Bio
A teacher that spent 5 years in Europe, but I've been back in DC for the last few months. I lean left and generally support Democrats, but I like a good conversation. I've been known to change my mind.
About Expat Teacher
Friends of GWH
User login
Recent comments
- Jack: What did he say?
Peter:
4 weeks 1 day ago - As a German, it's hard to
4 weeks 4 days ago - Planet
6 weeks 2 days ago - Jamie embodies everything
8 weeks 1 day ago - It seems that everyone has
9 weeks 5 days ago - Wow, taking the time to
9 weeks 5 days ago - An interesting and insightful
14 weeks 5 days ago - It's very difficult for
15 weeks 15 hours ago - I'm totally agree with you
15 weeks 2 days ago - Genius of the Heart
Will,
15 weeks 5 days ago
Recent blog posts
- Good Will Hinton Friends of the Decade
- Good Will Hinton Interviews Mary Jane Mahan, author of "Love At The Pub"
- A Call for Moderation: How Hyper-Partisanship is Killing Our Nation
- Beer Recommendations for Obama's Beer Summit With Gates and Crowley
- Good Will Hinton Interviews Jeff Shinabarger/Gift Card Giver
- Good Will Hinton Loves Auto-Tune the News
- Good Will Hinton Conversations: Did Capitalism Cause the Recession?
- Good Will Hinton Conversations: Is It Possible to Have Civility in Political Discussions?
- Good Will Hinton Conversations: Is the U.S. No Longer A Christian Nation?
- A White Response to MLK Day
Recommended Blogs
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 6 guests online.
Too soon to talk about banning handguns?
I don't want to be inconsiderate, but when is it appropriate to start talking about the weapons used in the horrible tragedy at Virginia Tech? Specifically, what kind of measures should be taken, if any, to keep this event from ever happening again?
I ask this in all seriousness. I remember the biggest 'fight' I've ever had with Will was right after Katrina destroyed New Orleans. Within a day or two I started talking about the failures of small government. Will was still trying to find homes for people. We didn't get into the specifics of what I was suggesting, but instead fought about my callousness and Will's stubbornness.
If it is acceptable to discuss, then I'd like to start now. If it isn't, let this post bury itself in the blogosphere.
CNN is reporting, "Cho paid $571 for a 9 mm Glock 19 pistol just over a month ago, the owner of Roanoke Firearms told CNN Tuesday. He also used a .22-caliber Walther pistol in the attack, police said"
I know that the usual contributors of GWH will know all the usual talking points about gun control/freedom so maybe we can skip this and ask where we go from here.
I suggest banning all handguns. The carnage done at VTech can't be accomplished with a rifle or a shotgun, both hunting weapons. Handguns are designed for killing people, not hunting. Let's stop killing people.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Comments
My position
remains all the more confirmed. Unless you are military or police, you have no good reason to have a gun and the positives fail miserably in comparison to the potential negatives. Ban them all.
Different homes, different worlds
Guru, you neglect to consider that not every American lives in the same sheltered world. I know multiple people that have saved their own life or the lives of others through the use of a handgun to stop a charging or attacking bear. I myself used a handgun to fend off an aggressive bear when guiding a group of 30 high school students through a 4-day traverse of a mountain range. During those four days I saw 27 bears - 27! Wild places still exist, and if handguns were not legal most people that carry them for protection now would carry nothing, as rifles and shotguns are too heavy and bulky to carry on long trips.
*))
((*
*))
((*
Think snow.
More modern disparity
Help me with something: why do those on the left want to defend a woman's right to choose and many of them want to extend that protection to include partial birth abortion but in the same breath a ban on a right to bear arms?
Over 1 million murders occur ever year in the form of aborting a fetus. No one on the left is outraged on those lives lost - rather they want to talk about gun control after a lunatic goes on a shooting spree. Where is Code Pink or NOW? Where are Senators Clinton, Edwards, Obama or former VP Gore speaking out to protect those lives? They're too busy trying to save a tree rather than save a fetus. They'd rather talk about "gross" negligence with our environment than the massacre that takes place in abortion clinics.
There were/are gun laws on the Virginia Tech campus. This essentially shows that regardless of anti-gun laws, people will still commit crimes. Alaskan Brian makes a great point. You can't stop criminals by placing restrictions on guns.
Not sure...
..if you think it getting directed back to me since I'm the one who made the commment that AB replied to and then you piggybacked on, but I'm not totally "on the left" and one of the main areas I very much disagree with is accepting abortion as anything but murder.
People who do not have access to guns, will not commit gun related crimes. It's basic logic.
Turn your question around and see: Why do those on the right want to defend the rights of every crazy person out there to load up on guns and do what happened at Virginia Tech but in the same breath claim they are protecting lives by oppositing abortion?
Those on the right
do not defend the right of crazy people to load up and go on a mass killing spree. We just defend our 2nd amendment right to bear arms. If a country boy wants a rifle to go huntin', let him. But we have laws in place (visa vie the Brady Law) as a stop gap to prevent crazy people from buying hand guns. However, its a proven fact that most major cities with gun laws have higher crime rates than those that do not. Along those lines, people that want to commit a crime are going to do it.
Remember Tim McVeigh? Are you going to ban agricultural fertilizer because some moron thought he had to get his message across by blowing up a government building in Oklahoma?
The bottom line is: when people obey the law, the law works great. We cannot punish the greater good because of individuals out there who seek to do evil things.
One of the main dividers of the right and left in this country happens to be abortion and guns. Abortion is not a constitutional right - bearing arms is. Roe of Roe v. Wade is a card carrying pro-lifer. Norma McCorvey (who is Roe) petitioned the Supreme Court in 2005 to overturn the previous decision from 1973. What most people seem to overlook is that "Roe" never had the abortion. She actually gave birth to her daughter later that year. The courts said abortion is a fundamental right protected under the Bill of Rights, the 14th Amendment and Due Process. That's what this country debates on this issue - its not an innate right of citizens.
I do not believe there should be government laws in place protecting a woman's right to choose or banning the right to arms. At the extreme end of things, the government needs to put those decisions back into the hands of the states to decide. Let states be in competition with one another.
Guru, those of us on the right do not defend the rights of crazy people to load up on guns and do what happend in Blacksburg, but we do defend the rights of citizens to own guns. We oppose abortion because it is not a fundamental right - it is a way out. And before you go off the deep end, I realize and I am sensitive to the fact that abortions are conducted in situations when a woman has been sexually abused. I understand and empathize with a woman's desire to go thru an abortion during those times. I disagree with an woman aborting a fetus because her and her partner did not practice safe sex or want to get out of the responsibility of becoming parents. Me and my friends on the right want less government not more of it.
The "right" tends to believe that life begins at conception and abortion is wrong. I realize that not everyone shares that opinion - even those who on my side of the aisle. I think we will be debating the issue of guns and abortion for many years to come and one of the great things about our country is that we have that opportunity to talk about these issues openly and freely.
Thanks for your response.
RPBLKN: can I ask you to
RPBLKN: can I ask you to refrain discussing abortion in this comment thread? I don't find it helpful to the discussion and is actually quite a distraction. The gun discussion is heated enough without introducing an even more controversial topic.
I'm calling BS
Alaskan Brian-
I love the wilderness and I understand the real risks of going into the bush without being properly prepared. However, you example doesn't stand up to the Boy Scout test.
If the Alaskan wilderness is as dangerous as you say it is (and I have no reason to doubt you), then people who go into the bush will take whatever they need to be safe. Your example of a handgun is perfect. However, to say that people will stop going into the bush without handguns flies in the face of America's history and spirt. More likely, hikers and campers will have to bring along the more cumbersome rifle or shotgun. Is it an inconvenience? Absolutely. However, that several hundred (thousand?) people who need to protect themselves from bears annually isn't a deal breaker for me. It is an unfortunate trade off to keep nearly 30,000 from being killed annually by handguns.
When bears attack and kill 30+ people in an afternoon, then we can revisit the handgun ban. Until then, it really doesn't even seem like a choice for me.
Fair enough
I appreciate the point, Expat, but I'm still not convinced. Misuse of a tool by the few is not reason to restrict rights. Far more people are killed daily by alcohol abuse and dangerous driving, but I don't hear a chorus of voices calling for the ban of those. Why? Because handgun users are a minority, whereas alchol drinkers and automobile drivers are not. It's pretty easy to quash the rights of the minority, for they can be more easily shouted down. Does that make their rights any less valid? I would say no. Of course, you and I most certainly disagree in our interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, which makes finding common ground more difficult. Even if I didn't believe that handgun ownership was a constitutional right, however, I still would not support such a ban because I don't see that it would do any good. There is no way to get all of the handguns out of the hands of criminals without imposition of a complete police state. Additionally, a lack of easy access to handguns would have done nothing to stop a killer like this one. Given his passionate distaste for that which he thought he was attacking, he would have found a way to carry out this attack. Banning handguns would do nothing but trample on the rights of the many because of the misuse of the few.
*))
((*
*))
((*
Think snow.
I'm in the chorus
I'd say ban the alcohol and ban anyone who is recklessly driving from doing that. You have freedoms in America, but not limitless freedoms and I say there are too unlimited where they are now.
(But if you think it's each to "quash the rights" or shout down hand gun users you have seriously underestimated the depths to which the GOP is in bed with the NRA)
I'll see your BS and raise you an abuse of statistics
The link you referred to "30,000 deaths from handguns" is misleading. First off, the stats are for "firearms" in general. There is no specific mention of handguns. Handguns should only account for about 2/3 of those deaths. Second, nearly 17k of those 33k deaths were suicides. I don't think it is a moral victory when a person decides to end their life and uses a razor blade in place of a gun. Everyone in the anti-gun lobby that uses logic, even 50% of the time, should agree with that point. So let's just act like those 17k do not exist.
Furthermore, if you break down these statistics geographically, I'm sure you would see that the vast majority of intentional firearm deaths are occurring in large cities. Many of those cities, like Washington DC, most likely have harsh laws restricting handguns. Are they working? Perhaps guns are only the symptoms of greater problems? Gang violence, drugs, etc?
We are asking the wrong question in the aftermath of the VT tragedy. The real question here is how do we recognize those who are dangerously mentally ill and treat them before they hurt themselves or others? What legal barriers need to be broken down to allow healthcare professionals the freedom to interact with public or school officials? Should that interaction be allowed? Or would it violate our constitutional rights?
More exact figures on handgun homicides
Nuke (great name BTW!) -
Yeah, I was in a hurry at work today. You are correct, it isn't 30k handgun homicides. I had to do some additional digging, but thankfully the Department of Justice has true handgun homicide figures. According to them in 2004 (latest figures), 8,299 people were killed by handguns. While, not 30,000, that still seems like a lot of people to me.
While gun deaths may be a symptom of a larger issue, I still know that when I'm down with the flu and have a fever that an ice pack on the head feels good and when the fever breaks that is even better. Sure the flu isn't gone, but just relieving the symptoms makes life better. I'd argue the same thing here in this case.
Finally, about health care professionals and Constitutional issues. I'm not sure how that comes into play in the tragic VTech case. The killer was sent to get mental help. He was diagnosed and recommended that he have outpatient treatment. Now, we certainly may question the treatment, but the university and the medical staff did exactly what was needed of them. There weren't any Constitutional issues at play here. There weren't any bureaucracy issues either. This was truly a tragedy made all the worse by rapid firing, multiple round, quick-change handguns that were purchased and owned legally.
That's more like it
You're right: 8300 people is a lot. However, even if we take away 75% of those deaths with a handgun ban, why wouldn't we expect a corresponding increase in the "blunt object" or "knife" category? Surely, it is harder to kill people with a 6-inch blade than with a Glock, but Cho was insane and would have killed people with a shotgun, a trebuchet, or a spork if handguns hadn't been available. I'm being flippant, but my point is that his insanity was the cause of this incident.
You say "the university and the medical staff did exactly what was needed of them." I say they did only what was required of them by law and no more. Their hands were tied. There is no system to ensure that the seriously mentally ill are cared for to prevent them from having a psychotic break like Cho. My question is: should there be a more involved system to ensure that the mentally ill are cared for? Why or why not? This is where the constitution comes into play. Would we be willing to allow our freedoms to be curtailed to make us safer?
Makes me a little uncomfortable
I understand what you are getting at and it makes me a little concerned. Do we effectively imprison people because they might be a danger to themselves or society? Well, guys like Cho certainly have things in common, but then so do other folks who never commit horrible atrocities. Can we just lock them all up? Will that give them the treatment necessary or further cause problems?
It seems that we are acting like the mentally ill are guilty until proven innocent if we lock them up and make them prove they aren't crazy. That makes me very nervous because it sounds too close to that Tom Cruise movie from several years ago.
I'd rather ban handguns.
Oh, come on!
Expat, don't you see the connection here? You're rightly uncomfortable with the idea of locking up people simple because they might pose a danger to themselves or society, but you have no qualms with taking away gun ownership rights? Let's treat all them damn handgun owners the same, or as you say, let's act like gun owners are guilty until proven innocent. A little hypocritical, no?
*))
((*
*))
((*
Think snow.
Time over deadly weapons
It's not hypocritical at all. I'm against the government taking people's time away from them by incarcerating them without reason. Time can't be returned. I'm in favor of the government limiting devices designed to kill. It's not about treating gun owners as guilty until proven innocent, it is about removing domestic WMDs from circulation.
Why not ban Automobiles?
Its sad that we havent learned from history that passing a law doesnt stop anything. Look what happened in the 20s with prohibition. People do what they want anyway.
More people are killed in automobile accidents each year, but we arent banning the use of an automobile.
People with evil intent will always get possession of a gun, only law abiding people will be left unarmed.
I really do enjoy...
...how the gun lovers around here will find every possible way to twist this into the absolute best possible scenario for them and the worst for those who oppose them.
More people die in automobiles, but do we stop to take a realistic look at how many people are using automobiles versus how many are using guns?
People with evil intent will always get possession of a gun? Maybe that's all the more reason why we shouldn't be making it so darn easy for them to do so. Who is to say the law abiding people won't also be willing to skirt the law in order to get a gun in the name of 'protection'? Sounds like a number of people here would do that very thing.
What about the law abiding people who get a gun for protection and then end up killing unarmed people who they mistakenly assumed were a threat?
What about the law abiding people who got a gun and then had some kid accidentally kill themselves with it in their own home?
What about the law abiding people who got a gun and then had someone steal their gun and use it in a crime? Who did that protect?
Reality is that a gun is an item created with the intent to harm and/or kill and if you have it, that's likely what will happen with it.
There is actually a whole lot of history that shows us that people do try to generally follow the law - especially when it is a law that makes us a better society.
I've already address an automobile ban
John,
I've already addressed an automobile ban.
Now, that we've got that out the way, care to engage us on how to keep the nearly 9,000 people killed with handguns annually in the US alive rather than throw out hypothetical situations and nonsensical alternatives?
How about PUNISHMENT for USING handguns illegally?
Since you think my comments were nonsensical, you probably wont agree with this either.
But I dont believe the laws controlling handguns are our problem at all. If we had any statistics, I bet we would find that most of the people in prison for violent crimes using handguns, are repeat offenders. It always amazes me when I hear that someone has xxxx number of PRIOR convictions, but served little time in prison, and are back out robbing and shooting innocent people again.
Somehow these people continue to obtain handguns over and over, and illegally too.
Why dont we consider ENFORCING some of the laws we DO have, and keeping these criminals in prison to serve ALL of their sentence?
I think that would save a LOT of those people you mentioned.
Enforcing handguns laws is great, but Va Tech was totally legal
In fact, I'd love for handgun rules to be more stongly enforced. It isn't contradictory to want better enforcement AND better laws.
The killer in the Va Tech case did everything legally. So the 32 killed there weren't dead because the law wasn't enforced. They are dead because the laws weren't strong enough.
You said, "If we had any statistics, I bet we would find that most of the people in prison for violent crimes using handguns, are repeat offenders."
I'd love to hear the stats. Until you can provide them, however, I refrain from guessing what the percentage of repeat offenders own guns.
My other thought on this issue is that enforcing laws against a dead man is difficult. Either in a homicide&suicide case or an accidental shooting, the offender is already dead. The State can't do anything at that point to enforce the law, but someone(or two or three...) is dead, nonetheless.
Not sure it's a gun issue.
Expat,
I think there's virtually nothing that could have been done to stop this horrible act. There was no "system failure" here - at least as regards the first shooting. This kid was hiding out from life and avoided all attempts to "reach" him. He was going to do what he was going to do.
The legality or illegality of guns is not relevant and I'm not attempting to parse that issue here. But I'm not confident at all that a law banning handguns would have kept one out of his hands.
I think this tragedy, sadly, gets filed under "stuff happens" for me. In this case, mind-bendingly awful stuff of unimaginable proportions...kind of like Mt. St. Helen's 1980 eruption. There were some "warning signs" then as in Cho's case, but nobody could have predicted the scope of what would happen when and if the mountain blew.
Nick
I'm Not Sure This Logic Works for Me
Why have a law against murder? I mean, people still do it, right?
I don't think anyone who suggests banning handguns thinks that crime (and the guns themselves) will magically disappear. That's not the point, at least initially. But it is a step, I think, in the right direction.
Another Discussion on the Subject
This discussion happened about a month ago, but is obviously appropriate.
Clarification?
Expat, what exactly is the goal we're supposed to be working toward, here? If it's "what kind of measures should be taken, if any, to keep this event from ever happening again?" then Nick's right. Nothing will ever absolutely prevent this from happening. Yesterday, the mayor of Nagasaki was murdered in cold blood by someone using a handgun, which are illegal in Japan.
Again, if it's "let's stop killing people," then you may have set your sights too high.
But I suspect you want something less lofty, such as "let's reduce the number of people murdered by guns," But then it seems like we have to get into all sorts of complicated analyses of likely consequences (intended and unintended), and at the end of the day we'd need to know if the consequences are worth abridging the right of people to defend themselves with guns, and so we'd just have to return to the issue of freedom that you seem to want to bracket from the discussion at the outset.
So what exactly are you looking for, here?
Clarification, again
To elaborate on my previous post, if the goal is to ensure that shooting rampages don't happen again or aren't as severe, then it might make sense to allow handguns. Some student could have shot Cho before he killed as many people as he did.
On the other hand, that might increase the total number of people who are killed by guns in non-rampage scenarios. So are we after the prevention of rampages, or lowering the net?
bullet train
I married into a family of hunters. My father-in-law and his son hunt. They don't hunt w/bows. They use guns. They aren't alone.
They will be the first to tell you that if banning guns will not stop things like the VA Tech shootings from happening.
Back in the mid-90's, they started buying more guns b.c. gun laws passed under the Clinton administration were about to take effect. I don't think they were the only ones.
People like Cho won't let the purchase of an illegal gun stand b/w them and murder. On the contrary, it may be that if more people carried handguns they could stop would-be murderers like Cho.
The situation now is that someone with a gun who wants to commit a crime can rest easy with the knowledge that they are the only person in any given venue who is packing heat.
Carnage with other weapons
Expat - You say that this kind of carnage could not have happened without a handgun. What about the University of Texas shooting in 1966? To suggest that this kind of thing cannot happen if handguns are off the streets is to turn a blind eye to history.
For another example, take a look at Canada where handguns are tightly restricted.
Ecole Polytechnique - Montreal, Quebec, 1989 - 14 dead
Concordia University - Montreal, Quebec, 1992 - 4 dead
Dawson College - Montreal, Quebec, 2006 - 1 dead, 19 injured
(W.R. Myers High School - Alberta, 1999 - 1 dead - rifle used, but still tightly regulated)
OK, Canada not enough evidence that gun control doesn't stop such atrocities? Let's look at other countries that have highly restrictive gun laws covering both handguns and rifles:
Dublane, United Kingdom, 1996 - 17 dead
Osaka, Japan, 2001 - 8 dead
Erfurt, Germany, 2002 - 16 dead
Melbourne, Australia, 2002 - 2 dead
Yes, an argument can still be made that there have been more school shootings in the U.S. than all other countries combined. I agree, something must be done. Banning handguns is not the answer. The root of this problem is cultural, not legal. We spew violence on every TV channel and every radio station, and then somehow figure that our children will not be affected by it. We have neglected to take responsibility for protecting our children's minds, and now we're turning towards the easy answer - let the government take care of this problem, for we have neglected to do it ourselves.
*))
((*
*))
((*
Think snow.
But....
When parents don't raise their kids properly, whose responsibility is it?
Yes, but....
If parents do not raise their kids properly, it may be their responsibility and on their heads, but we all still have to live with their kids.
Kate Pitrone
Society's responsibility
bj - Well, then the responsibility would fall to society, hence the reason that we should turn off the vile crap that's on TV, stop buying tickets to movies that pander to the lowest common denominator, and start holding up as role models those that contribute something of worth to society instead of worshiping at the alter of athletic ability and profane music. This can't be legislated, though...at least not in a consitutionally free society. They have the right to produce such filth, just as we have a right to turn it off. Seriously, how can we be surprised at tragedies like this when 3 year olds are being baby sat by CSI and other grusome shows? It's not the only problem that contributes to such violence, but it is sure a heck of a lot more serious than legal handguns.
*))
((*
*))
((*
Think snow.
Fallen to society
Alaskan Brian - I do what you say, and seem to have no effect on the culture. I'm sorry, I'm smiling and it isn't funny. You are right, we cannot do much in a free society. I keep hoping that this tide will turn. And yes, the morality that guides us is more important than handguns, which are used properly in that hands of those with decent moral inclinations. Those without morality will find them and use them in any case.
Kate Pitrone
You are correct...
but, we've lost sight of what our culture should be. We understand liberty as unfettered personal freedom (and this goes for the Right and Left, by the way) and choice. I can say whatever I like, regardless of how profane it is, and it is up to you to ignore it. But what sort of culture is that? Our only moral anchor is personal freedom. That's not going to work.
That said, you're probably right--we aren't going to legislate ourselves out of this mess. But our leadership isn't terribly interested in doing anything about it either. The Left is heavily funded by Hollywood and the pro-abortion lobby, the Right big business. No one is going to stand up in front of the nation and say "turn off your TVs!" They would be labeled a moralist and laughed off the national stage.
Of course, murder is nothing new, right, since it's just a product of sin. Murderers will find a way to ply their trade with the tools on hand. That's not say I don't support gun control (I do), but gun laws only seek to curb behavior, not to stop it. The same can be said for the effects of popular culture--a murderer doesn't have to watch CSI or Grindhouse, s/he simply has to be morally adrift. I've watched my fair share of gruesome stuff as a teenager, and I seem to have turned out alright.
Simple Math
Do more people live with a ban on guns or do more people die with a ban on guns? Every honest, reasonable person knows the answer. Is it a foolproof plan? Of course not, but it is better than the status quo, despite what hunters and the NRA want you to believe.
I swear I'm not a shill for the NRA, but...
I think I'm honest and reasonable, but it's my impression that states that allow fairly unrestricted gun ownership experience a lower rate of a number of crimes, and an article discussed in reason.com today allegedly shows that these states have fewer and less severe public shooting scenarios (i.e., rampages).
Reason's article is here: http://www.reason.com/news/show/119694.html
But again, I suspect that this is precisely the conversation that Expat was wanting to avoid. Have we steered off course, Expat?
No, keep it really simple and on the point
A state with "fairly unrestricted gun ownership" would not experience a lower rate of gun related crimes than one that flat out banned them completely.
Well...
I've read similar points (see the link I posted above). So if we all carried guns, we'd be safer, right? Only if you were quicker on the draw. See the surge in, say, road rage. If we all had guns, some would be quicker than other to use it when they shouldn't.
Also, and slightly unrelated...it's interesting how the NRA and the pro-gun folks take the same type of position that the pro-abortion folks do, namely, having a ban in place won't stop the undesirable action.
It's interesting that no one
It's interesting that no one is talking about banning South Koreans, just guns. But what's the logical difference? Or how about a ban on people with psychological problems?
Gun bans don't stop violence. They don't even stop gun violence. The VA Tech campus had a gun ban in place...did it work? DC bans guns...does it work? Japan bans guns...does it work? The only way to stop violence is to institute a police state...and then the violence has just transferred to the government...socialized violence if you will.
Even with a ban in place, guns can be gotten illegally.
They don't have guns in England, but they do have other forms of violence, including terrorist attacks using bombs.
ban all students
There is talk about how to keep mentally ill people in the hospital. I saw 3 people in clinic today with a mental illness. None of them need to be institutionalized. I don't know how many of them may own a handgun.
This will become a hot topic - as Virginia supposedly has laws in place so that no one whose spent time committed to a hospital can get a gun.
There is no South Korea
That's like saying this tragedy occured in the state of East Virginia. Not even close to the point, but as someone who has been to Seoul and talked to lots of Koreans, that name is actually decently offensive to many of them. FYI.
guru: please don't argue
guru: please don't argue over semantics. We all knew what he meant. This only serves to distract from the real conversation.
whatever
Not being offensive is important enough in my mind to always be worth mentioning when it's applicable, which it clearly was here.
Besides, take a good look at the original post and all the comments in here - I'm far from the only one who has gone off on a tangent from the original point - and IMO not nearly the one whose gone the furthest off course.
Dunblane and Snowdrop Petition
I remember all too well the day of the Dunblane massacre, 13th March 1996, because I was visiting clients in the small Scottish town at the time. A lunatic with a grudge walked into a school with two Browning handguns and killed Sixteen children aged 5 and 6, along with their teacher. It was a turning point for the British people, who decided enough was enough.
A group of parents and friends of the bereaved began a petition to have all handguns banned. It was called the Snowdrop Campaign, after the only flower in bloom in Scotland in March. Within 6 weeks, it had collected 705,000 signatures - and a rival petition by the pro-gun lobby collected a tenth of that number in a longer period. The result was stunning. Gun control became a major campaign issue. Just 29 per cent of Conservative candidates favoured a total ban on handguns, compared with 97 per cent of would-be Labour MPs, and 86 per cent of Liberal Democrats. The Conservatives, in government for more than a decade, were resoundingly defeated at the general election and the new Labour government made legislation which banned private ownership of handguns a priority of its first months in office.
According to a report from the Home Office, from mid-2005 to mid-2006, only 49 people were killed by handguns (Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005/2006, page 36). This is a rate of roughly 1 per million compared to 55 per million in the US (FBI 2004 Crime report). It turns out that a mandatory five-year jail term for carrying a hand gun does have an effect. Of course there have been some terrible shootings impacting the black community recently, tied in with gang and drug culture it seems. But the growth of such incidences is still lower and they can can be handled in the context of a wider culture against guns.
If guns are illegal, only criminals with the right kind of contacts will be able to get guns. You can't then just drive up to a gun show and buy a gun, no questions asked. That limits the field considerably. It excludes, for instance, high school and college kids. It excludes those who suddenly just flip-out or have a moment of blind rage in a domestic dispute. It excludes many dime-store robbers and other petty or opportunistic criminals. It makes things easier for police too, who don't have to approach every single situation as if it might be a shoot-out and can allocate resources to catching the criminals who do have the right kind of contacts to get guns, and their dealers. But it cannot be piecemeal, it must be a national ban done at a federal level.
If there's anyone out there with the gumption and the resources to organise a version of the Snowdrop Campaign in the US, they will have my backing.
Regards, C
Availability
"If guns are illegal, only criminals with the right kind of contacts will be able to get guns."
Just like crack, right?
So...
why don't we legalize crack?
I don't understand this line of argument. I mean, if we judge a law by whether or not it has the desired effects, I reckon most laws would be worthless. People still steal, murder, speed, drive drunk, etc, etc, etc. The point of gun control laws is to limit access. I don't think anyone suggests that a law will end gun violence. But if the average person doesn't have easy access, maybe it would prevent some of the violence.
An additional question: would anyone here commit murder if there wasn't a law against it? Would you smoke crack? Would you steal?
Why? Very simple.
Because the person who buys crack doesn't immediately gain a huge combat advantage over me that would be minimized or neutralized if I had crack myself.
The point is, making handguns illegal will NOT make it at all difficult for malicious people to get handguns (just like it's not at all difficult for jonesing people to get crack). The ONLY thing it will do is make it much more difficult (and hugely risky) for people of goodwill, who only want to defend themselves, to get handguns.
In a world where we could ensure that I or my family would ever be attacked by a gun-wielding lowlife, I would be very willing to discuss a handgun ban.
In a world where that is a real possibility, it is utterly unacceptable that you would want to take away my means of defense.
P.S. Not to get all right-wingy, but did I miss something in this thread, or are we not still governed by the Constitution?
Your point about the
Your point about the Constitution is well-taken, and is exactly why gun control measures aren't going far in our country.
So should rocket launchers be legal? Someone could gain a combat advantage by purchasing one illegally, right? Or, to make it less silly, how about a machine gun, like an M-60?
All that said, I can appreciate the desire to protect your family. I just don't think I could I pull the trigger of a gun at an attacker.
Good quetion
Good question.
My initial thought is that if someone attacked me with a machine gun, that my having one as well wouldn't make me considerably safer than my being armed with any gun at all. To me, that's why banning machine guns makes some sense, since they make a usually illegal activity (killing many people quickly) much easier, and make the legal activity (defending oneself) only marginally easier (if at all).
Does that make sense?
More Snowdrop data please?
Cernig,
I'm a conservative who may be able to find a total federal private handgun ownership ban constitutionally acceptable, but I'm swimming against my long-held opinion here.
Your post is one of the more compelling things I've read on the topic. Can you provide more data, like stats before and since the ban in the U.K?
Thanks,
Nick
UK gun deaths figures
Nick,
I'm at work and didn't have time to do a complete Google search, but my preliminary search found this. Wikipedia and in some Parliamentary Answers 2004, they produced this chart showing gun deaths in the UK.
Number of deaths from firearms injury(13), United Kingdom, 1994 to 2003
1994 341
1995 358
1996 254
1997 201
1998 203
1999 210
2000 204
2001 167
2002 169
2003 163
Clearly the trend was moving downward prior to the implementation of the handgun ban, but after it's implementation in 1997, the numbers drop dramatically. In 6 years, 90 less deaths. That seems like a pretty strong argument to me.
I don't have my caculator
I don't have my caculator handy, but eyeballing those figures tells me there was a BIGGER drop BEFORE the handgun ban went into effect.
It also leaves out the last couple of years, in which the figures have started going back up I believe. A writer in the NY Times had this to say today: "Consider that Britain’s national experiment with gun-free living is proving to be a disaster, with violent and gun crime rates soaring."
I'll grant that you might get a short term pop from banning all hand guns, but in the long run, it won't make much of a difference. It may take the criminals 5 or 10 years to figure out how to circumvent the laws, but circumvent them they will. And in the US it would take the complete confiscation of all weapons to make a dent (which would be unconstitutional), so restictions make the problem worse, not better.
Post new comment