Anna thank you for creating this post for this very relevant discussion that I wouldn't want to have in the other space for fear of being disrespectful.

I've had a decent exposure to guns in my life and would have never been part of this discussion or entertained the notion of allowing people to carry guns if I hadn't had that exposure. My ex was a NYPD detective with the SV squad and carried the standard 9mm semi which was I believe a Browning (I could be wrong) and also had a license to carry a 38 caliber so I've shot both guns.

Let me be the first to state that shooting a gun with that kind of recoil is intense not to mention how it makes you feel on the inside. It's creepy to say the least. Someone has to be seriously twisted and sick and mentally disconnected to do this over and over again and shoot so many people. I think this particular shooter used two guns and a 9mm and a 38 caliber. I'm going to assume he used his 9mm more because a 38 caliber isn't easy to load in a short time and a 9mm has a cartridge that's easy to pull out and restock.

Anyway my ex and I were 'almost' mugged in the East Village one night. He handed his wallet to the guy and I handed over my purse. The guy seemed like he was high because he was shaking and the gun was cocked and I was convinced we were going to get shot. We didn't. The guy was apprehended. No shots were fired. I've debated this issue practically my entire adult life and am simply not yet convinced that people should be completely prevented from carrying a gun. I do believe in extensive checks, balances and rigorous training mental and physical to handle a gun.

Now this is going to be hard for me to say but I do not see a probelm with owning a gun for home protection and you may ask why I say this,I say this because if your home is ever violated and the police don't get there in time you are screwed. Now before you folks jump on me and ask what if you have kids in the house I say there are gunlocks out there for your weapon. On a sidenote I have been trained in the handling of weapons and I think that if you plan on owning one you should be trained and also you should have them gunlocks like I mentioned before.

Doug, hopefully there will be no jumping-- on others, to conclusions, off cliffs etc. :) Thanks for adding your take.

I know this may be innocent, but what's the need for guns? That's what we have the police force for...to protect us. The local news was giving out stats a few months ago, and many of the school shootings that occur are done with legally purchased guns. Back in the old days (say 1800s) , you needed a gun to protect yourself but I don't see the need today.

South Africa has some of the least stringent gun laws in the world. You can carry a registered weapon, concealed, just about anywhere you want, except a casino. Many hotels offer weapons lockers, just like coffee pots, with a note reminding you to check your weapon before you hit the craps tables.

South Africa has one of the highest murder rates in the world, with guns involved in nearly half of them (link).

Is there a causal connection? I don't know. I will say it is disconcerting and not reassuring, though, to be able to secure a camera inside a hotel room safe designed for a handgun.

I'm in agreement with Janeofalltrades. I don't have the links at hand but there was another shooting in VA where two students had CCW permits and stopped the gunman from doing further harm. Also read another story where an off duty officer was able to stop a gunman in Utah.
Appalachian School of Law shootings.
Penn and Teller's bullshit did a great episode on the 2nd amendment and why its important.

Anyway my ex and I were 'almost' mugged in the East Village one night. He handed his wallet to the guy and I handed over my purse. The guy seemed like he was high because he was shaking and the gun was cocked and I was convinced we were going to get shot.

Just out of curiosity, if either of you had a gun at the time, would you have used it? Personally, I find gun ownership more frightening than not owning a gun, way too much irreversibility and power. I'm more for this type of stuff

Link didn't show up, this kind of stuff:

http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/nlw/introduction/nlwtable.php

I'm not against guns entirely, but I am for incredibly stringent laws concerning guns. I don't see why a private citizen needs to carry a gun around. Protecting your house? If your gun is locked up, how are you going to get to it in time to protect yourself? And if it's not locked up, an intruder could use it against you. If you're into shooting handguns for sport, why can't you just lock up your handgun at the firing range where you practice? And if you're into hunting for sport, maybe there should be a communal gun safe, and you have to check your gun out when you go hunting. I realize this will probably never happen, but seriously--just because someone likes riding doesn't mean they are allowed to keep a horse in their backyard or in their house. You have to stable it somewhere. So you should have to keep your guns somewhere safe too.

The U.K has some of the strictest gun laws in Europe, with an outright ban on handguns. Here's what their experience has been (from the BBC):

Handgun crime 'up' despite ban

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.

The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

....

"Policy makers have targeted the legitimate sporting and farming communities with ever-tighter laws but the research clearly demonstrates that it is illegal guns which are the real threat to public safety."

link

More laws are not going to change anything unless the stream of illegal weapons is checked. The handguns used by the VT shooter had their serial numbers filed off... chances are pretty high they were illegally obtained guns.

I know this may be innocent, but what's the need for guns? That's what we have the police force for...to protect us. The local news was giving out stats a few months ago, and many of the school shootings that occur are done with legally purchased guns. Back in the old days (say 1800s) , you needed a gun to protect yourself but I don't see the need today.

I wish the police were here to protect us. I live in Los Angeles and I've called the PD a few times (911) -- I kid you not -- the phone kept ringing, I didn't even get a freaking operator.

I don't know how I feel about guns. I don't own one and I don't want one in my house. But then again, I have never had someone break into my house or assault me, maybe those incidents would change my mind. I dunno.

I am shocked how knowledgeably people talk about guns in our country. Some civilians on TV were able to tell the kind of gun from the the sound of shots. That student, Erin (shaved head) , was repeatedly asked by the reporter if she knew what kind of gun the shooter was holding. Are we expedted to be so familiar with weaponry?

As Doug said, are we allowed to protect ourselves with guns only because we assume our agressors will be armed?
Where will it stop?

Preston writes:
>>South Africa has some of the least stringent gun laws in the world.South Africa has one of the highest murder rates in the world, with guns involved in nearly half of them (link).Is there a causal connection? I don't know.

Israel and Switzerland have some of the most liberal gun laws in the world. They both also have the lowest murder rates in the world (after discounting Israeli deaths due to terrorism). Is there a causal connection?

Guns don't kill people. Loners kill people.

M. Nam

i'm just glad to hear that media - when referring to the v tech incident - is for the most part discussing the gun control issue. rather than immigration or terrorism. this is exactly why you need to get all the facts before coming to some idiot conclusion.

It's been said numerous times:
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Case in point is the UK. Wonder what the numbers are on the rise in stabbings and/or vehicular homicide/strangulation etc in the UK. Crazy people will always be crazy and they will always find a way of killing or using illegal methods to obtain guns, the point is to make sure you are protected.

"Guns don't kill people. Loners kill people." Indeed.

We need to look at the people holding the guns.
Here in the UK gun crime has gone up but so has Knife Crime.

I think there should be a complete ban, but that would not completely solve the problem.

Are we expedted to be so familiar with weaponry?

Lots of people are, especially in the South. Guns are a feature of the culture and most people, even if they themselves are not gun enthusiasts, have friends and family who are. Hunting/fishing/camping involve being armed (for real or imagined reasons). Guns are just around.

While we're discussing gun culture, and the importance of respect and love for life, life in all its forms, I'd like to VERY strongly recommend Mike White's recent release "Year of the Dog."

The guns for protection argument bothers me personally, because the place where I am in the most danger is in the ER where I work, which does not have a metal detector. With Virginia's concealed weapon laws, many of my patients likely have guns on their person. All it takes is one angry, frustrated, unstable patient or family member person to start shooting, but I can't use a gun to protect myself at work.

I believe gun ownership should be legal for private citizens. Just as abortion should be legal, and marijuana, and suicide, and poisons, and knives, and nooses, and boxing, and morphine, and cocaine, and that high bridge up at Cornell, and burgers, and alchohol, and cigarettes and that odious substance known as Koffee with Karan.

There should be laws governing the legality of these things, but their legality itself should not be assailed. Some require tighter strictures, some require much less. None should be taken lightly.

Lots of people are, especially in the South. Guns are a feature of the culture and most people, even if they themselves are not gun enthusiasts, have friends and family who are. Hunting/fishing/camping involve being armed (for real or imagined reasons). Guns are just around.

I think the South should be made illegal.

Gun Control is Bullshit. I suggest everyone watch this episode if you haven't already.

HMF can you please explain why the South should be made illegal. I would real like to know.

I live in New Orleans, which has the highest murder rate in the country and my husband is thinking about purchasing a gun. I feel that it's time to leave before purchasing such a weapon. As for policy, I'm all for Chris Rock's Knives For Guns Exchange. "Remember, kids, it ain't punk to fire from across the room. It takes a man to get close enough to STAB!"

Guns don't kill people. Loners kill people.

there are complex social dynamics at work, it isn't "just guns" or "just loners." as noted above, south africa & switzerland have "liberal" gun laws (the swiss, cuz all men called to national service via conscription) and very different crime rates. but that's because south africa and switzerland are very different countries! (e.g., compare their GINI coefficients) i spent my adolescence in a small town where every other truck had a gun rack, and a murder occurred once every generation (in my generation, it happened to be a rape/murder which involved a stabbing). but the small town i grew up isn't every american city. the irony, in my experience, is that my liberal friends who live in cities where crime is a serious problem seem much more open to the need for guns then those who remain in small college towns. why? it seems an emotional response to the reality that many have been mugged (or they invariably know someone who has been mugged). in contrast, in a town with little crime gun ownership is academic, whether you think it is a positive or not generally those with guns are using them to shoot, either game or target.

there are two axes of values at work here:

1) a utilitarian one.

2) a "rights"/morality one.

the former is highly conditional upon your priors. re: #1, consider what anna said: "I just think the potential for tragedy is too high when you mix the two".... if the expectation is that a gun you own is more likely to kill you or your family members than an intruder, the "rational" choice is obvious. but, that expectation might be conditional upon your situation. consider two situations:

a) living in a small town
b) living in an urban neighborhood

the probability that there is a break in on any given day is much higher in b) than a), so the chances that a gun could be used against an intruder start to increase in b), to the point where the chance of self-inflicted death might be much lower then otherwise. this is a hypothetical, but it illustrates the problems in implying one-size-fits-all causal models.

but secondly, re: 2), there are many whose attitudes toward guns are not conditioned by utilitarian concerns, but rather moral ones. that is, some people believe that gun ownership is a "sacred" right, and utility calculations are totally irrelevant to their right, which they believe has moral sanction. in contrast, there are others who simply abhor guns as a matter of principle, or as a matter of socialized distaste. many people who make utilitarian arguments are basically masking these sort of sensibilities.

I'm as liberal as they come, but I think that Koffee with Karan should be outlawed forthwith. As far as the gun-control issue goes, I don't know. I feel like there are valid arguments on either side; when I was eight, we had a break-in at my house in Karachi and the only reason we didn't lose anything is because one of us in the family managed to get the gun that our security guard (absent that day) used to leave locked up with us (he was only given it while on duty and otherwise, it stayed at home), and shot the burglar in the leg. It was a terrifying experience, not least of all because with something like that, the threat of a "casual" accident is overwhelming, but without the presence of a firearm, I don't know what would have happened. I feel that owning and/or keeping a weapon like a gun is very much a personal choice, but I agree that the governance around the issue of possession and ownership needs to be made more stringent in some way, shape or form.

I feel that it's time to leave before purchasing such a weapon.

those us with the mobility/means to make a choice are lucky. the USA is a big country, we can go somewhere which is low crime, whether it is high gun ownership or low gun ownership. the bigger issue involves areas with endemic crime.

Also from Mr. Rock, "I think every bullet should cost 5000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, we wouldn't have any innocent bystanders."

Hey, HMF, have you been to Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan or Upstate New York? Honey, they use guns for the same reasons the South does. Ban the South - yeah, that's some brainwork there.

Let's go farther north. Canadians own the same number of guns as Americans but don't come close to hosting the same number of gun-related deaths. What does that say about America?

I think the South should be made illegal.

I'm actually really offended by that, even if it was meant as a joke. I'm sick of northerners thinking they can lambast the South all they like and get away with it. It's not like the North is such a bastion of racism-free liberal thought. I think that comment was downright trollish. People aren't any worse down here than they are up there.

#13 and #16: I understand, in principle, what you're trying to say about human hands, not guns, killing people -- but can we not throw vacuous generalisations around? Every time something crazy like this happens, the media bends backwards trying to show that the perpetrator was a "loner," because society somehow perceives introverts as threatening. But I'm a "loner" -- as in, I like to spend most of my time alone -- and, like most loners out there, I have no plans to ever shoot anyone. Saying "Guns don't kill people. Loners kill people" is just as ridiculous as saying "Bombs don't kill people. Muslims kill people." Both involve revolting, unsubstantiated generalisations.

When I read of the recent VATech tragedy, I am glad that the National Missile Launcher Association never took off. Imagine if people had bumper stickers like "Missiles don't kill people. People kill people." It would look rather ridiculous.

But to give the gun-rights supporters their due - they would point out that in Swizerland almost every male is drafted into their militia and keeps his rifle at home and murder and crime there is very low. It probably has a lot to do with the Swiss and not about human nature in general.

My question: "You own a car, you need proof of liability insurance. Why not the same for firearms?" I consider my right to drive much more valuable and important than my right to own firearms (which I do not own) but no one argues that requiring automobile liability insurance violates our rights. Firearms liability insurance would be very high in the first month of ownership because the risk is great that someone bought the gun just to kill someone. That high cost might have detered a college student.

If that nutjob had gone into Norriss hall with a steak knife, it would have been different.

This was what I posted on the other thread in response to someone else's post.

Hey, HMF, have you been to Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan or Upstate New York?

Ban them too. Actually I think North America should be divided this way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_map

Let's go farther north. Canadians own the same number of guns as Americans but don't come close to hosting the same number of gun-related deaths. What does that say about America?

They actually own more, per capita. But they also don't have a media representing violent crimes 100 or so more times than they actually occur. They also don't have a gov which uses violence so willy nilly to solve all its problems. It says a lot about America.

this is an interesting thread, i would say that my view is very close to desishiksa's however do agree that banning hand guns will not solve anything, and most likely increase handgun violence. despite regulations on handguns, i still can go uptown and with 200 bucks by an unmarked handgun. What worries me more besides the fact that it was 2 handguns and took out so many people, was that if he had used a semi automatic, which i'm pretty sure are legal in this country, that number could have been 10 times larger.

Definitely not wander passed the mason-dixon line for a long as time.

re: the v tech shooting, it seems to me that focusing on mental health services would be more likely to forestall this sort of thing in the future. the stories i've read indicate that his profs knew something was wrong and recommended he get help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_map

the jesusland map doesn't address the fact that upstate NY, vermont, most of oregon & wash., etc., are awash with guns.

Ban them too. Actually I think North America should be divided this way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_map

Just FYI, you'll note that Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan didn't make into the "Jesusland" bit. ;)

Back in the old days (say 1800s) , you needed a gun to protect yourself but I don't see the need today.

I don't know if that's really true. First, I'd like to think the police are constantly available for our protection, but first responders do take a finite amount of time to respond, and sometimes, they just can't be there soon enough. Also, consider the difference between police protection in a heavily populated urban area vs. a very thinly populated rural area. In fact, in rural areas, it's not uncommon for people to keep a shotgun in the house, because you never know when some random, dangerous critter is going to run through your yard.

Second, there is a philosophical issue as well. The 2nd Amendment exists to allow people to arm themselves, as a form of resisting the tyranny of government. The entire Bill of Rights is designed to give people power against (or protection from) the government. The right to bear arms is completely consistent with the rest of the Bill of Rights, and I wouldn't want it to go away, simply because there are instances where it might be anachronistic.

the stories i've read indicate that his profs knew something was wrong and recommended he get help.

A co worker of mine attended V tech, he also personally knew the person who fired shots on the campus last August, causing a shut down then. He wasn't friends with him, just knew him, and said he was clearly mentally unstable. He would live in the woods for days on end, he wouldn't wear shoes (in the dead of winter), he didn't own guns, however. He stole the gun of the policeman guarding him, and shot him in the hospital.

So at least in that case, all the gun control in the world wouldn't have stopped the incident.

desishiksa - just wondering if you have ever seen the website www.f*ckthesouth.com; i think you can fill in the blanks, i have NOT verified any of the sources and does not reflect my opinion of the south, someone sent it to me as a joke, but the last comment about the South having the highest Murder Rate in the US...may be slighyly relevant to this thread?

is this all bs or perhaps some shreads of truth very poorly worded?

Brownelf, i agree. it is wrong to Generalise but we need to find out why people are using guns. what is the reason. metal health is one of them. many of the violent crimes that occur in my area are due to mental health.

upstate NY, vermont, most of oregon & wash

They smoke lots of weed there, and Vermont has ben & jerrys ice cream.

#30 Brownelf

I agree. Moornam isn't the most clear-headed of commenters, and he probably suffers from the bourgeois nationalist's love for structure and conformity and suspicion of rebels and misfits. Else he would have known that a lot of the world's greatest art, science and math, and a lot of the questioning of oppressive customs, have come from "loners". Grigori Perelman and Pablo Picasso, anyone? Better be the tiger, majestic alone, than the sheep, I say.

Somebody get Hitler a blanket; I'm in absolute complete agreement with Kobayashi.

Also from Mr. Rock, "I think every bullet should cost 5000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, we wouldn't have any innocent bystanders."

Also from Mr. Rock, "Much like Rock'n'Roll, high-school shootings were invented by the blacks, and stolen by the white man"

I think the South should be made illegal.

A truly idiotic comment.

Alright people. It wasn't a completely serious comment.

They smoke lots of weed there, and Vermont has ben & jerrys ice cream.

Heh. Thanks, HMF. I really needed a chuckle.

Just out of curiosity, if either of you had a gun at the time, would you have used it?

I'm not licensed nor have a registered weapon. He had it. Honestly he was perhaps the most calm person I had ever known. Had it been me (without his training) I'd have pulled it out and gone nuts. He was really relaxed and talked to the guy, eventually he flashed his weapon which was holstered to him and the guy took a step back and my ex grabbed him. It could have ended badly but didn't and the guy's gun was loaded.

I think the South should be made illegal.

I know you were joking but take a look at this picture. It's not from the south and make a note of the ages.

brownelf #30:

Not all loners are senseless killers. However, most senseless killers are loners. There's too much of a correlation that cannot be hidden away due to political correctness.

Indeed, I would go out on a limb and say that most loners are extremely creative people. As torpedo mentioned, some of the world's most creative geniuses have been lonely in some phase of their life. However, those who snap out of their loneliness and learn to work with people that are different from them, become the Mozarts and Einstiens. Those who don't, usually end up violent. Serial killers are so difficult catch because they are so freaking smart and creative with their killing and evasive methods.

Indeed, there have been studies that point to correlation between creativity and violence. Can't find the link now, but if I do, I will post it.

M. Nam

Handguns, specifically, impose their own vicious circle:

1. Some people buy handguns, and can use them easily. (Easy to conceal, hence easy to bring anywhere.)

2. Handgun crimes go up, so people feel unsafe.

3. They buy their own handguns "for protection", and so the number of handguns in society go up.

4. This in turn leads to a further rise in handgun crimes, and still more people buy handguns "for protection" etc.

:-(

I once talked to a NRA member (I am not one, I've never touched a gun in my life). He mentioned to me that during the L.A riots, many South Asian store owners bought guns to protect their various stores in L.A neighborhoods. I honestly feel that I would have wanted to have a gun in the VA Tech situation and probably would have used it to protect myself and those around me. I also feel we're addressing this issue too fast. We need to wait till the details all come out. Some European newspapers are condemning the NRA for allowing the assault rifle ban to be lifted. Mr. Cho did not use an assault rifle yesterday. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a 9mm is an assault rifle.

Handguns, specifically, impose their own vicious circle:

1. Some people buy handguns, and can use them easily. (Easy to conceal, hence easy to bring anywhere.)

2. Handgun crimes go up, so people feel unsafe.

3. They buy their own handguns "for protection", and so the number of handguns in society go up.

4. This in turn leads to a further rise in handgun crimes, and still more people buy handguns "for protection" etc.

Can you find any sort of study or statistics that supports this line of logic?

Guns don't kill people. Loners kill people.

Mr. Cho did not use an assault rifle yesterday. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a 9mm is an assault rifle.

No, one weapon was "only" a .22 caliber handgun, one of the smallest standard bullet sizes.

Since this is SepiaMutiny, I'm sure many of our desi doctors will agree with me, or maybe not.

Surgeons performs surgery to heal a patient:

1. Some surgeons are pretty good at what they do i.e. cutting people up.
2. Some surgeons screw surgery up, killing or further injuring numerous people worldwide.
3. In order to rectify a botched surgery, you may have to go under the knife again.
4. This in turn MAY lead to further botched surgeries.

Thus we should ban all surgical procedures due to the high risk of error and the statistical rates that show that at least a 1000 people have died last year from surgery alone. Of course, the stats on people who have been saved through surgical procedures do not count. Only deaths count.

Either that or we make gun owners buy some kind of malpractice insurance.

Not on the topic of gun control, but related: Minal Panchal is grad student 'The Hindu' says may be among the deceased. Her orkut scrapbook's already filled up with hundreds of messages. It's kind of heartbreaking to see the initial concern turn to dismay and then outpouring of sympathy. This tinyurl redirect to her scrapbook may or may not work

Link: http://tinyurl.com/3bb8ml

Thus we should ban all surgical procedures due to the high risk of error and the statistical rates that show that at least a 1000 people have died last year from surgery alone.

These types of arguments hold little water in my opinion, the purpose of surgery is to heal, the purpose of a gun is to inflict bodily harm. It has no other purpose.

The intentions are completely different. Now doctors who have fradulent credentials or willfully screw up a surgery, yes, those should be held accountable. You may turn around and say, "Well, those who use guns irresponsibly should be held accountable." And they should - but even "responsible" gun usage is far less advantageous to the individual, and society as a whole, as is "responsible" surgery.

The two aren't even in the same ballpark.

#49 Moornam

Once again, you have gone out on a limb and generalized cluelessly (oh, aren't you politically incorrect?). Grigori Perelman wasn't just lonely in some part of their life and "learn to work with people"; he eschewed almost all human contact and focused on his work for years. There are numerous such examples through history.

But anyway. Of course most killers are loners. Yes, some people are loners because they find their immediate society trite, suffocating, boring, and I pray to the flying spaghetti monster that such people continue to question oppressive structures old and new. But of course some are loners because they are disturbed and ill. If you said "disturbed people" I would have no quarrels with you. But in your eagerness to theorize, you needlessly insulted people who did no harm to you or anyone else, and who suffer everyday from the tyranny of the sociable. Doesn't, after all, the smooth-talking MBA beat the scientist who did most of the work alone behind closed lab doors?

An excellent book on the history of gun laws in the US.

If there are any Sikh's out there, I would like to know what your take on gun's are? I am curious because Sikh's carry a Kirpan(dagger) around for protection, if ever needed, and for other religous purposes. So, if a Sikh carries around a weapon for protection, you would think that they would be in favor of people carrying around gun's for protection and to protect other. Am I wrong to assume this?

The gun issue is so complicated! In England gun's are banned, but every person in England has had their house robbed, where on the other hand in countries like the USA, the rate is far lower. Is it because people in England dont have to worry about being shot, when they enter a house or is it something else?

Also people, who are trained to have gun's get into gun accident's all the time, now imagine if the whole damn population had one! There wouldnt be a person in America, who hasnt been shot. The funniest example is a video going around the internet, where a guy is giving a gun saftey lesson to kid's and he end's up shooting himself in the leg during the lecture.

Gun control or not, what is it about the United States that produces so many insane people? We don't hear about so many school shootings from any other part of the world, do we? Does the US society in general somehow promote this type crazy behaviour in the name of "free speech"? Is it the general lack of direction for the young minds in US which allows them to go insane like these shooters? I sometimes wonder how and why the suicide bombers from militant groups across the world kill people by blowing themselves up - not sure if I completely understand that, but I can at least understand the motivation behind that - but what I can never understand is why these school shooting incidents repeat so often in this country.

torpedo:

Must've touched a raw nerve there.

There are two types of loners: One who wants to stay a loner to pursue art/science etc. And the one who wants to be social but cannot to shyness, fear of failure, etc. The question is: How to distinguish one from the other without significantly sacrificing the said person's privacy?
Colleges in the US are paranoid about student's rights, even if it comes in the way of safeguarding other students and faculty lives. This needs to change.

M. Nam

NYT has a detailed article on the Cho's roommates - including one Karan Grewal.

this is a great discussion. i've always been against guns, like someone said earlier just because the mere thought of having that kind of power in human hands is scary.

having said that, i find the observations of the differences between sweden, south africa, and canada to be telling of what truly matters in these conversations. do we blame guns? do we blame psychosis? or do we blame the system?

a quick study of the quality of life in sweden:
The Swedish state is among the most generous in the scope of government services provided in Europe. These include tax-funded childcare, parental leave, a ceiling on health care costs, tax-funded education (all levels up to, and including university), retirement pensions, tax-funded dental care up to 20 years of age and sick leave (partly paid by the employer). Parents are entitled to a total of 480 days partly paid leave between birth and the child's eighth birthday, with 60 days reserved specifically for each parent, in effect providing the father with two so-called "daddy-months". The ceiling on health care costs makes it easier, relative to other nations, for Swedish workers to take time off for medical reasons.

Also: Both upper secondary school and university studies are financed by taxes.

Imagine if that was available in the U.S. - what different lives we would lead. How much closer and available would family be to children from birth to 8 years? Education and the stress of funding it would not be present, how would it be to have a nation with more educated people? It seems only to have positive impacts on society.

Just some food for thought...

Re: #65-

The operative word seems to be "tax-funded", as in tax-funded childcare, tax-funded education, tax-funded dental care, etc. Today is tax day, and as someone who just paid a substantial sum of money to the IRS, I'm not sure I really want the system to provide me with a whole slew of "tax-funded" services.

Also, 480 days? That's a year and four months of partly paid family medical leave? Wow. Unreal. I hope that means an employer may hire a replacement worker in the interim. Otherwise, just imagine the impact on productivity and the Swedish economy.

Are gun-owners a minority of the population?
If yes, then, if the majority can live their lives without guns why can't everybody?

And how much has the minority's gun ownership contributed to making the majority feel safe?

According to a 2001 Harris Interactive poll, two of five Americans live in a home with at least one gun. The number is higher in the South than in the East.

If yes, then, if the majority can live their lives without guns why can't everybody?

It's really not a question of why the minority "can't" live the way the majority does, it's a question of why the minority should live the way the majority does. Isn't modern government all about protecting the rights of the minority?

My opinion on gun control has changed over time. I do not see myself owning one, but I am neither for or against others owning one (well as long as it is in the hands of the sane).

And for the life of me, I will never understand assault weapons being made available to the general public. Make the ammo available only at firing ranges and make sure they use it completely before they leave. That might be a possible solution.

Just like driving tests become mandatory for older people, there needs to be some kind of a test for gun owners. Yes, it is inconvenient, but people need to look at the society as a whole.

If you want me to draw parallels, people who were upset at the heightened security checks after 9/11 over time understood that it was to keep them safer. When the TSA decided to ban liquids on carry on bags, people did complain, but most of them understood. I hope that increased scrutiny and security measures for who can own a gun (if implemented) will be taken in a similar vein.

Do we have too much of a conveyor belt approach to human problems?
The guy once set fire to his dorm room AND was singled out by professor as being disturbed.

Wow Moor, your world is so simple. It must truly be a delight to be a part of it. Two types of loners. One type kills people. Second type studies art/science. Stands to reason, the non-loners are studying Wall Street Journal and making causal comparison between Switzerland and South Africa. While they're at it, why not compile a list of the first type of loners, so we can lock them up ? Oh no, we can't do that - violation of personal privacy. Who's so paranoid? Why, its the colleges! Damn, the same colleges that have destroyed marriage as an institution by letting gays to wed! Perhaps the same ones that mess about with your pet project - Indick studies ? Or should that be Indic, I haven't the faintest clue. You see, I went to one of them damn colleges, my brain's turned to mush. But I think I can still spot a genuine Canadian male when I see one, instead of confusing him with a female Indian fob who spells bad, simply because he/she/it doesn't fit into your incredibly simple world with neatly defined categories.

Do you at all have actual data to back up anything you write/say/do ? Can you categorically prove that had every VT student owned a 9mm, fewer than 33 would be dead ? Or can you at least prove the contrary ? You take accidents, which by definition don't fit a pattern, and employ them in service of your neocon agenda. Why not just say the moon is made of green cheese ? I will literally take your word for it.

tambram,

If you're a loner, spoorlam would love your company!

Check this out...

M. Nam

Isn't modern government all about protecting the rights of the minority?

Let's start with those who would love to wear open-toed shoes to work.

That's right! Fight the power! Nothing wrong with nice peeptoe pumps!

I like the Wapo for this pic.

This is the photograph Neale is referring to-- I put a screenshot of it in my Flickr photostream, since the front page of the Post will quite possibly display something different, very soon.

Honestly, I don't know what the right answer is, but it seems like shootings in schools have reached a tipping point, almost. An Austrian friend mentioned how strict and long the procedure which includes an extensive psychological checkup to obtain guns and a gun license is in Europe, and I found myself nodding in agreement to this.
I don't have an intelligent opinion on this issue yet. Sadly, I believe that laws or no laws, illegal weapons will continue to flood this country and they will find a way to get into wrong hands, although perhaps having stricter rules for weapons may help curb this recent spate of shootings?

Guns don't kill people. Loners kill people.

This kind of dichotomy is completely misleading…Yes, the person holding the gun pulls the trigger, but it IS the actual gun that fires the bullet. If thoughts could kill, my ex-workplace could be a cavernous echo chamber…it’s the actual instruments, at hand, that enable the most deranged, depraved and deprived folks to indulge in their murderous fantasies.
All talk about Switzerland or Sweden or Israel is misleading…The US is neither a peace haven nor a homogenous society with overarching commonality of lifestyles and attitudes in its’ citizenry…The rationale for owning guns is solely based on the premise that citizen militias, with weapons, played a key role in the founding of the state. For all those who claim that it stops crime, please try and find actual verifiable stats, and also include, for good measure, how much damage has been done because of the “gun” culture…It seems, for people who support the right to bear arms, that the only rational reason they do so is because of romantic/historical reasons. A simple thought exercise: The US is, supposedly, midwifing freedom in Iraq, after brutal rule by a dictator that severely clamped down on the freedom of its citizens. Would the US government, and military, support a universal right to bear arms by all Iraqi citizens, subject to a few checks/balances?

Yeah right, tell me another one.

HMF, I know you weren't serious, but I think the amount of derision people hold for the South is uncalled for and also out of place. In many ways, it is a deeply socioeconomic and simplistic way of relating to people who are, at the end of the day, people. I know the South is rife with issues, but I don't think it's any more appropriate to demonize them (or people in "middle America" or "Jesusland") than it is to demonize others.

I used to be staunchly anti-guns, altogether. It wasn't until I drove through some of the poorest parts of this country, watching people hunt for their food and scavenge road kill, that I realized that gun-ownership is absolutely necessary for some communities. At the end of the day a gun has no other purpose than to kill -- it's not the same for a knife or other items that can be used as weapons. I'm really torn - I've seen guns mow down my classmates in drive by shooting, and when I was little, our school went on lockdown more than once because of gang violence or someone fleeing the cops outside. Incidentally, it's not like you can't get a gun when there is a handgun ban - people who want to get their weapon are going to get it, law or not. At the same time, as was mentioned, it always took the police forever to get there. I guess that's one of the hazards of living near/in the inner city, but it's really shameful.

I personally feel that guns should be HIGHLY regulated. But, more important than guns, I think we need to really look at ourselves and ask what kind of world we live in where this kind of violence is sanitized, permitted, and normalized. Violence and murder in the U.S. is much higher than our industrial/economic counterparts. We're also one of the only "advanced" country that practices the death penalty, sentences children to adult prisons, and kills people under the age of 18. I don't bring these issues up to derail, but rather, to bring to light the fact that we've got SERIOUS issues in this country. I don't think gun regulation or even a ban, per se, would do anything to stop events like what happened yesterday.

If there are any Sikh's out there, I would like to know what your take on gun's are? I am curious because Sikh's carry a Kirpan(dagger) around for protection, if ever needed, and for other religous purposes. So, if a Sikh carries around a weapon for protection, you would think that they would be in favor of people carrying around gun's for protection and to protect other. Am I wrong to assume this?

In my home country Sweden, there are many hunting firearms -- i.e. rifles and long-barrelled shotguns.

Handguns are not for hunting animals. They are specifically designed to shoot people at close range.

Someone asked: "Isn't modern government all about protecting the rights of the minority?"

You mean, such as the rights of lunatics going on killing sprees? In this case the will of the majority overrules the minority: handguns on campus are a bad idea.

the only rational reason they do so is because of romantic/historical reasons

I just don't think it's that simple, and it's not just for romantic or historical reasons. If the 2nd Amendment is repealed because it is anachronistic and unnecessary, then why not the 13th Amendment? I mean, slavery has been abolished, so why keep it? Some would say that we've got racial equality too, so the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause is redundant and unnecessary.

If the rights protected in the Constitution are to remain meaningful, then they have to be kept. There is no reason the right to bear arms can't be subject to regulation, the way the right to free speech is. But regulation rather than abolition is the key, IMO.

handguns on campus are a bad idea.

Nobody is disagreeing with that. In fact, Virginia Tech specifically prohibits handguns on campus.

Although Cho is being labelled as a south korean, resident alien etc. the fact remains that he moved to the USA when he was a child and has spent most of his life here.

Without the ability to purchase weapons (guns) that can kill easily, Cho would not have been able to cause the massacre (at least he would have had the resources to obtain guns and ammo illegally, a much higher bar to cross). Consequently, the environment (15+ years of american culture and laws) can be held (causally) responsible for this incident. When was the last massacre in South Korea? Suicides maybe.. Murders.. But I dont believe its that easy to own guns in most east asian countries (Japan etc). Arent there an incredibly large number of domestic tragedies in homes due to gun ownership?

In many ways, it is a deeply socioeconomic and simplistic way of relating to people who are, at the end of the day, people. I know the South is rife with issues, but I don't think it's any more appropriate to demonize them (or people in "middle America" or "Jesusland") than it is to demonize others.

A region that has fielded soldiers in uniform against the union (which in my opinion, is far more traiterous than Michael Moore or Al Franken could ever be), for the purpose of continuing slavery, among other reasons, is not "demonizing." Demonization is done to place blame, I wasn't blaming them.

But what I was doing, in a tongue-in-cheek, satirical, and perhaps ill-placed way, was calling out a region for their behavior. (Intolerance, Misrepresentations of Christianity [Falwell], segregation [Strom Thurmand], and yes, fanatic gun ownership [everyone], as you call... "issues"). If the south doesn't want to be targets of derision, perhaps they should collective behavior.

meant to read, "perhaps they should change their collective behavior"

This Justice Dept. website contains a great deal of statistics and graphs on gun-related violence:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Quote:
"The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms."

perhaps they should change their collective behavior"

Oh please. That moron Debbie Schlussel is not a Southerner. I could come up with an inane list of bad behavior from the North, but it's just not worth it.

This argument for keeping guns on hand for protection is valid. However, what are the stats on cases where homes are burglarized and a gun was essential? How do they compare to the stats of people who are hit by stray bullets or children playing with guns?

There have to be more irresponsible acts of violence than self-defense cases.

I've never asked any of the parents of my child's friends whether they have guns in the house. It just seems instinctive that if you have kids in the house, you wouldn't. But, now I really have to think about it.

HMF, no offense, but that is a ridiculous attempt to avoid the issue at hand. You are more than welcome to continue splitting hairs however suits your argument, but the same reasoning you're using against the South is what racists use against people of color, Debbie Schlussel uses against Muslims, and yes, the rich use against the poor. It is easy to look at the history of the south in black and white (no race pun intended), or on their behavior that way. Have people in the South done incredibly immoral and reprehensible things? Yes. But for that matter, so has every state in the U.S., whether through genocide, internment, terrorism (a la KKK), or otherwise. People loooove to point to the South's institutionally racist history, but rarely do they point out that the same kind of institutional violence existed, although not always on as big of a scale (at the state level) throughout the North, and certainly in the West.

I've spent most of my life growing up in California and would identify as such. However, I am glad that I spent my early childhood in Arizona (not the South, I know) and Ohio because it taught me a lot more humility, kindness, and openness than I would have learned if I had stayed in the so-called "liberal, tolerant, and open-minded bubble" of the Bay Area.

I stand by my argument: it is simplistic to paint the South in such a way. And to be perfectly honest, I personally think this is why there is such a growing divide between communities in the U.S. There is a total lack of empathy paired with incredible hubris and elitism.

Oooh, another good one from local talk radio today, "That’s our God-given right to have guns in this country."

*headslap*

Makes you want to slip some Logic in the water supply.

There have to be more irresponsible acts of violence than self-defense cases.

I don't know if that is necessarily true. I wouldn't be surprised if self-defense cases were underreported relative to senseless acts of violence, because the latter is much more sensational/newsworthy than the former.

Also, maybe the threat of a homeowner with a gun is sufficient to deter crime, so an actual self-defense shooting may not be necessary.

You know, I don't own a gun, and in fact, I've never even handled one before. I used to be completely opposed to gun ownership, but my views have changed a lot over the years. I think it's tragic how many senseless acts of violence are committed using firearms, but for every school shooter, there are thousands of responsible gun owners who have never committed any sort of crime with their guns. I don't think all those people deserve to be condemned for the random acts of these shooters.

The issue here is really about the mental health of gun owners, and not so much gun ownership itself, IMO.

And to be perfectly honest, I personally think this is why there is such a growing divide between communities in the U.S. There is a total lack of empathy paired with incredible hubris and elitism.

Well said, Camille. As a resident of "flyover country", I have been amazed at the sort of accusations that are leveled at "Middle America" on SM. Coastal elitism, I guess?

I cannot believe that conservatives in Virginia are going about claiming that it is precisely because of incidents like these that college campuses should not be gun-control zones. It is fairly evident that while fewer people might have been killed in the ensuing rampage, quite a few would have been killed, even if there was someone with a gun on campus to kill Cho. Perhaps a better solution would be tighter gun control overall so that people like Cho, who are emotionally unstable, do not have such a free and unfettered access to guns. There are more handhun related deaths in the US than in any other developed country. Just because it is enshrined in the 2nd Amendment, does not mean that it is still univerally applicable

Also,

However, those who snap out of their loneliness and learn to work with people that are different from them, become the Mozarts and Einstiens.

It's an unhelpful simplification. Also, it may be that serial killers prefer crunchy peanut butter as opposed to the smooth kind -- that does not mean anything.

For the record, both Mozart and Einstein were quite popular with the ladies. With the exception of autisitc savants and some geniuses who are very socially impaired, most prominent scientists are quite social -- they only choose to restrict themselves to insular, but tightly knit, groups.

Camille, don't waste your time on this nonsense, my sister. Allow me to give it one shot:

HMF, you are embarrassing the site with your ahistorical, stereotyping idiocy, whether it is all serious, all in jest, or whatever blend of the two. Earth to HMF: The Civil War was 143 years ago. Earth to HMF: Many things have changed in the United States in the past 143 years. Earth to HMF: Much progressive culture, innovation, and creativity in contemporary American life comes from people and places in the states of the former Confederacy. Earth to HMF: Deal with it. And stop polluting this board with asinine generalizations that are offensive to anyone with a basic grasp of American culture and society today.

wow. all the kids are quiet now that daddy administered a spanking. i'm a bit afraid too.

you might prevent a number of gun murders (and suicides) by limiting legal access to guns (though most murders in ny and other cities are with illegal guns) but those lives are NOT worth the scrapping of a useful second amendment. The right to bear arms, to finally decide upon a complete personal sovereignty because for any number of reasons the government does not satisfy your sense of security, you don't trust the government to protect you or your family(perhaps you're black, arab, even south asian given certain not impossible circumstances), AND the government truly ought to have some sense of accountability to the peoples' guns despite the feeling that non governmental individuals have no brute power to face a governmental machine, is essential, forward thinking, uniquely and philosophically American and ought to remain a right.

You would arguably "save lives" by scrapping the right to say or think nasty thoughts, including hateful speech, but you would be wrong to do so. It has been argued with little but some merit that locking up or banning Muslims from the U.S. would "save lives" from potential "Muslim terrorist attacks," but the cost of so doing does not make it worth it.

but the same reasoning you're using against the South is what racists use against people of color,

Not really, the distinction is between behavior and essence of being. Slave owners, and debbie's arguements are based on the latter. Mine aren't.

Earth to HMF: The Civil War was 143 years ago. Earth to HMF: Many things have changed in the United States in the past 143 years. .

You're right, my bad, everythings yippy skippy down there. Maybe one of these days, I can be enlightened as to the great progressive nature of the south (not being facetious here, if my innate bigotry has shielded my learning of the great cultural and social contributions made by alabama, then I'd be the first to admit that's not a cool thing) I'll leave it up to you to decide the right time and place.

the great cultural and social contributions made by alabama

Harper Lee (author of "To Kill a Mockingbird") is from Alabama. Hugo Black, a former Supreme Court justice, and noted defender of the First Amendment, was also from Alabama.

There are many others from that state that have made "great cultural and social contributions" too.

Perhaps a better solution would be tighter gun control overall so that people like Cho, who are emotionally unstable, do not have such a free and unfettered access to guns.

Now that the details are out this is what I find disturbing. There was a background check done on Cho and the State approved the purchase of his gun which he bought legitimately. I guess I'm confused because he was accused or did at some point set fire to a dorm room. I can't tell if it was before or after he got the gun. If it was before then why didn't that show up on his record as a red flag? If it was after why didn't someone go looking for his gun and make him surrender it. For all intents and purposes it appears that the guy who sold him the gun did everything required by law and since the guy had no prior record of any sort didn't do anything illegally. What none of these filters could do was get help for someone obviously disturbed from all the signs he displayed. This is the sad part of the gun argument. In this case it really wasn't the simple access to a gun that caused this tragedy but the psycho who ended up with it.

I strongly believe in psychological accessment and training for owning a gun. Law enforcement requires it so why not civilians?

Harper Lee. True dat, I'll give you that one. Hugo Black, according to wiki, was also a KKK defender and subsequent member. But in all honesty, I truly don't want to continue this discussion here. The last thing I wanna do is embarass the site

People of influence were often in the KKK in the 1930s and the 1940s, even in many non-Southern states. You only have to read Black's jurisprudence to know that he was not a bigot.

But you're right...this is really not the place or time for this discussion.

i hate testimonializing but i'll have to make an exception in this instance:

as someone who has spent all their formative years (with the required trips 'round the globe to visit my diaspora-scattered family) in "the south" i'd have to say that HMF's comments approach "blithering idiot" status.

I've lived, loved and learned to the fullest in a place where, yes, many contradictions rule the day. You can get "sand-nigger" thrown at you in one place and a "vanakkam" elsewhere (and yes, both words have wafted by my ears on more than a few occasions). You may find restaurants serving only animal products in some places and welcoming homes serving the finest veggie south indian cuisine elsewhere.

All these contradictions make life sweet--i'd hate to live in a place where at least a few adverse conditions were not present.

The south is not all trailers and cars on cinderblocks. If you go there seeking the KKK, you'll find them. If you go seeking Ashrams and yoga retreats--you'll find that too!

open your eyes, HMF and live the beautiful contradiction before denigrating it.

noblekinsman:

the government truly ought to have some sense of accountability to the peoples' guns despite the feeling that non governmental individuals have no brute power to face a governmental machine

You make some good points, but I am not quite clear what this clause means. I suppose, I might be able to move the discussion forward if I had a fuller idea of what you were trying to say. However, this

It has been argued with little but some merit that locking up or banning Muslims from the U.S. would "save lives" from potential "Muslim terrorist attacks," but the cost of so doing does not make it worth it.

JoAT: The sad part about the right to bear arms is that kids (like the 2-year old Shodan mentions) and emotionally disturbed individuals (like Cho, or for that matter most of us at some point of life or the other when we briefly lose emotional and rational balance) unwittingly become killing machines. A state senator from Virginia is currently embroiled in legal trouble because of not taking sufficient care of his handgun, which resulted ultimately in the death of a teenage kid in the neighbourhood.

The shopkeeper that sold Cho his gun, rues the day he sold it to him. I cannot imagine that gun being used for any other purpose. At best the use of a gun lies in its non-use; at worst, it is an instrument of death.