk that the shooter kills Sebastian and a dozen others, that's an acceptable risk.
4.18.2007 4:20pm
Jordan (mail):
What do you think will happen to Sebastian when the SWAT team rounds the corner and encounters Sebastian with his gun drawn?


As usual, the anti-gunners can come up with nothing but "what-ifs." What if even a couple of students had been armed? At the very least this scumbag would have been distracted, enabling others to escape. At best, he'd have been killed early on. Throw in a couple of accidental police shootings of good samaritans and the body count is still significantly lower. Not to mention that said good samaritans will be able to receive immediate medical treatment, unlike the corpses over which the gunman stands.
4.18.2007 4:21pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
J.F. Thomas writes:

It is now coming out that Cho was not only referred to campus police for his increasingly bizarre (including stalking) and suicidal behavior but even agreed to a short-term voluntary commitment at a mental health facility at the request of the police. When the three day waiting period for handguns was dropped the gun lobby ensured us that the instant background checks were entirely adequate. This case shows that that promise was completely fraudulent. At the very least we should institute more extensive background checks for gun purchases so suicidal and deeply disturbed individuals cannot walk into a gun store and walk out with a deadly concealable weapon half an hour later.
The waiting period (five days, not three) was never because it provided more extensive background checks. The waiting period went away because DOJ computerized their background check--and even today, a small number of people don't get an instant background check, because a more detailed check is required.

The real problem was that NICS didn't get any information about Cho's hospitalization. That's the real issue, not the length of the waiting period.
4.18.2007 4:23pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):


His parents by all accounts are model immigrants whom any country would be glad to have.



Model immigrants, except for the whole "they raised a homicidal psychopath" thing...
A forensic psychiatrist is saying that Cho was schizophrenic--which fits the accounts perfectly. (My older brother is schizophrenic.) Schizophrenia is genetic, not an upbringing problem.
4.18.2007 4:24pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
J.F. Thomas writes:

The last thing we need in a situation like this is every civilian in earshot or with a police scanner rushing to the scene trying to save the day.
And what in the world makes you think that this would be the case? The goal is to allow victims to defend themselves and others. I don't know about others, but most people who have carried a gun are not at all interested in going looking for trouble--quite the opposite.

Bad news for J.F. Thomas: Death Wish was not a documentary.
4.18.2007 4:27pm
Tom Holsinger (mail):
Sebastian,

It would be interesting to find a relatively dispassionate study of gun-related crimes by holders of concealed carry weapons permits. The statistic I'd most like to see is a comparison of the rates of crimes committed with concealable weapons (i.e., handguns), committed outside the home (to exclude domestic incidents) by holders of concealed carry permit holders relative to those without such permits.

I suspect that even the minimal screening and training of concealed carry permit holders produces a group far, far, less likely to commit crimes with handguns than a group composed of those without such permits.

But such a study would pose such a serious threat to gun control proponents that I suspect they'd try to prevent it from being performed, and bury and/or discredit it after publication.
4.18.2007 4:28pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Mike Rosenberg writes:

IMO, statements like that don't help the cause. "Substantial return fire" is the sign of a wild shooter. If you can't hit your target with a well placed shot, "Substantial return fire" is more likely to add to the casualty count than reduce it.
You might want to actually get some training, so that you don't make silly statements like this. My training was at the Sonoma County Sheriff's training facility. My instructor was the department's firearms instructor, a deputy sheriff. We were taught to make careful, aimed fire (typically one to two shots per second) until the bad guy fell to the ground or dropped his weapon. Reload if necessary and continue firing.

The fact is that handgun calibers vary in effectiveness quite dramatically, and there is enormous variation in how rapidly gunshots will disable. Some people get put to the ground by a single .22 bullet; others are still trying to kill after 10 or more 9mm bullets. Being drunk or intoxicated can often aggravate this problem.
4.18.2007 4:33pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Tom Holsinger writes:

It would be interesting to find a relatively dispassionate study of gun-related crimes by holders of concealed carry weapons permits. The statistic I'd most like to see is a comparison of the rates of crimes committed with concealable weapons (i.e., handguns), committed outside the home (to exclude domestic incidents) by holders of concealed carry permit holders relative to those without such permits.

I suspect that even the minimal screening and training of concealed carry permit holders produces a group far, far, less likely to commit crimes with handguns than a group composed of those without such permits.
Many of the states that adopted shall issue laws after 1990 had mandatory reporting requirements for permits revoked because of crimes or mental health problems. I can't immediately point you to any of these reports, but I've read them over the years; the number is trivial, and most of those whose permits were revoked were for non-violent offenses, such as drunk driving, drug possession, or the like. Even those convicted of violent crimes seldom committed them with guns.
4.18.2007 4:36pm
Tom Holsinger (mail):
Mr. Cramer,

Then that is the angle to use in attacking "gun-free" zones - concealed carry permit holders are not a threat to anyone but criminals, period.
4.18.2007 4:40pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Texas has 258,162 active carry permits as of 12/31/2006. During Fiscal Year 2006, 180 permits had been revoked--or .06%. I can't find a breakdown on reasons for revocation.
4.18.2007 4:46pm
radix023:
I have a suggestion for a change that might work. It's not a law though. In order to be effective, it would have to be an Amendment to the US Constitution.

Any organization that bans the carrying of firearms in their facilities may be sued for uncapped damaged in civil court should any violent crimes be committed in said facilities.

In short, if you ban people from protecting themselves, you must provide protection or open yourself to liability. It would have to be an Amendment otherwise the various government agencies would simply exempt themselves.
4.18.2007 4:46pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Tom Holsinger writes:

Mr. Cramer,

Then that is the angle to use in attacking "gun-free" zones - concealed carry permit holders are not a threat to anyone but criminals, period.
Definitely, but that's not why gun control advocates push for gun-free zones. It is about moral superiority over the barbarians who are prepared to use guns to defend themselves.

Violence Policy Center tried for a long time to claim that the reason so few carry permit holders were getting revoked in Texas was because they were so good at committing serious crimes without being caught. No, seriously, they claimed that permit holders were committing murders, but just not getting caught. It didn't occur to them that maybe you can make a pretty good prediction of someone's likelihood of committing murder based on previous behavior.
4.18.2007 4:49pm
Toby:

Have you communicated this to your elected representatives? Did you mention airport security and the TSA when you did?

I still believe the Manadatory Bowie knofe would be more effective. Have passengers select them from bins when getting on the plans - and drop them off on the other end. Frequent Flyers could get ivory handled ones....

Hijackers would have trouble making their risk/success calculations...
4.18.2007 4:49pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

In short, if you ban people from protecting themselves, you must provide protection or open yourself to liability. It would have to be an Amendment otherwise the various government agencies would simply exempt themselves.
In Oregon, I am allowed to carry into any courthouse, unless they provide metal detectors and storage for my gun at all entrances. In short, if a courthouse is prepared to make serious efforts to prevent weapons in, then they can require me to leave my gun outside. If they aren't serious, then they are admitting that they aren't protecting me.

If universities want to be "gun-free" then they need to be serious about this, and require metal detectors coming in.
4.18.2007 4:51pm
Tom Holsinger (mail):
Mr. Cramer,

If safety is not the objective of gun-free zones, then slam their proponents about creating free predation zones.
4.18.2007 4:56pm
Noops:

It would be interesting to find a relatively dispassionate study of gun-related crimes by holders of concealed carry weapons permits. The statistic I'd most like to see is a comparison of the rates of crimes committed with concealable weapons (i.e., handguns), committed outside the home (to exclude domestic incidents) by holders of concealed carry permit holders relative to those without such permits.


Dunno about other studies, and some of the variables you mention, but Florida Department of Justice shows a crime rate 0f 0.02% for concealed permit holders.
4.18.2007 5:00pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

Mr. Cramer,

If safety is not the objective of gun-free zones, then slam their proponents about creating free predation zones.
That's what we are doing. The Trolley Square shootings in Utah a couple of months were a gun-free zone. (The property had "no weapons allowed" signs on it.)

While most Americans who support gun control (including, in many cases, passing laws that have been on the books for decades) honestly are looking for safety. But the fanatics who lead the gun control movement aren't concerned about safety. Many of them, in unguarded moments, will admit that they consider killing in self-defense to be the equivalent of killing during a robbery--both are equally evil to them, and they want to abolish all private violence. (They don't object to government violence, of course, otherwise gun control laws would be only suggestions.)
4.18.2007 5:01pm
wooga:

Whit, what's truely ironic is what happened to the "Those who sacrifice their liberties for security deserve neither" crowd.

They don't want the government looking at their library cards no matter what, but they are perfectly fine with the government taking away their 2nd Ammendment rights, in fact, they are perfectly willing to surrender them.



WHOI,
Exactly. The same applies to the first amendment. Many people are more than willing to sacrifice free speech when the issue is 'hate speech,' because they are concerned about delicate listeners being offended and rampaging. They can't wait to sacrifice speech freedom to avoid cartoon riots.
4.18.2007 5:02pm
Tom Holsinger (mail):
Noops,

I'm interested only in gun-related crime. I suspect the holders of concealed carry permits are more likely, rather than less likely, than the general public to open cigarette packs without breaking the federal tax seal.
4.18.2007 5:02pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Florida as of March 31, 2007, has 415,006 permits issued to civilians. (One of them is mine.) There are 5700 additional permits issued to judges, retired law enforcement, and consular security officials. For the nine months ending March 31, 2007, 277 licenses have been revoked--or .067%.
4.18.2007 5:07pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

I'm interested only in gun-related crime. I suspect the holders of concealed carry permits are more likely, rather than less likely, than the general public to open cigarette packs without breaking the federal tax seal.
Do those still exist? I've never smoked, nor do most of the carry permit holders that I know. Your point is valid, however. There are a lot of disqualifying crimes for a carry permit, including federal felonies such turning back the odometer on a car.
4.18.2007 5:10pm
bkw (mail):

What do you think will happen to Sebastian when the SWAT team rounds the corner and encounters Sebastian with his gun drawn?


SWAT will yell at Sebastian to drop his weapon. Sebastian, being a law abiding citizen, complies.

The Shooter, being bat-shit insane, does not.
4.18.2007 5:10pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
If you want to see the absurdities to which the Violence Policy Center goes to attack allowing adults who have passed a background check and training class to carry a gun, see here:
Donohue also points to the now thoroughly discredited Violence Policy Center claim that in Texas, "41 permit holders were arrested for murder or attempted murder...." While admitting that some might have been falsely accused, Donohue never acknowledges that it is routine for Texas district attorneys to charge anyone engaged in a defensive shooting, and that many of these "arrests" never turn into criminal charges, because the grand jury refuses to indict. Donohue makes the claim,
During the first 5 and one-half years of the Texas RTC law, the Violence Policy Center was able to identify that 41 permit holders were arrested for murder or attempted murder (the number would be too low if the researchers didn't capture every permit holder in their count or if some permit holders committed murder and didn't get arrested, and would be too high if some were falsely accused). The Violence Policy Center, License to Kill IV (June 2002), http://www.vpc.org/studies/ltk4cont.htm. The current murder rate in the U.S. across all groups is roughly 5 per 100,000, so if one takes 150,000 as the average number of permits over the first five year period, one would expect roughly 7.5 murders per year from gun permit holders (if they killed at the same rate as the average American today), which totals 41 murders over the full period.

There are a number of misleading aspects to this statement. The VPC study claims 41 permit holders "arrested for murder or attempted murder" which Donohue then compares to "41 murders over the full period." Donohue's apples and oranges comparison is either a sign of carelessness, or dishonesty. Which does he want to cop to?

The VPC report also neglects to tell us how many of those murder and attempted murder charges involved guns. Doubtless, a majority, but what relevance would a murder committed with a knife, poison, or a blunt object have to the Texas concealed handgun license? Donohue has to know this. Where's the qualifying explanation?

Donohue acknowledges--parenthetically--that the VPC's number of murders and attempted murders "would be too high if some were falsely accused" but doesn't bother to look at the readily available evidence on this. Examining Texas statistics shows that as of May 17, 1999, there were 22 murder charges filed. Of these, 2 were convicted, and 4 were dismissed. The rest were still pending. Even making the unlikely assumption that every remaining charge would result in a conviction or guilty plea, this still means that VPC's "41" charges are going to be 33 or 34 convictions, and most likely, a good bit less than that. For the year 2001, there was one murder conviction of a licensee, and 157 convictions of non-licensees. This also suggests that the VPC's "41" charges overstates the actual number of murders and attempted murders committed by Texas licensees (unless, of course, 2001 was a very unusual year).

There are other problems with the VPC report that Donohue seems to have missed. The VPC report lists at least two murders that took place on the property of the killer (Jack Reynolds and Daniel Meehan)--where a concealed weapon permit makes no difference whatsoever.

The VPC also lists a kidnapping where no gun was involved, until the victim tried to get away from the kidnapper's home--at which point the kidnapper used a rifle. A license to carry made no difference in this case at all.

Some of the cases that the VPC points to seem to have left no tracks after the arrest. They list a Randy Phil Allen II who was arrested in 1999 for a 1988 murder (which would have been before the Texas RTC law took effect). But whatever happened? There is a Randy Phil Allen II who lives in Texas, but while he responded to my email, he refuses to answer my email inquiry if he is the same Randy Phil Allen II arrested in 1999.

1. It seems a bit hard to believe that this exact match of name is a coincidence.

2. If it is a coincidence, and he is not the guy who was arrested in 1999, why not respond with, "No, I am not the same guy."

3. If this is the same Randy Phil Allen II who was arrested in 1999, he clearly could not have been convicted, or he wouldn't be out of prison already.
4.18.2007 5:19pm
Sebastian (mail) (www):
You can rest assured that I do not spend my night listening to police scanners to go find trouble to get into. You can bet if I hear shooting and see a police SWAT team heading in the direction of the shooting, I'll decide it's best to make a hasty exit and let them deal with it; they'll have better hardware than I can carry, plus body armor.

But if I'm at the scene of a mass shooting, and I'm the only one around who can do something about it, I think I have a moral obligation to do something. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I knew I ran, and dozens of people died because it took several minutes for the police to arrive.

So do those of you who hate the idea of people carrying weapons think beating a hasty retreat is preferable to actively returning fire? Is being a victim of the attacker more noble? If it was your family in the killer's line of fire, would you prefer me to wait for the police to show up and do something? If you really would, I have to admit I can't grok at all where you're coming from.
4.18.2007 5:20pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Texas CHL convictions for 2005 are here. There are 129 convictions of CHL holders, of which one was for murder. The largest category is 27 convictions for the not very detailed "UNL CARRYING WEAPON" crime. There are 15 convictions for what sounds like domestic violence, and 13 convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child. Quite a number of the convictions do sound pretty serious, but many of them don't involve a crime of violence. Considering that there are more than 258,000 outstanding permits, this is an astonishingly responsible population.
4.18.2007 5:25pm
Tom Holsinger (mail):
Mr. Cramer,

It sounds like the people you mention are akin to the fuzzy-headed pacifist wanna-be's described here:

IMO a distinction should be drawn between religious and philosophical objections to war and killing. The latter's objective is always improving this world. Old-style religious pacifism/objections to war focus on getting to the next world; their concern is their personal salvation. Since about 1965 a lot of people with so-called religious objections to war have equated religion with philosophy - they don't see a difference, but there is one. They think spirituality is the same as salvation. Attitudes towards personal responsibility have a lot to do with this.

It is easy to refute the opinions of those whose pacifism and/or objections to war are based on this world. It is much more difficult, if not impossible, to refute such when it is based on personal salvation as that is a matter of personal faith, but those people are really rare even in my church.

4.18.2007 5:28pm
Mike Rosenberg (mail) (www):
Sebastian (4.18.2007 3:18pm):

The problem I have with most of you who fear armed citizens is that you assume police officers are immune from the same problems. They are not. If you trust police officers to walk around armed you should trust license holders too.


It's not about fearing armed citizens -- or believing the police are immune from similar problems. It's about establishing a suitable balance between risk and benefit. Tens of thousands of armed citizens every day to react to once in 40 year event (with no assurance they will actually reduce the casualties and a good probability they will cause some additional injuries -- civilians are human too) is a very poor return.

Add to that the increased confusion they present if there is an incident and it's not a positive benefit.

Again, I (for one) am ambivalent when it comes to CCW's, but the "standard scenario" is a one-on-one confrontation between a perp and the CCW-holder and even there we are already seeing "oops" situations under the newer, less restrictive justified shooting rules. Again, the effect on overall crime seems to be lost in the background noise -- no "blood running in the streets" and no panacea for ending crime.
4.18.2007 5:31pm
Latinist:
I don't really have a side on this issue, but this kind of mistake really bothers me, on a blog which I usually find full of people who study economics:

"Those kinds of murders can be done as easily with a knife or other weapon... and a ban, or registration, etc would have absolutely no effect on that."

Imagine if this kind of argument were used on the other side: "you can kill someone invading your home just as easily with a knife or other weapon." It's just not true. You can kill them considerably less easily, with a higher failure rate. So a ban or registration could well have some effect.

There's a similar problem with arguments like Prof. Volokh's "no point in banning handguns, because you can just cut down a long gun with a hacksaw." Okay. But you might not realize that that can be done without ruining the guns effectiveness, or you might really want a cool-looking handgun, or you might be really incompetent with tools; and in the time it takes you to get around the difficulty you could get cold feet, or better medication, or arrested. Obviously a handgun ban won't eliminate murder altogether; the claim (which I'm not saying has been proven) is that it will make at least some murders more difficult, and therefore less likely to be carried through successfully.
4.18.2007 5:36pm
c. l. ball (mail):
c. l. ball: If what you say is true, or even remotely honest, then those enlightened countries who pass such laws should see murder rates drop through the floor when within a year or 2 of passing the bans....Right?

Yep. Longitudinal and cross-national data is ideal, but the data on firearm circulation is apparently very hard to collect, as Kleck has noted. K Parker: what's the source on gun availability (i.e., guns per capita)? I have trouble finding much data on it at all. And I didn't say the correspondence was simple; it is complex, and that's one reason why it is hard to tease out the causal from the spurious connections.

The ideal critical case-study is a country with
1) a firearm homicide rate similar to the US and
2) similar national gun-control regulations to the US
adopting European-style gun control laws, all else being equal (e.g., no major economic downturn or upturn, per capita gun rates controlled for): its firearm homicide rate should drop and, if the firearm rampage killing reduction is the goal, the frequency of those, however defined, should drop. (This assumes no outliers - e.g., Attica-like events occur the year after). The counterpart case-study would be the country with European-style regulation and homicide rates switching to the US-style regulation. Again, controlling for other variables, its homicide rate should rise.

On the first case, the closest case I know is Australia's post-1996 changes but the Australian homicide rate was already very low, so is not the ideal case. Australian homicide rates (NHMP data) did drop from a 1990-95 avg. of 1.93 to a 1997-2001 avg. of 1.72, but such a modest improvement could be readily explained by shifts in other variables. On the 2nd type, I don't know what Russian gun control was like during the Soviet era but it was presumably strict, but the political and economic changes in Russia pre and post Communism are so dramatic that the comparsion violates the ceteris paribus condition.

In short, we have lousy data.
4.18.2007 5:38pm
TomB (mail):

Again, I (for one) am ambivalent when it comes to CCW's, but the "standard scenario" is a one-on-one confrontation between a perp and the CCW-holder and even there we are already seeing "oops" situations under the newer, less restrictive justified shooting rules.


The "standard scenario" is that criminals think twice about breaking into an occupied house, robbing a open store, or carjacking, because there is a least a chance the person he is look to go after is armed.

"Again, the effect on overall crime seems to be lost in the background noise -- no "blood running in the streets" and no panacea for ending crime."

I'll let Dr. Cramer clarify that statement but I'd point out that none of that matters. I have a natural right to self-defense that is ennumerated in the 2nd Amendment. I need no statistics to justify that.
4.18.2007 5:42pm
Mike Rosenberg (mail) (www):
Clayton E. Cramer (4.18.2007 3:33pm):


IMO, statements like that don't help the cause. "Substantial return fire" is the sign of a wild shooter. If you can't hit your target with a well placed shot, "Substantial return fire" is more likely to add to the casualty count than reduce it.

You might want to actually get some training, so that you don't make silly statements like this. My training was at the Sonoma County Sheriff's training facility. My instructor was the department's firearms instructor, a deputy sheriff. We were taught to make careful, aimed fire (typically one to two shots per second) until the bad guy fell to the ground or dropped his weapon. Reload if necessary and continue firing.


Hey Clayton, you still rewriting John Adams quotes so


"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."

turns into ""arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion"." (see here for yours) and Guncite for the original and refutation.

There's a difference between what I posted and your response At the least, your response is irrelevant to my comment, But I choose to give you the bnefit of the doubt and say it's a confirmation on evaluating the situation and the use of controlled fire. It ain't the number of rounds you throw down range, but their effectives that matters.

As for shooting and then reloading if necessary -- if you have to reload to bring down one shooter in a mass shooting situation (the one Sebastian postulated), I'd rather take my chances with one shooter over two, thanks...
4.18.2007 5:51pm
Tom Holsinger (mail):
Mike Rosenberg,

If you don't know the difference between someone shooting at you, and someone shooting near but not at you, I'm sure you can find some volunteers willing to help you out, and incidentally win your Darwin Award, aka "Chlorinating the Gene Pool".
4.18.2007 6:09pm
Sebastian (mail) (www):
Tens of thousands of armed citizens every day to react to once in 40 year event (with no assurance they will actually reduce the casualties and a good probability they will cause some additional injuries -- civilians are human too) is a very poor return.

So if you're accepting that police are subject to the same strengths and weaknesses of ordinary folks, then putting more police on the streets should also be a detriment to public safety, wouldn't it be?
4.18.2007 6:10pm
Mike Rosenberg (mail) (www):
bkw (4.18.2007 4:10pm):


What do you think will happen to Sebastian when the SWAT team rounds the corner and encounters Sebastian with his gun drawn?

SWAT will yell at Sebastian to drop his weapon. Sebastian, being a law abiding citizen, complies.

The Shooter, being bat-shit insane, does not.


More likely, Sebastian (or any civilian) truns in the direction from which the call came, firearm ready to take on a new threat and the last lesson tat individual learns (if he lives long enough to learn it) is the meaning of "substantial return fire."

I'm not picking on Sebastian at all. Blame adrenaline if you must. But the lesson from NYPD experiences (and others) is that too often the training doesn't hold when the real shooting starts (and, in many cases, even before -- hence the "oops" shootings by civilians.)
4.18.2007 6:10pm
olivier (mail):

Ryan Waxx wrote: "And I'm afraid YOU have your facts wrong, olivier. Germany is WHAT percentage the size of America? That's flunking the basic honesty test."

How is it related to the size? I assume you meant the population? The Americans are about 300 millions, and the Germans 80 millions. It's a 3-4 ratio, not a 18 ratio.
Even if you relate it to the size, America still leads the game in numbers of gun-related homicides per 100,000 people.

Noops wrote: "Not to mention the fact that Germany had one fairly large incidence of government related mass killings (this statement is not intended to be imflamatory or offensive, just illustrative), which is exactly the type of tyranny our Second Amendment was, in part, designed to help prevent."

Maybe so, but what are the odds in 2007, that the democratically elected US government will turn into a Nazi-type regime? And what protection would the Second Amendment give you anyway? Aren't you more concerned by the current mass killings committed by simple civilians?

dwlawson wrote: "I don't want to be a European. My ancestors didn't found this country to be Europeans."

I can picture you as a proud American, wrapped in an American flag with "America the beautiful" in the background, crying, "I don't want to be a European!" Don't worry, this is not contagious.
4.18.2007 6:18pm
Noops:
Mike, I don;t know where your getting your "lessons" from, but the lessons that most people have actually found true is the exact opposite. This is well founded in reality and studies of military, police, and civilian training.

Humans automatically revert to training when the real shooting starts. That's why you train, and train, and train some more. It's people without training who do stupid stuff. I assure you, the NYPD follows the doctrine that officers revert to training, and training is the only thing that does hold when the shooting starts. The NYPD has some of the best training standards anywhere.

I mean, the idea is a little ridiculous on its face. Why train at all if it jut goes out the window?

So, while I don't even much care about the swat versus Sebastian argument, you are WAY off base on that one.
4.18.2007 6:22pm
Sebastian (mail) (www):
As for shooting and then reloading if necessary -- if you have to reload to bring down one shooter in a mass shooting situation (the one Sebastian postulated), I'd rather take my chances with one shooter over two, thanks...

You shoot until the threat has ceased. No more, no less. Sometimes that takes multiple hits. Handguns are poor fight stoppers. Even if you shoot someone through the heart, it can take several seconds for them to stop fighting and lose consciousness. The only shot that will drop a person dead instantly is a head shot, and those are tough to make, and I wouldn't even try in a stress situation unless I was very close. People getting hit with pistol rounds and falling over dead is hollywood. It happens in the real world, but someone taking 10 hits from a pistol and still fighting also happens, especially someone who is quite intent on dying themselves.


More likely, Sebastian (or any civilian) truns in the direction from which the call came, firearm ready to take on a new threat and the last lesson tat individual learns (if he lives long enough to learn it) is the meaning of "substantial return fire."


It's OK to use me as an example. I invited that on myself when I threw it out there. I'd like to think my training is better than that. But you're right that no one knows how they will react when bullets start flying, not even police and soldiers, who also sometimes do the wrong thing.
4.18.2007 6:25pm
Enoch:
A forensic psychiatrist is saying that Cho was schizophrenic--which fits the accounts perfectly. (My older brother is schizophrenic.) Schizophrenia is genetic, not an upbringing problem.

Considerable evidence indicates that stressful life events cause or trigger schizophrenia. Childhood experiences of abuse or trauma have also been implicated as risk factors for a diagnosis of schizophrenia later in life.

Evidence is also consistent that negative attitudes towards individuals with (or with a risk of developing) schizophrenia can have a significant adverse impact. In particular, critical comments, hostility, authoritarian and intrusive or controlling attitudes (termed 'high expressed emotion' by researchers) from family members have been found to correlate with a higher risk of relapse in schizophrenia across cultures. It is not clear whether such attitudes play a causal role in the onset of schizophrenia, although those diagnosed in this way may claim it to be the primary causal factor.

In short, it could easily have been "bad parenting" of one sort or another.
4.18.2007 6:28pm
Noops:

Maybe so, but what are the odds in 2007, that the democratically elected US government will turn into a Nazi-type regime? And what protection would the Second Amendment give you anyway?


That's funny, I bet a lot of people in Europe thought said things like, "What are the odds that in enlightened europe..."

As to protection, I think it's significant. The estimates range, but there are supposedly 200+ million guns in this country. It's not just protection, it's deterrent. The only way to really find out if it works is to eliminate them. I don't think the people of this country want to take that risk.


Aren't you more concerned by the current mass killings committed by simple civilians?


I'm not in any way mitigating the heinous nature of this crime, but look at history of how many of their own citizens governments have killed in "enlightened" modern nations in the last 100 years. So, while I'm concerned about these killings, I would say I'm less fearful of them than I am of government killings. Especially since our own government has already moving from the enlightened "2007" society a bit towards some scary policies: Guantanamo, Habeas Corpus changes, domestic spying, signing statements, unitary executive, etc.

Noops
4.18.2007 6:31pm
Mike Rosenberg (mail) (www):
Sebastian (4.18.2007 5:10pm)):

So if you're accepting that police are subject to the same strengths and weaknesses of ordinary folks, then putting more police on the streets should also be a detriment to public safety, wouldn't it be?

If one believes that only reason for police on the streets is to shoot shooters, that might be a plausible response. But there are a number of other things police accomplish (ever hear of the "blue light effect"? Police in marked cars deter more speeders than police in unmarked cars -- even accepting that those in unmarked catch more speeders.)
4.18.2007 6:44pm
Sebastian (mail) (www):
I accept your line of reasoning there, Mike. But wouldn't it be a net benefit in that case, to disarm the police? Or only have a very limited number of police carrying firearms?
4.18.2007 6:54pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
So do those of you who hate the idea of people carrying weapons think beating a hasty retreat is preferable to actively returning fire?

But that is not what you originally said. You originally said "no mass shooter is going to pull something like this off within earshot of me without having to deal with substantial return fire" and attributed it to "machismo" or "insane thinking", not some moral calling. So don't get all upset when use pansy liberals get a little put off because you want to get all Rambo and go charging up the hill every time you hear an engine back fire, because that's how you originally phrased it.
4.18.2007 6:54pm
Mike Rosenberg (mail) (www):
Sebastian (4.18.2007 5:25pm):

You shoot until the threat has ceased. No more, no less. Sometimes that takes multiple hits. Handguns are poor fight stoppers. Even if you shoot someone through the heart, it can take several seconds for them to stop fighting and lose consciousness. The only shot that will drop a person dead instantly is a head shot, and those are tough to make, and I wouldn't even try in a stress situation unless I was very close. People getting hit with pistol rounds and falling over dead is hollywood. It happens in the real world, but someone taking 10 hits from a pistol and still fighting also happens, especially someone who is quite intent on dying themselves.

But the second (or next) round doesn't "expedite" the demise. It's actually an insurance round, because you don't know what the first (or previous) round accomplished.

And my information is that it is more the size/nature of the round than the weapon from which it is followed. The .45 caliber round was developed because smaller rounds had a weaker "stopping" effect (the injured had a better chance of keeping coming).

As someone who "went thru the drill" in the military, I understand the propensity to keep firing until you are sure you accomplished your objective. But as a rational civilian sitting in the saftey of my own home, I am aware that each round fired, especially "in the fog of war", increases the risk causing collateral damage (talk about euphimisms).
4.18.2007 6:54pm
Sebastian (mail) (www):
As someone who "went thru the drill" in the military, I understand the propensity to keep firing until you are sure you accomplished your objective. But as a rational civilian sitting in the saftey of my own home, I am aware that each round fired, especially "in the fog of war", increases the risk causing collateral damage (talk about euphimisms).

You're certainly have a point, which is why it's important to know what's behind your target when shooting. It's certainly possible to get tunnel vision and miss someone in your line of fire, it's certainly possible to miss, but again, the same can be said of anyone shooting a firearm in a stress situation.
4.18.2007 7:02pm
Sebastian (mail) (www):
J.F.:

I wasn't attempting to suggest I thought it was machismo, or insane. I was attempting to suggest that you, my opponents, would make that argument, and your Rambo assertion, and the speculation that would run, guns drawn, toward the sound of any loud bang, certainly seems to show the contempt you have for people who choose to bear the responsibility for their own security.

I do believe I have a moral responsibility, as someone who is competent at operating a firearm, if I'm the only one in the area who can do something about it, to act. I don't consider that Rambo, I consider that a duty. Believe me, if the police area in the area, or they show up very quickly, I'm letting them deal with it. They typically wear body armor. I don't. They will probably show up with rifles. I won't. I have no desire at all to be the hero, but I'll take care of business if I have to.
4.18.2007 7:10pm
msk (mail):
EV's main question reminds us we don't know much yet.

Not all, but several major media outlets used this crime to promote the notion that viewers can see enough via cellphone videos and careless opinions (from people whose claim to fame is that they never met the guy). Some gave us only rumors rather than confirmed forensics.

Meaning no disrespect to the injured and grieving — but hypothetically — what if an indecent rush to broadcast led to a bystander mis-identified as the murderer (or, what if a second murderer escaped after faking Cho's suicide)? All I mean is: the more stunning the crime, the more important to be sure. Gun-Free Zone clearly wouldn't guarantee no one else on campus was carrying, or no accomplice agreed to meet in that hallway.

NY Times, Washington Post, etc. stake their corporate reputations on the Lone Nut/Senseless Rampage theory. But, hypothetically, a similar crime could be a suicide hitman, or a complete frame-up — e.g., a cold-blooded professional staging a cover crime blamed on a student.

Hypothetically, a young man using college computers, trying to write like Stephen King might be gullible, manipulated, or set up by someone who talked him into buying the weapons. Investigators who are suddenly in unprecedented situations shouldn't suffer pressure to wrap it up instantly.

We see major news media create psycho-profiles for "who would do this kind of thing?" apparently so they will have those ideas in stock as they run around putting quotes into the mouths of ventriloquist-dummy interviewees (who may be in physical shock, or may just be star-struck and wanting a moment in the spotlight).

We should reject the journalistic trend to summarize allegedly similar events and get the public ready to assume "another Columbine" (whenever news writers don't know what happened yet). That news trend has potential to obstruct investigations of future crimes.

If reporters analyses weren't bad enough, Washington Post's message boards yesterday promised a copy editor would rewrite all comments (which, again, does risk distortions). This morning they opted for authenticity, featuring hours-long, childish graffiti feuds, including a bunch of test messages.

It was a shooting. If the only guilty man is already dead, we're in no hurry now to convict him. If more than one criminal — or any other peculiar angle of this crime — needs discovery, then tidal waves of worldwide gossip don't help.

We risk inadvertently rehearsing millions of people into thinking they already know from TV what all attacks are like. A lockdown-capability in every public building wouldn't help if the main attack was to be gases pumped through the ventilation system once no one could leave. "Jump out the window" seems to be gaining popularity, possibly a lot more than that strategy deserves, but each situation could be different.

Those heroes who defended as best they could against an unseen, unknown attacker deserve the dignity of full, honest reports.
4.18.2007 8:47pm
Brian K (mail):

But for some people, perhaps a few professors, or students in leadership positions (such as R.A.s), allowing them to carry a handgun and have extensive training (including some martial arts training) would be more effective.


Actually, that wouldn't be effective at all. Those people are all known and there aren't very many of them. It would not be hard for an attacker to kill the few people with guns first or wait until they are not around.
4.18.2007 9:48pm
Mike Rosenberg (mail) (www):
Sebastian (4.18.2007 5:54pm):

I accept your line of reasoning there, Mike. But wouldn't it be a net benefit in that case, to disarm the police? Or only have a very limited number of police carrying firearms?

I live in a suburban town that has an occasional late night C-Store hold-up and occasional burglary. The only two "violent" crimes (I not counting the hold-ups because, while there was the possibility of violence, none occurred and the perps were long gone before the police even notified) and I don't know why we have all our police carrying side arms -- except as a cultural issue. That said, I suppose as responders directed to crime situations, the likelihood that they will actually have need of their firearms is greater than the probability that a typical citizen will have need of his/hers. Interestingly, the only firearm-related death in town was the teen-aged *son* of a police officer (for the local metro area) who accidentally shot and killed his friend with his father's service firearm. For leaving gun where son could get at it (locked box, but son had been given combo, the father lost his permit and, as a result, his job.

Perhaps the best comparison would be with "meter maids" -- who have parking meter violation ticketing authority, but are not entitled to carry sidearms. I don't know.
4.18.2007 9:55pm
Brian K (mail):
Clayton,


Texas CHL convictions for 2005 are here. There are 129 convictions of CHL holders, of which one was for murder. The largest category is 27 convictions for the not very detailed "UNL CARRYING WEAPON" crime. There are 15 convictions for what sounds like domestic violence, and 13 convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child. Quite a number of the convictions do sound pretty serious, but many of them don't involve a crime of violence. Considering that there are more than 258,000 outstanding permits, this is an astonishingly responsible population.


umm...no. that's not exactly true. the statistics are inherently skewed to give an undercount of crimes by CHL holders. It ignores repeat offenses. Once a person is convicted of a serious enough crime their CHL is revoked and any subsequent crimes of that person would be listed under the column for non-CHL holders. To determine if CHL holders are really more responsible than non-CHL holders you would have to define your two populations at the outset of the study and then not alter the populations during the study. For example you would have to compare crimes committed by CHL holders against crimes committed by non-CHL holders, both as of some predetermined period of time, for a predetermined number of years. This may very prove that CHL holders are more (or less) responsible than the average joe, but you analysis proves nothing of the sort.
4.18.2007 10:09pm
Mike Rosenberg (mail) (www):
Noops (4.18.2007 5:22pm):

Mike, I don;t know where your getting your "lessons" from, but the lessons that most people have actually found true is the exact opposite. This is well founded in reality and studies of military, police, and civilian training.

Humans automatically revert to training when the real shooting starts. That's why you train, and train, and train some more. It's people without training who do stupid stuff. I assure you, the NYPD follows the doctrine that officers revert to training, and training is the only thing that does hold when the shooting starts. The NYPD has some of the best training standards anywhere.

I mean, the idea is a little ridiculous on its face. Why train at all if it jut goes out the window?

So, while I don't even much care about the swat versus Sebastian argument, you are WAY off base on that one.

Sorry -- but when 3 NYPD cops pour 50 shots into an unarmed bachelor celebrating his last night of pre-marital freedom, that isn't training kicking in.

Training improves the odds. At the least it teaches what procedures *should* be followed. repeated, they can supplant the time spent reasoning with quick response. But adrenaline also supplants reasoning with instinct -- and not necessarily the best instinct....
4.18.2007 10:22pm
dwlawson (www):

dwlawson wrote: "I don't want to be a European. My ancestors didn't found this country to be Europeans."

I can picture you as a proud American, wrapped in an American flag with "America the beautiful" in the background, crying, "I don't want to be a European!" Don't worry, this is not contagious.


Ok, I don't own a flag, but picture whatever you choose.

We came to this country to found a society free of European style oppression. If you convert the New World into the Old World, where is the New New World for us to emigrate to?
4.18.2007 10:28pm
Mike Rosenberg (mail) (www):
Sebastian (4.18.2007 6:02 PM):

As someone who "went thru the drill" in the military, I understand the propensity to keep firing until you are sure you accomplished your objective. But as a rational civilian sitting in the saftey of my own home, I am aware that each round fired, especially "in the fog of war", increases the risk causing collateral damage (talk about euphimisms).

You're certainly have a point, which is why it's important to know what's behind your target when shooting. It's certainly possible to get tunnel vision and miss someone in your line of fire, it's certainly possible to miss, but again, the same can be said of anyone shooting a firearm in a stress situation.


I'm no Dick Cheney fan (being a flaming liberal, myself), but here was an experienced shooter who knew better -- but had that same problem (tunnel vision) with the excitement but not the stress (unless someone knows of a quail shooting back).

Point is, it happens -- to folks who "should know better". I'm not blaming him, per se. It comes with the territory.

But we have to recognize it happens and weigh that into the balance. To get back to my original argument, the possibility of it happening by any of the thousands of folks we'd want to see armed every day, for the chance of lessening a once in 40 year occurance is, IMO, an over-reaction.
4.18.2007 10:30pm
Sebastian (mail) (www):
I actually wouldn't argue that any specific remedy would have prevented this tragedy. I would argue that there's no good reason for restricting folks who already have licenses from carrying college or university campuses. If concealed carry were really that hazardous, you would have seen a surge in crime and accidents, which we didn't see. Would someone with a license and a gun have been in the vicinity of the shooter? I don't know. Odds are, given the demographic, probably not. But I don't see any reason for the law or policy to ensure there's never any chance of someone being armed other than the killer.
4.18.2007 10:48pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Mike Rosenberg writes:

Hey Clayton, you still rewriting John Adams quotes so
I quoted it accurately from a secondary source that was obviously wrong. I notice that you had to go back to a paper that I wrote as an undergraduate to find something to pick on.


It ain't the number of rounds you throw down range, but their effectives that matters.

As for shooting and then reloading if necessary -- if you have to reload to bring down one shooter in a mass shooting situation (the one Sebastian postulated), I'd rather take my chances with one shooter over two, thanks...
It depends on whether the killer is using cover from which to fire, doesn't it? Or if he is wearing body armor (as happened in the North Hollywood bank robbery a few years ago).

Yes, it is far better to let the killer just mow everyone down, isn't it? Much safer.
4.18.2007 10:48pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

There's a similar problem with arguments like Prof. Volokh's "no point in banning handguns, because you can just cut down a long gun with a hacksaw." Okay. But you might not realize that that can be done without ruining the guns effectiveness, or you might really want a cool-looking handgun, or you might be really incompetent with tools; and in the time it takes you to get around the difficulty you could get cold feet, or better medication, or arrested. Obviously a handgun ban won't eliminate murder altogether; the claim (which I'm not saying has been proven) is that it will make at least some murders more difficult, and therefore less likely to be carried through successfully.
The problem is that a sawed-off shotgun is so much more lethal than a handgun that even if only 1 out of 3 potential handgun criminals switches to a sawed-off shotgun (how hard is this to do, really?), it would still be an increased death rate.
4.18.2007 10:50pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Sebastian writes:

So if you're accepting that police are subject to the same strengths and weaknesses of ordinary folks, then putting more police on the streets should also be a detriment to public safety, wouldn't it be?
Sure--except that the bottleneck is generally staff to prosecute criminals and prisons to hold them. In addition, police officers, for some odd reason, are much less often vicitims of crime than the rest of us. Police officers have a murder rate about 1/10th of the general population. Gee, I wonder why? Maybe it is because if anyone is crazy enough to attack them, they might get shot?
4.18.2007 10:53pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Mike Rosenberg writes:

More likely, Sebastian (or any civilian) truns in the direction from which the call came, firearm ready to take on a new threat and the last lesson tat individual learns (if he lives long enough to learn it) is the meaning of "substantial return fire."

I'm not picking on Sebastian at all. Blame adrenaline if you must. But the lesson from NYPD experiences (and others) is that too often the training doesn't hold when the real shooting starts (and, in many cases, even before -- hence the "oops" shootings by civilians.)
So, since there are now millions of civilians in America who carry guns pretty regularly--you should have hundreds of such incidents to point to. Right?

I am sure that there are such incidents--but you can't even come up with a dozen of them, can you?
4.18.2007 10:55pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Olivier writes:

Maybe so, but what are the odds in 2007, that the democratically elected US government will turn into a Nazi-type regime?
According to liberals, we're already halfway there! "Bush=Hitler" and the rest of the crap that passes for intelligent conversation in universities here.
And what protection would the Second Amendment give you anyway?
Take a look at what happened in Eastern Europe. A fair number of Jews survived because they were in villages or towns that fought back, and gave at least part of the population a chance to escape. Even where they failed (as in the Warsaw Ghetto), they tied up forces that might have been killing Jews elsehwere.
Aren't you more concerned by the current mass killings committed by simple civilians?
I'm concerned about it, and it appears that this incident has exposed a significant hole in the current background check law. But I'm not prepared to risk doing a Eurogenocide in a generation by disarming law-abiding adults.
4.18.2007 10:59pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

Considerable evidence indicates that stressful life events cause or trigger schizophrenia.
Trigger, maybe. But why is there Mendelian genetic statistics that fit schizophrenia so well? Also, there is somewhat inconsistent data that would indicate chromosome 12.
4.18.2007 11:01pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

the statistics are inherently skewed to give an undercount of crimes by CHL holders. It ignores repeat offenses. Once a person is convicted of a serious enough crime their CHL is revoked and any subsequent crimes of that person would be listed under the column for non-CHL holders.
So you are claiming that people who get arrested for these crimes are, subsequently, being arrested for more crimes. Well, that COULD be true. But so far, all you have is a hope and question, and no data.
4.18.2007 11:04pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Brian K writes:

Actually, that wouldn't be effective at all. Those people are all known and there aren't very many of them. It would not be hard for an attacker to kill the few people with guns first or wait until they are not around.
Except how do you know which are which? There are a lot of students on campuses who are as old, or older than the faculty or staff. I will admit that there is a real possibility that someone like Cho might start by shooting the professor--or he might go into the classroom, and discover that his previous dirty work has everyone waiting for him, and the professor kills him first.

If it doesn't work--how is it any worse than leaving them all defenseless?
4.18.2007 11:06pm
Mike Rosenberg (mail) (www):
Clayton E. Cramer (4.18.2007 9:48pm):

I quoted it accurately from a secondary source that was obviously wrong. I notice that you had to go back to a paper that I wrote as an undergraduate to find something to pick on.


You overrate your importance. Actually, I heard of you looking for the origins of the misquote, not vice versa. You aren't that important. True, you took it from Halbrook's "That Every Man Be Armed". And seem have missed his more scholarly "To Keep and Bear Their Private Arms" where he made the opposite claim you do, based on the same quote:

The aristocratic Adams rejected the very right which won independence from England: "To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns ... is a dissolution of the government."


But in one sense you are, indeed, too modest. That "undergraduate mistake" was repeated when your article was printed in the NRA's American Rifleman in February 1992 and enetered the lexicon of NRA misquotes distributed and reproduced ad infinitum, ad nauseum.


It depends on whether the killer is using cover from which to fire, doesn't it? Or if he is wearing body armor (as happened in the North Hollywood bank robbery a few years ago).

Again, the topic is a mass shooting like the one at VT, not some bank robbers in North Hollywood whose semi-automatic weapons had been (illegally) modified to fire full automatic.
4.19.2007 12:27am
K Parker (mail):
Mike R.,

One common supposition about LE versus non-LE incidents of shooting the wrong person involves the fact that very often LE is arriving on the scene after an incident is in progress, whereas the average person walking down the street is going to understand pretty quickly if he's being assaulted. (Any competent firearm self-defense class will touch upon this issue, and advise extreme caution when intervening in third-party situations for this very reason.) But no, I don't know any actual sources on this question.

And regarding the stats you found, I tried to make it clear I wasn't commenting on "all firearm deaths" but rather--in the specific context of Washington's lack of any training requirement for CCW licenses--on the kinds of shootings that might be the result of poor training. (Fwiw, NJ and WA overall homicide rates aren't the far apart, with NJ's being higher than WA's in most recent years.)

Tom H.,

Ask and you shall (almost) receive. A number of folks have already replied with more detailed statistics, but I think this study that compares arrest rates between CHL holders and the general population is very telling, and helps quantify Clayton Cramer's very apt concluding remark ("this is an astonishingly responsible population.")
4.19.2007 1:31am
Chuck W:
Mike Rosenberg

But what bothers me most is the requirement for CCWs in states that have more stringent requirements (defined as the ability to prove one can usually hit what one aims at on a target range) do not require testing under stress -- presumably the only time such individuals would be called on to use their skills legally.


You've got an unfounded assumption there - that the legal use of their skills would involve pulling the trigger.

The only time I ever felt a need for my gun, I just pulled back my coat and rested my hand on it, without drawing it from the holster. The two "gentlemen" approaching me in that otherwise empty parking lot suddenly decided that they had someplace else they wanted to be.

And I wouldn't have had to worry about my accuracy. It seems that things like this happen when there's no one else around.

But you do raise an interesting point. People (Teachers?) carrying with the intent to stop a mass murder in a crowded school probably want/need more intense training. Probably at a higher level than the police if you think about it. I wouldn't want them shooting in a crowd either.
4.19.2007 2:31am
Brian K (mail):
Clayton,


So you are claiming that people who get arrested for these crimes are, subsequently, being arrested for more crimes. Well, that COULD be true. But so far, all you have is a hope and question, and no data.


I'm not saying they could be, I'm saying they ARE. The recidivism rates are below and they are not insignificant.


"Recidivism

* Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
* The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly 4,877,000 arrest charges over their recorded careers.
* Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide.
* Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.
* Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison –– 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders."
from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism
4.19.2007 4:45am
Brian K (mail):
Clayton,


Except how do you know which are which? There are a lot of students on campuses who are as old, or older than the faculty or staff. I will admit that there is a real possibility that someone like Cho might start by shooting the professor--or he might go into the classroom, and discover that his previous dirty work has everyone waiting for him, and the professor kills him first.

If it doesn't work--how is it any worse than leaving them all defenseless?


As has been pointed out by many other people, mass killers such as this one usually have some affiliation with the school. As such he is likely to know who the teachers, RAs or other authority figures are. He may even know which ones are armed. Since in any given class there is usually only one prof or TA or in any given building or floor there is only one RA (my undergrad school had one per floor, my med school has one per building), it is not difficult to recognize who are teachers and TAs. This is even easier to do on K-12 school campuses for reason that you alluded to. Also if he never changes rooms he never has to worry about the prof in the next room waiting for him. If the killer uses a pistol, there will be no advanced warning until he pulls it out and starts shooting.
4.19.2007 5:00am
Gene Hoffman (mail) (www):
Two major points.

To the various points about shooter confusion - "wouldn't it make it worse to have the general public with a gun in hand when SWAT shows up" - we actually have an interesting data set. In the last 4 mass shootings stopped by a CCW holder, none of the incidents lead to innocent casualties beyond the victims of the shooter. Those incidents are:
Trolley Square Mall Utah
Appalachian Law School in Grundy Virginia
High School in Pearl Mississippi
Edinboro Pennsylvania shortly after Pearl.

Objective evidence indicates that the armed citizen ends the situation far quicker than the police can respond.

As to the argument that we have nothing to fear from the government holding a monopoly on force, I'd point out the not insignificant role that firearms ownership played defending blacks and white civil rights workers in the South during the 1960s. It may not be the "King George" example, but having your local sheriff allow (or help) the Klan attack you is a problem only 50 years old. I'd suggest the book "Deacons for Defense and Justice" for people interested in the role that private firearms ownership (and use) had on a recent tyrannical American government.

As to my comment about "pre-emption" early in this thread I'd like to elaborate. I think we need a law that states that all state laws are pre-empted that deny concealed carry and that any private property open to the public that does not allow licensed CCW holders to carry creates a presumption of liability for death or injury of any person on that property.

-Gene
4.19.2007 5:29am
olivier (mail):
Noops wrote: "I'm not in any way mitigating the heinous nature of this crime, but look at history of how many of their own citizens governments have killed in "enlightened" modern nations in the last 100 years. So, while I'm concerned about these killings, I would say I'm less fearful of them than I am of government killings. Especially since our own government has already moving from the enlightened "2007" society a bit towards some scary policies: Guantanamo, Habeas Corpus changes, domestic spying, signing statements, unitary executive, etc."

Clayton E Cramer wrote: "Take a look at what happened in Eastern Europe. A fair number of Jews survived because they were in villages or towns that fought back, and gave at least part of the population a chance to escape. Even where they failed (as in the Warsaw Ghetto), they tied up forces that might have been killing Jews elsehwere."

Call me a dreamer, but I think that electing the right people is more likely to guarantee civil liberties than accumulating weapons in the eventuality of a government-led oppression.
Although I have a lot of respect for those civilians who resisted the Nazis (two of my uncles were among them), the fact is that, at the end of the day it's the intervention of the US and Allies on the west and of the Red Army on the east that defeated Hitler.
What strikes me, and apparently many other Europeans, is the lack of trust American people seem to have in their government, and the constant state of war America seems to be involved in. I view the misguided invasion of Irak and all the past military policies in Latin America as tightly linked to the gun control issue, in the sense that many Americans seem to live in a culture of war and armed conflict. A pretty good book on this topic is "Why do people hate America?" It is obviously politically biased, but nevertheless contains undeniable facts about the culture of violence and the widespread paranoia cultivated by the media and some politicians in the USA.
I personally aspire to live in a society where devices specifically designed to kill other human beings are nowhere to be found, and I don't think that making guns widely available is to go in the right direction.

"Aren't you more concerned by the current mass killings committed by simple civilians?
I'm concerned about it, and it appears that this incident has exposed a significant hole in the current background check law. But I'm not prepared to risk doing a Eurogenocide in a generation by disarming law-abiding adults."

The problem here is that "law-abiding adults" cannot be trusted. Some can too easily turn into criminals once they own a gun. How often do innocent people get shot by "law-abiding adults" by accident, by mistake, because of road rage, or just because those "law-abiding citizens" suddenly loose it and decide to go postal? More than 60% of guns involved in violence in the USA were acquired perfectly legally, which means that the "significant hole in background check" that you mention is more like a bottomless abyss...


dwlawson wrote: "We came to this country to found a society free of European style oppression. If you convert the New World into the Old World, where is the New New World for us to emigrate to?"

European style oppression? I don't know about that. After 10 years in America, I'm back in Europe and I don't feel particularly oppressed here.
I don't want you to convert the "New World" into the "Old World". Just take the best of what Europe has (such as gun control, and universal healthcare), and combine it to the best you have (strong economy, freedom of investment, cultural diversity). It seems to me that when it comes to guns, America actually is the Old World.
4.19.2007 8:00am
Kevin P. (mail):
Pete Freans (mail):

... a collegue of mine called me several months ago and he told me how difficult it was for him to purchase a firearm in state of New York. In his particular county, which I believe was Rochester, the chief of police requires a prospective gun owner to present written references/approval of several neighbors (I believe it was between 8-10, but I'm not certain) within a certain geographical area of one's residence. Assuming Virginia law required this, would the purchase have been approved? If the law required interviewing employers, co-workers, classmates, and/or teachers, would that Glock have been sold?

And this same law is preventing my law abiding sister and brother-in-law who live in Rochester from buying a handgun to protect their own home. (It requires references from FIVE people). The vast majority of guns that are sold to citizens will never be used in a crime. Drug dealers and career criminals have NO problem getting guns in the US or in ANY country. The whole point of many of these purchase laws is to make purchase of a gun so difficult that only the wealthy and the connected can persist and manage to acquire one.
4.19.2007 9:08am
Kevin P. (mail):
olivier (mail):

The problem here is that "law-abiding adults" cannot be trusted. Some can too easily turn into criminals once they own a gun.

No they don't actually. Guns are inanimate pieces of metal and do not have a personality or influence of their own. They don't turn their owners into homicidal maniacs.

How often do innocent people get shot by "law-abiding adults" by accident, by mistake, because of road rage, or just because those "law-abiding citizens" suddenly loose it and decide to go postal?

Very seldom.


After 10 years in America, I'm back in Europe and I don't feel particularly oppressed here.
I don't want you to convert the "New World" into the "Old World". Just take the best of what Europe has (such as gun control, and universal healthcare), and combine it to the best you have (strong economy, freedom of investment, cultural diversity). It seems to me that when it comes to guns, America actually is the Old World.

After living ten years in America, it seems to me that you didn't understand it very well. Perhaps you lived in one of the bubbles that are all too common here.
4.19.2007 9:12am
olivier (mail):
Kevin P: "No they don't actually. Guns are inanimate pieces of metal and do not have a personality or influence of their own. They don't turn their owners into homicidal maniacs."

No shit? You're quite smart, buddy! Did you find that one on your own, or does the NRA also gives special courses for people like you? Of course, guns do have an influence on their owners. They gave them a sense of power and security. They are not just inanimate objects, by the way. They are also inanimate objects designed to kill other human beings. In that sense, purchasing a gun is the first step toward physical violence. Beside, you are trying to make me say what I didn't say, and that doesn't fly with me. Read my email again, if you can read, and maybe you will grasp my point.

How often do innocent people get shot by "law-abiding adults" by accident, by mistake, because of road rage, or just because those "law-abiding citizens" suddenly loose it and decide to go postal?


Very seldom.

Really? Mass-shootings happened at least 17 times in the last 25 years, including 4 times in US school since 1998, all at the hand of very disturbed but nonetheless "law-abiding" citizens in possession of a legally acquired firearm. Oh, and it will happen again, and again, and again...

After living ten years in America, it seems to me that you didn't understand it very well. Perhaps you lived in one of the bubbles that are all too common here.

As long as it seems like that to YOU, that's OK with me. The fact is that my wife, daughter, in-laws, and most friends are Americans and don't live in a bubble. Because my opinion diverges from yours doesn't mean that I don't understand your country. I could very well be an American citizen and disagree with you. A lot of Americans actually disagree with you, by the way. So, keep your xenophobia for yourself (xenophobia = hatred of foreigners).
4.19.2007 10:34am
Chuck W:
oliver:

Of course, guns do have an influence on their owners. They gave them a sense of power and security. They are not just inanimate objects, by the way. They are also inanimate objects designed to kill other human beings. In that sense, purchasing a gun is the first step toward physical violence.


Considering there are over 250 million guns in the U.S. and probably less than 30 managed to magically turn their owners into homicidal murderers on Monday, I think you may be overestimating their power.

In general, all they do is give you a sense of weight on your belt.


Very seldom.

Really? Mass-shootings happened at least 17 times in the last 25 years, including 4 times in US school since 1998, all at the hand of very disturbed but nonetheless "law-abiding" citizens in possession of a legally acquired firearm. Oh, and it will happen again, and again, and again...


Actually, I think that when you compare the government generated body count (170 million by reasonable estimates), vs the individual, we're much more trustworthy.

I think there's a strong argument to be made that governments should have their gun rights removed. They can't be trusted nearly as well as the average person:

from DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: (R.J. Rummel 1994)

128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS
4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime

19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS
8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military
9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges
11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing
4.19.2007 11:03am
Skip (mail):
For all those advocating gun licenses similar to driver licenses - what do you think a concealed carry permit is? Only its not, but should be, honored in all states as it my drivers license. But it requires, repeat REQUIRES, formal training, a federal plus state background check, firearm safety and proficiency testing, plus a substantial financial investment - whereas my drivers license only required a parking lot driving demonstration, a vision test, and successfully completing a multiple-choice questionnaire.
4.19.2007 11:10am
olivier (mail):
Kevin P: "Actually, I think that when you compare the government generated body count (170 million by reasonable estimates), vs the individual, we're much more trustworthy.

I think there's a strong argument to be made that governments should have their gun rights removed. They can't be trusted nearly as well as the average person:

from DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: (R.J. Rummel 1994)

128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS
4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime

19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS
8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military
9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges
11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing"

Yeah. A whole army can kill more people than one guy. I would have thought so. I still don't get the point of owning a gun. Why don't you ask for having nuclear missiles available at your favorite store? That would make you feel more complete, since you need a weapon to feel like an accomplished human being.
4.19.2007 11:29am
olivier (mail):
Kevin P: "Actually, I think that when you compare the government generated body count (170 million by reasonable estimates), vs the individual, we're much more trustworthy.

I think there's a strong argument to be made that governments should have their gun rights removed. They can't be trusted nearly as well as the average person:

from DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: (R.J. Rummel 1994)

128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS
4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime

19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS
8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military
9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges
11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing"

The funny thing, you see, is that these genocides and massacres were actually committed by armed, law-abiding citizens like you.
Do you read the news about Irak? Everybody has a gun over there. That makes the country so much safer.
4.19.2007 11:38am
olivier (mail):
Kevin P: "Actually, I think that when you compare the government generated body count (170 million by reasonable estimates), vs the individual, we're much more trustworthy.

I think there's a strong argument to be made that governments should have their gun rights removed. They can't be trusted nearly as well as the average person:

from DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: (R.J. Rummel 1994)

128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS
4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime

19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS
8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military
9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges
11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing"

The funny thing, you see, is that these genocides and massacres were actually committed by armed, law-abiding citizens like you.
Do you read the news about Irak? Everybody has a gun over there. That makes the country so much safer.
4.19.2007 11:38am
TomB (mail):

Really? Mass-shootings happened at least 17 times in the last 25 years, including 4 times in US school since 1998, all at the hand of very disturbed but nonetheless "law-abiding" citizens in possession of a legally acquired firearm. Oh, and it will happen again, and again, and again...


I'm not sure which shootings your are talking about, but most of the ones I'm thinking of (Columbine, Pearl, Edinboro, Oregon, California), none of the murderers were legally armed.

In addition, since it it illegal to take a gun onto school grounds, technically none of the shooters were "law-abiding". And in none of the cases is there any indication that the actual posession of the firearm triggered the rampage. Most actually acquired the gun after it was decided to do the killings.
4.19.2007 12:58pm
Mike Rosenberg (mail) (www):
K Parker (4.19.2007 12:31am):


One common supposition about LE versus non-LE incidents of shooting the wrong person involves the fact that very often LE is arriving on the scene after an incident is in progress, whereas the average person walking down the street is going to understand pretty quickly if he's being assaulted. (Any competent firearm self-defense class will touch upon this issue, and advise extreme caution when intervening in third-party situations for this very reason.) But no, I don't know any actual sources on this question.


Again, let me note I'm ambivalent on CCW permitting. Your example (those on scene at the outset versus late arriving LEO's) makes perfect sense when it comes to reasons why the LEO (or any late arrival or even any non-involved party) is more likely to shoot the "wrong party" - although I'd think there are precious few situations where, by the time the police arrive, there is anyone left to be disarmed at all -- especially when there are armed non-perps involved (although we did have one incident locally where the perp discarded his weapon and passed through the police cordon as an escaped hostage -- some hours later, another hostage was able to free himself and inform the police there was no perp left within the cordon, for what that story is worth besides a laugh.)


And regarding the stats you found, I tried to make it clear I wasn't commenting on "all firearm deaths" but rather--in the specific context of Washington's lack of any training requirement for CCW licenses--on the kinds of shootings that might be the result of poor training. (Fwiw, NJ and WA overall homicide rates aren't the far apart, with NJ's being higher than WA's in most recent years.)


I understand. I'm not sure it's possible to locate data at that level, and WISGARS (which is now back up) indicates there are too few accidental deaths (the figure I intended to use) in either state to provide a statistically meaningful result regarding rates of accidental firearm deaths. NJ has one "bad" year between 1999 and 2004 (the years available in the data set I used) that skews it's figures and Washington, because of it's sparser population, tends to jump around with it's rates. That said, NJ has an average accidental firearm death rate of .15/100000 and Washington has a rate of .14/100000 over the six years available. The national average was .26/100000 and Vermont, with no permitting required at all, was .33, so I'm not sure this data set is worth diddly when it comes to "proving" anything -- and certainly the Washington-NJ comparison is not. Now, if I wanted to cherry pick, I could compare NJ to its neighbor, PA. NJ's 15 to PA's .23. But that is just as meaningless in terms of drawing any overall conclusions. (My actual one is that, with PA as a more rural state, has more guns per capita and is therefore more likley to have a higher gun accident rate. But then, if I cmpare PA and WA, it's back to the drawing boards....)
4.19.2007 2:03pm
Mike Rosenberg (mail) (www):
Chuck W (4.19.2007 1:31am):


You've got an unfounded assumption there - that the legal use of their skills would involve pulling the trigger.

Not at all.

First, every time one presents a gun (I won't even say "draws it") one has to be prepared the follow the path to actually having to use it -- a decision that must be made before even presenting the weapon. But even beyond that, one has to decide if even presenting it increases the chances of escalation or not. Is evasion a better option than even the chance of escalation? Is having the security of having a weapon making me safer or more reckless -- more ready to chance an escalation that was avoidable in the first place? Am I really interpreting the "signs" correctly in the first place?

Too many of us (not all, but too many) have a trace of machismo. Backing down or being afraid (often we mistake being concerned for being afraid) is not the path that maintains our sense of self. What sane person responds to "Want to step outside and settle this?" by stepping outside?
Yet too often that is what happens. (Note this isn't a "gun issue," per se and I've had a number of folks insist that, because I chose not to own a firearm, I'm the type who would cringe in cowardice as my wife was attacked by a home invader. Aside for the fact I'm a widower, so that isn't probable, I have a teenaged son who can be reckless [as opposed to "wreckless"] and I have no serious probability of home invasion -- we've had burglars in town but in every case they have been fleers, not fighters when discovered -- even by old men in pj's rubbing the sleep from their eyes [not me -- a neighbor heard a noise and turned on his back deck light, expecting to find a racoon or deer].)


But you do raise an interesting point. People (Teachers?) carrying with the intent to stop a mass murder in a crowded school probably want/need more intense training. Probably at a higher level than the police if you think about it. I wouldn't want them shooting in a crowd either.


If a well trained SWAT team spends hours and hours learning how to enter a room and acquire and pacify a target in a crowd -- while fully protected themselves, I don't see a professor investing the effort to become equipped to handle the same task. It may a gross over-generalization, but I don't see academics as the ones most likely to seek that kind of training. Developing computer modeling techniques for analyzing it, yes. But doing it, no.... :)

(As for RA's, forget it. Drinking is enough of a problem on campus. Add firearms and it becomes a terrible idea....)
4.19.2007 2:34pm
TomB (mail):

"(As for RA's, forget it. Drinking is enough of a problem on campus. Add firearms and it becomes a terrible idea....)"

Yet those same RAs, properly licensed, can carry a weapon on streets full of bars, yet there is no carnage.

What, exactly, happens on campus that turns these law-abiding men into crazed lunatics?
4.19.2007 2:47pm
Tom Holsinger (mail):
TomB asked,

What, exactly, happens on campus that turns these law-abiding men (RA's) into crazed lunatics?

Well, in the case my RA's, it was me.

My first RA was Art Torres, now chairman of the California Democratic Party. He still remembers the time I snuck a dog into his room when he was gone for the weekend, and gave it an immense amount of water, salami, etc., and no litter box.

For my second RA, my roommate and I snuck a wire into his room carrying a signal from my roommate's ham radio, and connected it to his stereo speakers, which my electronically gifted roommate set up with a remote so he could turn them on from our room. We waited until our RA got his girlfriend in there making appropriate noises, then we blasted 'em with teletype signals. She let out a pretty decent scream.

You don't wanna' know what I did to my last RA, who is now general counsel for a major California Department. I have arranged for his staff, on the day of his retirement, to fill his office with all the toilet stall partitions from all the restrooms in his building. He'll remember the incident and perhaps think of me.
4.19.2007 3:00pm
radix023:
As much as I do support CCW and RKBA, it is not true that CCW's require training. The requirements vary from state to state. The common elements are:
fees
background check

The variances seem to be:
registration of fireare to be carried
training
bond

There's probably more, but that's what I recall off the top of my head. As an example, in Georgia, where I have had a CCW for over 10 years, there is no training requirement. Fee, have to be clean of felonies, drug misdemeanors, domestic violence misdemeanors and never been committed against your will for mental instability. It's non-discretionary (shall-issue) so the Probate judge in your county of residence just plugs and chugs. They do take your fingerprints and both the GBI and FBI get copies (I asked).

There is already federal carry. It is open to federal law enforcement, federal attorneys, federal judges, and legislators who use the "honorary federal deputy marshall" loophole. A separate piece of legislation extended that to all sworn LEOs, regardless of juridiction and even carries it to honorably discharged or retired LEOs. It's got me thinking of volunteering for a reserve unit.
4.19.2007 3:09pm
TomB (mail):
BAN TOM HOLSINGER! BAN TOM HOLSINGER!!!
4.19.2007 3:10pm
Mike Rosenberg (mail) (www):
Gene Hoffman (4.19.2007 4:29am):

To the various points about shooter confusion - "wouldn't it make it worse to have the general public with a gun in hand when SWAT shows up" - we actually have an interesting data set. In the last 4 mass shootings stopped by a CCW holder, none of the incidents lead to innocent casualties beyond the victims of the shooter. Those incidents are:
Trolley Square Mall Utah
Appalachian Law School in Grundy Virginia
High School in Pearl Mississippi
Edinboro Pennsylvania shortly after Pearl.



Trolley Square: The person credited with "taking down" the perp was not a CCW holder — he was an off duty cop. (I'm not sure about Salt Lake City or Ogden, but in NYC, officers are never "off duty" and are expected to carry a sidearm at all times — even when they are "off the clock." regardless, in this case it is reasonable to argue that further shootings were averted.

Appalachian Law School in Grundy Virginia: Again, LEO's (two active and one former officer) were involved in subduing the perp — who surrendered (ditched his firearm on command) when approached as he was leaving — it is reasonable to presume that the shooting was over at this point, at any rate.)

High School in Pearl Mississippi: This was definitely a CCW holder (and assistant principal). The perp was leaving the school at the time (although some stories allege — without attribution — he was on his way to another school at the time, so any preventative effect is, at best, arguable.

Edinboro Pennsylvania shortly after Pearl: A fleeing perp pursued by a gun owner (Not a CCW holder — and armed with a shotgun, not a hand gun)

Conclusions: In only one of the four cases were shots even fired after the "interceptor(s)" arrived and in two of those, the "interceptors" were, themselves police officers rather than CCW holders (and, in only one, was the interceptor a CCW holder). Further, none of the cases seem to involve the police arriving while the incident was underway (there is some difference in the press accounts about whether police officers were involved in the Trolley Square "interception" or arrived afterwards — although the later [and probably more accurate] stories attribute the interception solely to the off duty officer).

I'm not sure how these incidents demonstrate anything regarding the question they set out to answer: "[W]ouldn't it make it worse to have the general public with a gun in hand when SWAT shows up"....

As to my comment about "pre-emption" early in this thread I'd like to elaborate. I think we need a law that states that all state laws are pre-empted that deny concealed carry and that any private property open to the public that does not allow licensed CCW holders to carry creates a presumption of liability for death or injury of any person on that property.


BY that same logic, any such property that *does* permit CCW has the same presumption of liability for any shootings that do occur. Fair enough? I didn;'t think you'd think so.... :(
4.19.2007 3:58pm
Mike Rosenberg (mail) (www):
TomB (4.19.2007 1:47pm):


"(As for RA's, forget it. Drinking is enough of a problem on campus. Add firearms and it becomes a terrible idea....)"


Yet those same RAs, properly licensed, can carry a weapon on streets full of bars, yet there is no carnage.

What, exactly, happens on campus that turns these law-abiding men into crazed lunatics?


That one is silly enough I almost ignored it -- but I guess I have too much time on my hands, today....

1) Given where RA's live (in dorms on gun-free campuses), I supect you could on the fingers of no hands the number that have CCW's in the first place (and the fewer still -- yes, that's a negative number) who actually have firearms in the dorms)
2) If they are going into to town to get drunk -- and are responsible enough to even own a firearm in the first place, clearly they don't bring their gun to town, son. They leave their gun at home. But home is the dorm (home is where the gun is?) and if we expect them to be part of a response to any shooting, they don't get to schedule when that shooting will occur.
4.19.2007 4:11pm
TomB (mail):

1) Given where RA's live (in dorms on gun-free campuses), I supect you could on the fingers of no hands the number that have CCW's in the first place (and the fewer still -- yes, that's a negative number) who actually have firearms in the dorms)


Your the one with the strawman. If we are talking letting RA have a weapon on campus, they would also have CC permits.

2) If they are going into to town to get drunk -- and are responsible enough to even own a firearm in the first place, clearly they don't bring their gun to town, son. They leave their gun at home. But home is the dorm (home is where the gun is?) and if we expect them to be part of a response to any shooting, they don't get to schedule when that shooting will occur.
4.19.2007 4:22pm
TomB (mail):

2) If they are going into to town to get drunk -- and are responsible enough to even own a firearm in the first place, clearly they don't bring their gun to town, son. They leave their gun at home. But home is the dorm (home is where the gun is?) and if we expect them to be part of a response to any shooting, they don't get to schedule when that shooting will occur.


Who said anything about getting drunk? All you said is that RAs with guns and alcohol don't mix. Since men of that age all over the country own weapons, have permits, and presumably live in places that have alcohol my question stands. What is so magical about a campus that would make shootings more likely?
4.19.2007 4:24pm
TomB (mail):
Maybe this will put an end to the whining, but I doubt it. It is from today's Washington Post:

"There was more carnage in the hallway. Kevin Granata had heard the commotion in his third-floor office and ran downstairs. He was a military veteran, very protective of his students. He was gunned down trying to confront the shooter."

Protective, veteran (trained), unbelievably brave. But unarmed. Do I know he would have definitely had a gun, no. But it is a crime to remove that decision from a person.
4.19.2007 4:50pm
Gene Hoffman (mail) (www):
Mike,

In each case cited, the firearms that were readily available were there before on duty police made it to the scene (and were of dubious procedural legality due to private property restrictions in place at those locations or schools.)

My comment about pre-emption/liability shift was not intended to be fair. It was intended to create costs for private owners of property open to the public who disarmed their visitors who would otherwise be legally armed. There is no harm caused to individuals by the private property owners who are open to the public and don't restrict firearms possession on their property. The risk profile to the individual is the same as the public sidewalk in that state.

-Gene
4.19.2007 9:42pm
Mike Rosenberg (mail) (www):
Gene Hoffman (4.19.2007 8:42pm):


In each case cited, the firearms that were readily available were there before on duty police made it to the scene (and were of dubious procedural legality due to private property restrictions in place at those locations or schools.)


Where getting offtrack (and I guess I'm nitpicking, given the thrust of the discussion, but Utah law permits a police officer to carry a concealed firearm without a CCW and without limit as to time or place). There is a more relevant detail here (vis-a-vis an unidentiied armed individual when the police arrive).


[Off duty Ogden officer] Hammond, who had been enjoying an early Valentine's Day dinner with his wife at Rodizio Grill on the mall's second level, was the first to engage Talovic, even firing his gun at him from the second floor while Talovic was below.
Sarita Hammond, his wife, called 911 and explained to dispatchers that her husband was a police officer, giving them a description of what he was wearing.
"She probably saved his life," said [Salt Lake District Attorney ] Miller, who noted Hammond could otherwise have been shot by the Salt Lake City police officers.
Other investigators said Oblad, who was the first to have contact with Hammond, also recognized that Hammond did not match the description of the gunman. Furthermore, his actions and demeanor were tips that he was not the killer.

--Deseret Morning News News, February 17, 2007


[That's 5 days after the event and probably time to gather accurate information.]

This discription, by the way, notes that, while Hammond exchanged fire with the perp (Sulejman Talovic) before the arrival of the police, it wasn't until the arrival of 4 SLC police that the five officers were able to terminate the incident (by terminating the perp).

The Edinboro incident, while a school function (an 8th grade dance) was at a private banquet hall and interceptor was an outsider who heard the shots, grabbed his shot gun and came running, intercepting the perp away from the banquet hall.

IN the Appalachian Law School incident, the law school is a free standing law school (an old junior high school) and the only armed individual (one of the off duty police) went to his car to get his firearm (and vest). The article does not state where the car was (on or off school property) so I won't say with certainty there was no technical violation of the law, but that might seem to be an equally plausible explaination.

That leaves only the Pewrl case where the Asst. Priciple's weapon was likely to have been on school grounds in technical violation of the law.

But, as i noted, all that is somewhat tangential. The more immediate discussion is about these cases as examples of the efficacy of having armed civilians as a deterrent/response to these events in the first place. I these cases, the only evidence I can find to support such an argument is that, in the case of Trolley square, one can at least argue that the presence of an armed individual on site *did,* in fact, reduce the number of casualties before the police arrived (also relevant was that it was the one case of the four, where otherwise identifying the perp for later apprehension, if he had departed, might have been more difficult -- although it would seem clear he had no intention of departing before the police arrived). In all the other cases (as well as Virginia Tech case) the perp was known to a number of witnesses.

AS for the more general argument, I'd suggest that none of the cases real say anything about the efficacy of CCW's (or armed civilians).

First, examining the benefits in four specific incidents (even had there been such benefit in all four incidents) says nothing about alternative scenarios and effects. Afterall, those of the perps that were of legal age could have been CCW-holders themselves (in the four cases you cited, admittedly that would have been only the Appalachia law school shooting) and, while checks on CCW holders are better than nothing, they are anything but conclusive -- as some folks have been fond of pointing out over the last two days, the perp at VT followed all the laws (even the one gun a month law -- although I'm still curious about the reports that the serial numbers were filed off the guns he had) until he appeared on campus with a firearm. Would have been better to say he followed all the laws (even after arriving on campus), until he opened fire?
4.19.2007 11:18pm
olivier (mail):
TomB: "I'm not sure which shootings your are talking about, but most of the ones I'm thinking of (Columbine, Pearl, Edinboro, Oregon, California), none of the murderers were legally armed.

In addition, since it it illegal to take a gun onto school grounds, technically none of the shooters were "law-abiding". And in none of the cases is there any indication that the actual posession of the firearm triggered the rampage. Most actually acquired the gun after it was decided to do the killings."


My point is that the VT killer got his gun legally, according to the guy who sold it to him. So, technically he was abiding to the law at the time he purchased his gun, whatever his criminal intent was. Guns certainly don't turn people into killing machines. However, you cannot predict for what purpose the owner of a legally-acquired gun may end up using his weapon.
A study of 65 high-profile multiple-victim shootings in the US during 40 years showed that 62% of handgun violence and 71% of long gun shootings were committed with legally acquired firearms (Violence Policy Center, 2001) from the link below:
http://www.gun-control-network.org/
4.20.2007 5:44am