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.

Hey dude. Go F#($ yourself. How many times to I have to #$)(*#(@$ apologize for the same #$()@(ing thing? It was a joke, poorly crafted, in bad taste and all that jazz. I can go into my underlying beliefs supporting the iota of criticism the joke contained, (and, no this doesn't exonerate every other place in the world of wrong doing) at another time and place; then you can decide if I'm the societal progress killing machine I seem to be.

I think we're all a little raw from everything that's happened. Would it be possible to steer the discussion back to guns/the tragedy at VT vs. HMF's views? I think the pro-Southern delegation has made their point well. No need to pile on further.

most prominent scientists are quite social

The most prominent scientist of all, Isaac Newton, was the quintessential loner. Einstein, the only other scientist mentioned in the same breath as Newton, had this to say about his own "loner"liness: "Although I am a typical loner in my daily life, my awareness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice has prevented me from feelings of isolation."

SM Intern, I agree with you on the turn this thread is taking. However, one of the roadblocks to a clearer understanding of the gun problem is such prejudice. When one group refuses to participate in collective ownership of an issue and is so ready to pin it on another, how are we going to have reasonable dialogue and progress? "My people and I could never be that uncivilized, so group X, Y or Z should have their rights taken away."

That said and getting back to the point, how about those knives and our inherent craziness, huh?

Just thinking out loud...

If it were made legal for every citizen and legal permanent resident to carry a concealed weapon, for their own safety, shouldn't the legal visitors/non-resident aliens be extended the same courtesy?

Any nut job can walk into any major engineering graduate department in any-univ, USA, knowing well that any "foreign-face" he sees in there is probably not legal to carry a weapon...

Prema, I was thinking of precisely that statement, let me highlight the section that struck me as the main thrust of his sentence.

"Although I am a typical loner in my daily life, my awareness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice has prevented me from feelings of isolation."

Newton, for that matter, was exactly like that. He corresponded with Hooke, Locke and even mounted a protracted, bitter rivalry against Leibniz which ended up dividing English and continental mathematicians into two rival factions.

Excellent point, Maitri. I was pre-emptively intervening because I am proud of the discussion and want it to continue, that's all. I'm noticing that some of the commenters (like HMF) seem to be taking a "this is not the time, nor the place" approach to certain issues and during such a difficult moment, I wanted to be sensitive to that sentiment, hence the creation of this very thread. I really appreciate your help in steering everything, even when you see roadblocks. Especially when you see them.

I think Purush, raises exactly the right points by arguing that the 2nd Amendment was necessary to the founding of the state, but is no longer applicable. The point is not if someone is a loner or not, the point is that giving anyone that easy a means of killing others is not a very comforting idea. The US is no longer a frontier territory. Other countries seem to do pretty fine with having cops around to guard and protect them.

The US is no longer a frontier territory. Other countries seem to do pretty fine with having cops around to guard and protect them.

Imagine you live in a rural area in western Nebraska or South Dakota, miles away from the nearest sheriff's office. There is an intruder in your barn, and he's headed to your house. What would you do? Would you feel just a little better if you had a shotgun you could get to quickly? Especially if you knew it would take a police officer 20 minutes to respond to your 9-11 call?

There is no magic bullet to rid society of it's ills. Each country as other posts have alluded to have different situations and boundary conditions.

For a country as large as the United States in diversity, size, and urban-rural-suburban divide, how local communities police themselves is varied, too. The existing supply of guns in this country is very large (legal and illegal). From what I've read, and I don't have the references here with me, most gun crime occurs via illegal weapons usually involving gang/drug violence.

If weapons are to be banned, the massive existing supply will go underground. Gangs, who already have a stead supply of weapons, will be unaffected. It will only become another valued product for cartels shipping drugs through the porous borders. Like meth or cocaine.

It may seem like an obscure solution, but as with many things, training, education, and recognizing root problems are far more important. Even if tools like guns are eliminated (IMHO for the United States not a practical possibility), it won't get rid of the root causes that afflict us. Los Angeles and DC with their strict gun laws are still riddled with gun violence. Economics, education, demographics all play into these things.

I've heard the analogies how the VT murderer would have not inflicted as many casualties with a knife. But thats assuming he felt limited in his options. We don't know. Homemade pipe bombs, illegal weapons, etc. are more difficult to obtain, but once someone has committed themselves to do such an act (like the Columbine kids who had planning involved), I highly doubt the difficulty of obtaining a weapon would limit that person.

Switzerland does not equal South Africa does not equal Great Britain does not equal the United States does not equal Canada. Different strokes for different folks. In India for example, there is a cottage industry of homemade guns in places like UP and Bihar. They're crude, but still effective in killing.

We can't put the genie back in the bottle and look for, pardon the pun, a shot gun approach. (By the way, for home defense, the vast population would be better off with a shotgun vs a handgun simply because most aren't trained well enough to handle a hand gun or possess the ability to shoot correctly in an adrenalin charged situation).

I'm a supporter of the second amendment for the American landscape. With our givens, I'd rather have the ability to possess weapons and push for better enforcement of current laws, go after illegal arms dealers, and have a system in place to ensure proper safety and law abiding people to have weapons as they please, but above all have a system in place to thoroughly train/educate people on guns and the RESPONSIBILITY that goes with it. You NEVER pull a gun out or point one until you're prepared to shoot. I've read of life long CCW owners who walk away, even though they posses a weapon. Bottom line, you never know what the other person has or their state of mind. Gun are not to be used for looking strong or intimidating people. I'm not out here to change anyone's opinions, just throwing my 2 cents in here. YMMV.

I don't know if any of you have heard of Millwood,VA,I spent some of my childhood years there and I can tell you that they have no police what so ever the nearest police station is in town about five or so miles away if no further and it would behoove anybody to not have any kind of protecion in their home incase of a break in.
I believe that you should have the right to have a weapon in your home and will stand by that till the day I die. Hear is a saying I know that has been heard before and there is some truth in it. "power comes from the end of a barrel."

there certainly are parts of the US where owning a gun is fairly necessary (like Rio Arriba county in NM...or anywhere in NM for that matter) but coming from an ultra-rural VA, i can tell you with all honesty that it's not necessary to have guns for 'protection' purposes in all ultra-rural areas--against crazed beasties (never really lived till you hear the chuffing of a bear cub when you're 3 miles deep in an old-growth forest)or intruders that your mind conjures into being.

existential danger is no rationale for gun ownership. I'd never trust a single one of my friends with a gun in any kind of pressure situation--how am I supposed to feel comfortable with knowing that any of my classmates could be toting to Anthro 301?

I've fired a number of weapons at ranges and outdoors (from mac 10s to the glock 9mm) and it definitely does give you that big swingin' dick gangster feeling but only until you put it down and realize there are maybe 1 in a million instances in which you could safely use it.

Newton, for that matter, was exactly like that. He corresponded with Hooke, Locke and even mounted a protracted, bitter rivalry against Leibniz

And Cho played online video games with people around the world. How does that change the fact that Newton and Cho were loners?

Most murders are not committed by loners. Far from it. On the other hand loners are disproportionately represented among the geniuses and saints of mankind.

I can't help thinking about the fact that the authorities at IIT-B have restricted internet access to promote social interaction among students. There seems to be some connection on all this.....

I can't help thinking about the fact that the authorities at IIT-B have restricted internet access to promote social interaction among students.

Social networking as vigil, memorial.

taken from another site about gun control and why seemingly it doesnt work:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, dissidents and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: millions and millions.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, so criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

existential danger is no rationale for gun ownership. I'd never trust a single one of my friends with a gun in any kind of pressure situation--how am I supposed to feel comfortable with knowing that any of my classmates could be toting to Anthro 301?

Well, I would argue that it's often more than existential danger. But I do agree that students packing heat isn't a good fix to this problem.

How many people have actually used a gun to defend themselves?? Are there any statistics about that?? Are there any real statistics about the likelyhood of an american household getting attacked by unknown assailants?

Deterrence will not work against suicidal killers.

I'm reminded of that pearl jan song "jeremy" about a schoolboy loner that everyone knew wasn't quite right and who ends up going out in a homicidal rage. I know it's pure speculation at this point, but the VT killer may well have been developing schizophrenia- this is about the age when a first episode psychotic break typically happens. He may (again speculation) may have had no idea what was going on in his brain. Having said that, most schizophrenics are not violent. And don't have this guy's aim.

Video games are impersonal and unreal. It would be a stretch to compare those Newton with an online gamer. But I agree with your main point, Prema, that to distinguish loners from non-loners is a very silly way to go about trying to figure out who is a murderer and who is not.

ALMfD, by deterrence, you mean deterring the suicidal killer from killing by threatening him with a gun, right? Just to be clear that you did not mean deterring a suicidal killer from walking over to a gun-store and buying a gun -- because that kind of deterrence does work.

When was the last massacre in South Korea?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woo_Bum-Kon

Thanks for the post Anna. At times like these I miss slow news days.

Maitri,
Your Chris Rock reference (24) is spot on. I grew up in an interesting part of Mumbai. Witnessed more than a couple knifings. These used to be, for the want of better term, specialised jobs. Guns changed all that. I remember older thugs getting all nostalgic about good old days. “Now every two-bit punk wants to be a bhai”, they used to complain.

I am not romantisising murderers, but guns make taking someone’s life fairly easy and impersonal. There should be plenty of roadblocks between violent thoughts and violent action.

AMFD,
I thought you were talking about this almost identically named book. Weir provides stats on most of the countries named in this thread. His theory / pipe dream of more equitable society is worth looking into.

A few years ago I heard movie line "God did not make all men equal, Mr Colt did". For many years, I was a firm believer that guns were to be used only in gun clubs. But a stint in the USA changed my mind. Now am quite ambivalent. Down under, as a black fella I was quite uncomfortable with visiting nightclubs and pubs coz I was wont to get harassed by the white fellas. Then, I lived a couple of years in the "Deep South". During this period I began to carry a handgun openly (got it from a mate) and I never ever got harassed in any nightclub or pub. Was there a causal connection - maybe. But ever since my return, I have wished that I could carry a handgun - openly. No concealed carry for me. Unfortunately in Australia, criminals carry guns not law abiding citizens. I am a puny 5'6 nerdy black fella and with a gun I can walk fearlessly and hold my own in any brawl. I feel the need to have gun all the more now that I have a child. Protect my famiily from criminals - what other reason? As for those who repose their faith in cops - I dont trust nor like them. God helps those who help themselves.

For the gun control advocates, Australia is a good test case. We had very lax laws till the mid 90s when we had a major massacre like the one at VT. Gun laws were tightened. I have not see any statistics that show Australia is a safer place or that folks feel safer than before - when gun laws were lax.

Now every two-bit punk wants to be a bhai

I think the correct expression is "Now every dedhphutia tapori wants to be a bhai." Sorry, I just finished reading Sacred Games.

I think the suggestion that it would have been safer on the VT campus if more students had guns is incredibly illogical. I don't think anyone on this thread said that (I haven't read all the comments, since there were so many), but I know it's been brought up by some conservative pundits. I heard that East Asian students were profiled on VT and some got hate mail and other race-based treatment. Keeping that in mind, I think it would have been an even worse situation if more students had a gun in a time of such tension, fear, and suspicion.

I meant, "and other kinds of race-based mistreatment".

A recurring theme here is that guns make people feel "safe".

A quick visit to www.DarwinAwards.com will cure you of that feeling:
Look at the looooong list of incidents where people killed or injured themselves through a combination of stupidity and guns.

Another thing....
The major part of "social control" -- the ways in which humans interact to restrain and divert aggression -- is NOT accomplished through threats and weapons.

More subtle means of social control are contracts, mutual benefits, taboos, shaming, protocol (i.e. "courtesy" and "manners") and consensus.

It's not the absence of handguns, but the absence of protocols -- manners, courtesy, consideration for others -- which allows for aggression to escalate in society. If you teach your children to be polite, not to casually curse or humiliate their peers, the long-term effect is to diminish the unchecked resentment and rage which leads to violence.

To put it bluntly, American society must (again) teach itself the art of civility. Stop saying "F***" all the time, and say "please" a little more. Is that too much to ask for? Or would you rather buy a Glock than say please...

Anyone think there is going to be a push in congress to place restrictions on permanent residents from obtaining guns? I don't think it would even hold up in courts.

Apparently there was a bill passed recently that allowed gun stores to destroy purchase records within 24-48 hrs. Does anyone know any more about this?

How recent is recent? There was something regarding this way back in 2004

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/23/0452213

The VT massacre does not make me question the US gun laws one way or the other. This tragedy had nothing to do with the easier availability of guns, and I am not at all pro-gun. Criminals or deranged persons will always find a way to get hold of weapons. How hard is it to buy drugs in a country where all drugs are illegal? If there is money to be made trafficking in guns, there will be guns for purchase.

What the VT tragedy makes me question is whether as a nation we have a propensity for shooting rampage. There have been quite a few major ones such as VT but also many on smaller scale (McDonald's, US Post Office), if such a thing can even be considered small. Are there stats showing similar bizarre crimes in other countries?

GujuDude "In India for example, there is a cottage industry of homemade guns in places like UP and Bihar. They're crude, but still effective in killing."

I am from Bihar and can substantiate your remark about the easy availability of guns in Bihar, or anywhere, when people want them. I was sitting in a bar one night in Patna, which probably should not be undertaken without packing a gun, and struck up a conversation with some unsavory but friendly types. They offered this NRI babu a little trip to the countryside next day to fire AK-47's. I later found out that AK-47 is the weapon of choice among the criminals of Eastern India. (Of course, I didn't go.)

Re: over-generalizing the south and guns. Here are some lyrics from the band that brought us "Sweet Home Alabama"

Lynyrd Skynryd lyrics from "Saturday Night Special":

Its a saturday night special
Got a barrel thats blue and cold
Aint no good for nothin
But put a man six feet in a hole

. . .

Hand guns are made for killin
Aint no good for nothin else
And if you like your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself
So why dont we dump em people
To the bottom of the sea
Before some fool come around here
Wanna shoot either you or me

A quick visit to www.DarwinAwards.com will cure you of that feeling: Look at the looooong list of incidents where people killed or injured themselves through a combination of stupidity and guns.

I'm sorry people do stupid things all the time, stupid things with guns aren't exceptions. The Darwin awards are a testimony to that. Even police officers have shot themselves accidentally while cleaning guns and they are trained to do this.

To put it bluntly, American society must (again) teach itself the art of civility. Stop saying "F***" all the time, and say "please" a little more. Is that too much to ask for?

That's a simplistic approach to a more complex problem more like brushing the real issue under the rug. The most of America is polite and civil and doesn't curse. You only need to go a few hours north or a few hours west of NYC to get a sense of how skewed the perception of America might be for someone who may not have exposure to the reset of America.

There have been quite a few major ones such as VT but also many on smaller scale (McDonald's, US Post Office), if such a thing can even be considered small. Are there stats showing similar bizarre crimes in other countries?

I think the reason there have been so many school and college shootings is that there are so many schools and colleges! Similarly, there are lots of post offices and McDonalds in the US, so a 'workplace shooting' is quite likely to be a shooting in a post office or a McDonalds. This is not to discount any peculiarly oppressive individual situations in either post-offices or McDs.

Of course, the reason there are so many shootings in the first place is the easy availablity of guns combined with widespread mental health issues of one sort of another. So addressing the mental health issues - prevention, diagnosis, treatment - is more likely to work. Changing the fundamental incentive structure of the economy could also go a long way, but that may be too much to ask. The US is not going to become a Sweden or even Canada.

On the meta-issue here, I agree that outlawing guns is not the solution, on the other hand, I find 'second Amendment literalism' hilarious. So much has changed since that got written down, and the 'well-regulated militia' they envisioned was the kind that Switzerland now has, with 'cantons', regular drills, etc - with everyone being white male of course - that to even bring it up seems funny to me.

On the meta-issue here, I agree that outlawing guns is not the solution, on the other hand, I find 'second Amendment literalism' hilarious.

And the Constitution protects the right to bear arms. It makes no limit at "guns" For the gun owners, why not rocket launchers, or RPG's, or as Michael Moore asks James Nichols, weapons grade plutonium? Before questions of logistics comes into play (not everyone has access to aluminium tubes), the question is should one have the right to own these weapons?

I think the reason there have been so many school and college shootings is that there are so many schools and colleges! Similarly, there are lots of post offices and McDonalds in the US, so a 'workplace shooting' is quite likely to be a shooting in a post office or a McDonalds. This is not to discount any peculiarly oppressive individual situations in either post-offices or McDs.

Workplace shooting is far common in the US than most people would like to admit and perhaps it is as a result of easy gun availability and access to the guns by crazies. This happened in my building a week after Sept 11 and it was a nightmare. Squat teams originally came into the building and sweeped everyone and we thought it was a bomb scare or something crazy was going on. The people from the Blue Cross office which was above was were running like mad and we all panicked. We all heard the shots thru the floor but didn't think they were gunshots. The guy who shot those people was apparently a FBI agent.

Well the following year P Diddy moved into the building and they put up metal detectors in the entrance of the building!!

I don't at all agree with the intent of this Pawpaw post, but the following paragraph alone makes a good point:

If there is one thing I've learned in 25+ years of law enforcement, it is that a law abiding person cannot understand the criminal mind. Most violent crimes are senseless, and the more violent the crime, the more senseless it is. The rational mind cannot make sense of something that is by definition senseless. Bad things sometimes happen to good people. That is the nature of humanity, the nature of living, and the nature of the dichotomy between good and evil. As much as we decry the violence, we can't prevent it, except at a very basic, personal level.

If each one of us accepts personal responsibility towards our actions and the results of those actions, there may be some hope. Helping people confront their anger and problems, and hence make more rational decisions with the understanding of personal responsibility, is the realm of mental health counseling and treatment. Again, it's not the panacea, nothing is, but it's a great start.

All constitutional rights are subject to reasonable time/place/manner restrictions. If you can be legitimately prevented from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, you can also be legitimately restricted from owning rocket launchers, weapons grade plutonium, etc.

The 2nd Amendment is not an all-or-nothing proposition, in my opinion. There are those who would say that any limit on the right to bear arms is a step in the direction of a total ban. I think that's nuts. If you're willing to tolerate restrictions on your other rights in the interests of public safety, national security or whatever, then you should be willing to tolerate restrictions on your right to bear arms as well. The 2nd Amendment is not more sacrsanct than your other rights.

Some statistics that I just looked up at NationMaster

Murder with Fire Arms

#1 South Africa: 31,918
#2 Colombia: 21,898
#3 Thailand: 20,032
#4 United States: 8,259
#5 Mexico: 3,589
#6 Zimbabwe: 598
#7 Germany: 384
#8 Belarus: 331
#9 Czech Republic: 213

Murder

#1 India: 37,170
#2 Russia: 28,904
#3 Colombia: 26,539
#4 South Africa: 21,995
#5 Mexico: 13,829
#6 United States: 12,658
#7 Venezuela: 8,022
#8 Thailand: 5,140
#9 Ukraine: 4,418
#10 Indonesia: 2,204

Assaults

#1 South Africa: 0.719782 per 1,000 people
#2 Colombia: 0.509801 per 1,000 people
#3 Thailand: 0.312093 per 1,000 people
#4 Zimbabwe: 0.0491736 per 1,000 people
#5 Mexico: 0.0337938 per 1,000 people
#6 Belarus: 0.0321359 per 1,000 people
#7 Costa Rica: 0.0313745 per 1,000 people
#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#9 Uruguay: 0.0245902 per 1,000 people

you can also be legitimately restricted from owning rocket launchers, weapons grade plutonium, etc.

Likewise, you can legitimately be restricted to only owning a crossbow, slingshot and pea shooter. That's my point, the Constitution makes no reference to 'gun' whatsoever.

This happened in my building a week after Sept 11

Not to go off on a tangent, JOAT, but this was Sept 11, 2002 ! Plus, it was a love triangle looks like, not a classic workplace shooting scenario!

My apologies I meant to say a year after and it was around the time there were 2 bomb threats in adjacent buildings (I'm sure NYC gets bomb threats all the time that we don't know about). It was a work place love triangle but a freak violent workplace incidence nevertheless. I feel like I hear these stories in the news all the time. Someone goes into work to shoot someone and often shoots other people who happen to be around as well.

Likewise, you can legitimately be restricted to only owning a crossbow, slingshot and pea shooter.

I suppose that would depend on whether such restrictions were reasonable. I'm not sure I really agree that because the 2nd Amendment doesn't expressly say "guns", such weapons can be excluded. At the time the 2nd Amendment was adopted, guns were common, and in fact, state militia men armed themselves with guns.

We need to go back and review the Constitutional Convention debates to see if anyone mentioned "guns" or "firearms" to be sure.

Hema but the constitution is also debatable and had a lot of interpretations and that's what makes it so fluid and applicable. If we ask it to require specific clarification but that would require amendments. Not an easy thing to happen.

To my understanding the right to bear arms doesn't state guns specifically. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I'd rather someone with intimate knowledge of this weigh in on the issue.

It was passed during a time in history when a good man bore arms to protect his country and the militia was everyone really and the country was still solidifying. It has been argued that Madison was simply stating in writing what was common acceptable law for that day.

Hema but the constitution is also debatable and had a lot of interpretations and that's what makes it so fluid and applicable

One school of thought is that interpretation should be based on the intent of the Framers, and the Framers almost certainly meant "arms" to include any firearms that were common in the day. There are many Constitutional scholars who would balk at the idea of the Constitution as "flexible" or "fluid".

All I'm saying is that reading "guns" out of "arms" in the 2nd Amendment is not necessarily a reasonable interpretation, and it may not be justified by the historical context of the Amendment either.

At the time the 2nd Amendment was adopted, guns were common, and in fact, state militia men armed themselves with guns.

You're right. it's contextual, groups like the Michigan Militia still operate under that same [false] context. I don't recall any mention of guns or firearms, probably because at that time it was assumed it did mean shotgun, or rifle, or whatever was considered the "arms" for the common man.

But if its contextual, then it certainly is open to revision based on current context, so the way I see it, calling for a complete ban on guns does not act in contravention of the Constitution. (Whether or not it's usefull in reducing violent crime, school shootings, etc... is another matter altogether)

Just look at the following 2 Amendments:

3rd : No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

4th : The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If the 2,3,4 amendment are looked at as a whole, it's clear that its purpose was to curtail government from directly infringing on the individual's physical safety.

MYTH: Guns don't kill.

TRUTH:Guns make it easier to kill people. A study done by the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence reported that a victim is about five times more likely to survive if an attacker is armed with a knife rather than a gun (source). Guns simply make it easier to kill. Furthermore, The International Crime Victim Survey concluded that there is a correlation between gun ownership and an increase in both homicide and suicide. "The present study, based on a sample of eighteen countries, confirms the result of previous work based on the 14 countries surveyed during the first International Crime Survey. Substantial correlations were found between gun ownership and gun-related as well as total homicide and suicide rates. Widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potententially lethal weapons less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of homicide and suicide."

http://www.guninformation.org/

Massacres like the VTech one are relatively rare and account for a very small percentage of gun related homicides and suicides.. not to speak of non-homicidal violent crimes.

There are many Constitutional scholars who would balk at the idea of the Constitution as "flexible" or "fluid".

But the constitution was built with the foresight that people and societies would evolve and change and hence the interpretations as well as the applications. Changes need to be made and societies change, slavery, women’s right to vote etc are all examples. Look at something as simple as Freedom of Speech which for that day was about being able to speak up against government or anyone without retribution, is today a much larger debate and used to argue a case for the Rush Limbaughs and Don Imus’s of the world.

Avi on April 18, 2007 10:08 AM · Direct link
Some statistics that I just looked up at NationMaster

Murder with Fire Arms

#1 South Africa: 31,918
#2 Colombia: 21,898
#3 Thailand: 20,032
#4 United States: 8,259
#5 Mexico: 3,589
#6 Zimbabwe: 598
#7 Germany: 384
#8 Belarus: 331
#9 Czech Republic: 213

Only 8,259 in the United States? I can understand the high figures for Colombia but not for Thailand and South Africa.

Look at something as simple as Freedom of Speech which for that day was about being able to speak up against government or anyone without retribution, is today a much larger debate and used to argue a case for the Rush Limbaughs and Don Imus’s of the world.

Uh, actually Freedom of Speech is still about being able to speak up against government. The First Amendment only applies as to the government. You cannot speak up against private individuals without retribution (in the form of suits for defamation/slander/libel, or at the risk of losing your job, etc).

The Don Imus issue has nothing to do with free speech, because there was never any attempt to censor him by a government agency (although I believe there were calls in public to get the FCC involved).

But the constitution was built with the foresight that people and societies would evolve and change and hence the interpretations as well as the applications

I honestly don't believe the Framers of the Constitution were taking societal evolution into account. They just wanted to make sure they would never have to deal with government tyranny (which probably meant George III) again.

I honestly don't believe the Framers of the Constitution were taking societal evolution into account

I think they did to some degree, why even have provisions for amendments then?

I think they did to some degree, why even have provisions for amendments then?

Ok. I concede they did, but only "to some degree."

And with that, I'm done. I have gotten almost no work done in the last two days!

Only 8,259 in the United States? I can understand the high figures for Colombia but not for Thailand and South Africa.

South Africa is notoriously violent. Too many persistent social inequities etc. I am surprised by Thailand, but there is a large amount of narcotics trafficking near Burma and insurrection near Malaysia that might explain this. There's something wrong about this list....how does Russia not make the list ? If it only takes 200 deaths to make the list than surely India should be on it as well.

Back on topic...I believe that people have the right to protect themselves, but I don't understand the NRA's "slippery slope" arguments against waiting periods and evaluations. My extended family in rural Tamil Nadu had guns, it was a necessity at one point when the police were useless and there was a wave of home invasions resulting in part from refugee kids who had grown inured to violence growing up in SL. I hate guns personally, I'm surprised that so many young liberal types enjoy going to the range for leisure. I've never owned a gun, but I live in a safe area of my city and have no one to protect. The conundrum is that people who have a households with kids to protect place their kids at risk by having a gun in the first place

Even police officers have shot themselves accidentally while cleaning guns and they are trained to do this.

Even the supposed elite Secret Service is no exception...

Two Secret Service officers were injured on Tuesday after a gun held by another Secret Service officer accidentally fired inside the White House gate, according to a spokesman, Darrin Blackford.
link

And as regards locking up guns, perhaps these Keystone Kops need to enforce that rule themselves:

Hundreds of Guns Missing From Federal Police Agencies

A congressional report released Monday found that federal law enforcement agencies are still unable to account for 824 of 1,012 lost or stolen firearms issued to their officers a full year after the weapons were determined to be missing. The Republican chairman and ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee both called the revelation "inexcusable."
...

Some missing federal law enforcement weapons used by criminals

The audits undertaken by the Justice and Treasury departments' Offices of the Inspector General (OIG) identified a number of incidents in which missing firearms had been located during investigations of criminal activity or during arrests.

...
"More than 800 firearms - pistols, rifles and even submachine guns - remain unaccounted for"

link

We're worried about criminals getting conventional guns when the law enforcement agencies are unable to secure their own machine guns and military grade armor piercing ammunition. They need to clean up their own house before anything else.

I'm usually just a reader here at SM, but here goes. I really want to recommend "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin de Becker as a resource for better understanding violence in American society, as well as how to protect yourself and the people you care about (no gun required.) See www.gavindebecker.com for more info, there are also posts in the guestbook there about the VT shooting.

Murder

#1 India: 37,170
#2 Russia: 28,904
#3 Colombia: 26,539
#4 South Africa: 21,995
#5 Mexico: 13,829
#6 United States: 12,658
#7 Venezuela: 8,022
#8 Thailand: 5,140
#9 Ukraine: 4,418
#10 Indonesia: 2,204

So India has a murder rate very similar to America's despite gun ownership being vastly lower. Almost all the murders in India are committed without firearms. Can you imagine how much worse it would be if Indians were as well armed as americans, colombians and south africans?

Probably the only reason the Untouchables of India were so successfully repressed and humiliated for so very long was because they weren't allowed to arm themselves.

A few things I'd like to point out:

1. Justice Department statistics on murders with firearms do not make distinctions between the grandmother murdered by heartless criminals while she sleeps and the criminal who was shot in the execution of said crime.

2. Concealed handguns as a deterrence does not work solely by pulling out the gun. Studies have shown that areas with concealed carry laws have a lower incidence of personal crime (attacks on a person) and an increase in property crime (attacks on property when someone is not there). Economists theorize this is because criminals recognize the greater danger they face by attacking people who might be carrying a gun.

3. Point two aside, carrying guns was not a matter of protecting us against other people, but of protecting us from our government. The Founding Fathers recognized that all people need to have the ability to defend themselves against tyranny. Having an armed citizenry was seen as the last stand for liberty.

I am a staunch supporter of gun rights, even in the face of tragedies like the one at Virginia Tech, because I do truly believe that despite the evils that can be wrought with guns, the people, the individual, needs to have access to the tools that keep them free.

I'll exit the soap box now. Thanks for reading.

"There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order" - Ed Howdershelt

mannlicher-carcano. the name has stuck with me since early childhood. i picked it up during the long sad days of late november, 1963. friends, loved ones, everything seemed to just shut down. except congress. the television coverage of grief stricken members hashing out the details in plans to create restrictions on sales of military weapons thru the mail - to, say, the mentally unstable - as a public safety issue of the first order, was my momentary distraction. i remember a cried-out man standing at a dais, swaying, swinging at air, while reading mail order gun offers (each one more overwrought than the last, in the macho-man style of "argosy") out of the want ads, distraught that lee harvey oswald had only to pop a money order into an envelope and wait a few weeks for his shiny new mannlicher-carcano...

there seemed to be a communal “across the board” sense amongst the weak, the powerful, and “people like us,” that legislation would follow as a matter of course. those members of congress who viewed any and all restrictions as an intolerable precedent-setting threat to their “way of life,” kept silent for the time being (wisely): so that a majority of americans were, at the time, entirely unaware such folk existed.

but they didn’t go away - they organized into the wealthiest, most intractable special interest lobby ever to infect american government. with an unmatched record of success in thwarting the will of police org’s re many issues (inc. even dum-dums, aka “cop killer” bullets) and the general public in poll after poll, the magnitude of NRA influence and effectiveness can hardly be overstated.

watching tv reports over the last few days i’ve learned that the VT shooter’s creative writing prof begged him to submit to counseling and - his depression and ob-com attraction to violence was so glaring - she took the drastic step of reporting him to police; many of his classmates viewed him as a “when”, not an “if,” disaster in progress; he was a suspect in a campus arson incident; and that virginia has laws designed to keep guns out of such hands.

as required by law, the shooter was subjected to a background check prior to purchasing a glock 9mm (a common police weapon - not for game hunting), a bullet-proof vest, and a .38 (another non-hunter), with a waiting period of 30 days between the gun sales. although extensive psych testing is required for police cadets in virginia, no psych test is involved to own police weaponry (whether the answer to, “why do you want to carry a gun?” on your job app is “it’s not for me, it’s for the characters in a dream i keep having”).

so how goes the battle to “create restrictions on sales of military weapons thru the mail - to, say, the mentally unstable - as a public safety issue of the first order,” versus the NRA’s de facto “more guns = more freedom” position? progress is best demonstrated, i think, in knowing that the state of virginia’s background check system covering all gun sales is so rigorous that - as in this most recent case - it took all of 10 minutes to complete.

10 minutes...

today feels a lot like late november, 1963. all the sadness is there...none of the shock.

(the identical level of rigor noted above also applies to those seeking a plentiful supply of military weapons such as the popular & readily available AK47s & UZI’s, which are restricted in certain states only by the quantity an individual may purchase per month).

needs to have access to the tools that keep them free

And, while we are at it, lets arm every Iraqi citizen agains future Saddams.

lets arm every Iraqi citizen against future Saddams.

Aren't they already armed???

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.

Okay, I have to respond to this.

I get your point that the percentage of gun owning households does not necessarily correlate with high crime. But you yourself has acknowledged that a country's particular social ills are more indicative of its safety. So, we should also assume that America's social ills are what makes it unsafe. Therefore, until America's social problems are solved, why not ban guns as a short term solution? Obviously, it won't be a total solution, but considering how often and how easily people get shot, then there's no way such a ban could be a bad thing? If we reduce even a quarter of gun-related deaths, that would be a wonderful thing.

Frankly, I couldn't care less about small towns with one murder per generation. Because this overall issue involves the deaths of innocent people, it cannot be framed by other arguments so easily. If there was ever something that needed intervention, it's guns and other instruments designed to kill.

Obviously, it won't be a total solution, but considering how often and how easily people get shot, then there's no way such a ban could be a bad thing? If we reduce even a quarter of gun-related deaths, that would be a wonderful thing.

I'd go even further, to say, if even a single life is saved by a complete ban on private gun ownership, it's worth it. It's irrelevant how many people have to give up their hobby of hunting.

I'd go even further, to say, if even a single life is saved by a complete ban on private gun ownership, it's worth it.

Australia and the U.K. have near total bans on private gun ownership. You can google around to see how well that has worked...

Australia and the U.K. have near total bans on private gun ownership. You can google around to see how well that has worked...

Funny, I did just that, and I came up with this government report from Australia.

And this government report from Britain.

Both reports say that, after an initial spike after the gun ban's implementation, crimes with a firearm have been going DOWN for several consecutive years.

Were you trying to make a point?

Funny, I did just that, and I came up with this government report from Australia.

And this government report from Britain.

Both reports say that, after an initial spike after the gun ban's implementation, crimes with a firearm have been going DOWN for several consecutive years.

Are you sure about that ? From wikipedia's page on the subject :

The rise in UK gun crime is a long term trend that is apparently unaffected by the state of UK firearms legislation. [20] Before the 1997 ban, handguns were only held by 0.1% of the population,[21] and while the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03, they remained relatively static at 24,094 in 2003/04, and have since fallen to 21,521 in 2005/06.
link

The UK gun crime rate is still 55% higher today than it was in 1998/99.

An excerpt from one of the cited articles[20] in the Wikipedia article:

INTERNATIONAL FIREARMS SAFETY SEMINAR

NEW ZEALAND

FEBRUARY 2006

THE BRITISH HANDGUN BAN

LOGIC, POLITICS AND EFFECT
COLIN GREENWOOD
[edited]
64. The longer term trends show that the both homicide and
robbery have increased steadily and frighteningly over a twenty-four year
period. Robbery in particular has increased from 15,000 to 101, 000 cases
per year. Within those figures the use of pistols has increase from 500 to
2,700 cases per year. In the six years from 1980, pistols were used in an
average of 1,051 robberies. In the six years before the handgun ban they
were used in an average of 2,886 cases and in the six years since the ban
they have been used in an average of 2,841 cases.
65. Over the same period, homicide has risen from around 600
cases per year to over 800. On average in the six years form 1980 pistols
were used in 10.8 murders, in the six years before the ban they were
used on average in 29.3 cases per year and after the ban they were used
in 32.6 case per year.

link

And as regards the idea that gun bans help decrease crime rate, how would you then explain the U.S Dept Of Justice's statistics of dramatic declines in most crimes over the past decade without any sweeping gun bans (including gun related crime)link: ?

Compare the US crime rate decline with the rise in crime in the UK with the bans. Interesting.

Banning guns is not quite the panacea for the ills of society as many people seem to think.

The question is.. did it rise as a direct result of the weapons ban, or would it have risen even more without it. My point still stands, if a single life is saved, or I'll even amend it to say, if the net life is increased as because of the ban. (That is, lets say the ban results in 3 more killings, but 10 lives are spared) It's worth it.

Society changing, misunderstood rural folk, or even stereotyping, evil moustache-twisting, ivy-league educated, urban dwelling, hunters can do without their hobby of shooting up animals if it means a single human life is spared. Go collect stamps or something.

My point still stands, if a single life is saved, or I'll even amend it to say, if the net life is increased as because of the ban. (That is, lets say the ban results in 3 more killings, but 10 lives are spared) It's worth it.

Sure, while we're about it, let's bring back prohibition too, will save all those lives killed in drunken crashes on the freeway... Oh wait, they already tried prohibition I think.

Society changing, misunderstood rural folk, or even stereotyping, evil moustache-twisting, ivy-league educated, urban dwelling, hunters can do without their hobby of shooting up animals if it means a single human life is spared. Go collect stamps or something.

Then you'll have all those deaths from infected paper cuts caused by handling all those stamps unsafely. Maybe you would like to ban those too.

Wait. It's not "Guns kill people" or "People kill People", it's "Guns let crazy people kill lots and lots of people".

1. Let's prevent people from going crazy.

2. Let's find people that are going crazy, and get them help, and if needed, put them away till they're better.

3. Let's keep guns from crazy people (implementation needs some thought)

4. Let's bring back good manners, and promote acceptance - not just tolerance, of difference, so there's one less reason for people to go crazy.

5. Let's also work on getting every willing and able person fulfilling and reasonably well-paying work, while we are at 1-4.

I think we should do nothing.

These type of shootings are rare and its not like Cho is part of some greater fascist or communist movement with access to WMDs that may threaten our freedom and thus trigger a debate about reasonable restrictions to our civil liberties.

My heart goes out to the victims, but the overblown coverage masks the fact that in the whole sceme of things, this was no big deal.

A few saved lives are not worth more laws.

Sure, while we're about it, let's bring back prohibition too, will save all those lives killed in drunken crashes on the freeway... Oh wait, they already tried prohibition I think.

Or, implement a designated shooter system. If people get their jollies by getting their gun off, let them do it in a controlled environment. I said private gun ownership should be banned if it saves
a single life.

Then you'll have all those deaths from infected paper cuts caused by handling all those stamps unsafely. Maybe you would like to ban those too.

Sure, if there's an easier way to mail letters, and if you can provide substantial data that stamps kill. My point is, private gun ownership has a little upside (a bunch of rednecks get to shoot at animals) and a huge potential downside.

My heart goes out to the victims, but the overblown coverage masks the fact that in the whole sceme of things, this was no big deal.

I wonder if your opinion would be the same if were close to those effected. Sometime's it's these "rare" events that shed light to a long standing problems in society, and all it takes is one person, motivated enough to start the change.

A few saved lives are not worth more laws.

The inverse: it's worth having innocent dead people in order to maintain fewer laws.

I don't know why people are talking about outlawing guns when it is so clear that if banned, they would still be available through the underground economy, just as so many other things that are banned are currently available. In fact, they are already available right now to those whom current law prohibits from owning firearms. In any case that is a supply side solution, and it would clearly fail. Let's address the demand side instead, by working to get people to use the guns they do have less or not at all.

Of course, except in acquiring things that are illegal, one risks another layer of scrutiny, it may be inconsequential for someone bent on breaking the law anyway (by say, going on a murderous rampage) But, like I said, if a single life is spared, I see it as worthwhile.