This article is rife with antigun bias, but consider it anyway.
For starters (and this will change as it’s breaking news) the breaking news headline at the top of the page reads “Four Baghdad car bombings kill at least 66 people”.
Pretty clearly the idea that mass killings require guns or only happen when people have guns is BUNK. Anyone saying otherwise is either intentionally being deceitful or shamefully misinformed about what happens in Iraq–and elsewhere–in this day and age. We’re blessed here in the US, and we so often forget it. For much of the world’s population, mass killings are the norm, not the exception. Remember that.
Virginia Tech senior Cho Seung-Hui walked into a Roanoke gun shop five weeks ago, put down a credit card and walked out with a Glock 19 handgun and a box of ammunition. He paid $571.
Forgive my ignorance, but there’s no seven day waiting period on handgun purchases in VA? I know there’s one here in MD (when my pistol got repaired a few years back, I had to wait seven days just to have my own property returned to me). Let’s check with, of all people, the Brady Bunch. Nope, no waiting period. Demerits to the Brady Campaign for having misinformation on their website, though (shocking, I know)–it says there’s no training requirement for a CCW permit in VA, which is patently false.
Sidenote: The VT shooter didn’t have a permit, did he? Once again, people who go through the trouble to get permits aren’t generally the people you need be worried about. Troubled students with a worrisome psychological history and a pattern of really creepy writing…yes. CCW permit holders, not so much. Moving on.
I can hear the antigunners now, “see, if there’d been a waiting period maybe this wouldn’t have happened!” Look closer friends, that article makes it clear why that isn’t the case–the shooter waited a month before going on his rampage.
Virginia does require an NICS background check.
Virginia State Police Superintendent Col. W. Steven Flaherty said Tuesday afternoon that both guns were purchased legally in Virginia.
So the gun store did what it was supposed to do, or else A) the store owner would be in a calamitous world of hurt and B) the VASP wouldn’t say that the purchase was legal. Which rather obviously requires us to ponder the nagging question any gun controller needs to consider, exactly what gun control law would have prevented this? Other than an outright ban on the sale of the gun, what gun control law would stand in the way of this sort of thing? A waiting period wouldn’t have done it. A background check wouldn’t have done it. The guy was a legal resident and had no criminal history.
A psychological profile, perhaps? Please. The guy was a student at a prestigious university, if he wanted to effect the purchase I’m sure he’d simply have said “no, I’m not a crazy person planning on shooting up my school and my girlfriend.” Anyone who thinks gun dealers should be both clairvoyant and trained in psychiatry is themselves in need of a psychiatrist.
More bias:
Under the federal assault-weapons ban enacted in 1994, magazines were limited to 10 rounds. But that ban was allowed to expire in 2004.
All indications are the guy reloaded several times and had several magazines on him. Magazine capacity is not the issue here. A 9mm slug from a ten round mag is just as deadly as one from a five rounder or a fifteen rounder.
Cue the obligatory quote from the gun grabbers without rebuttal from a pro-self defense organization.
“The key thing that we have seen in all of these school shootings is easy access to high firepower weapons,� said Daniel Vice, an attorney with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “These killings can’t be done with baseball bats and knives.�
Boy is that line getting tiresome; nope, killing 30+ people with a baseball bat or other blunt weapon would be tough, but a talented guy with a sword in a room with a bunch of trapped people (the VT shooter chained the door shut) could do a lot of damage . They can be done by an idiot with a grenade, a homemade bomb, an IED, a Ryder truck, an elderly person behind the wheel at a crowded street market, etc.
The idea that mass killings only happen in the presence of guns really needs be confronted head on, folks.
[…] What Gun Control Law Would Have Prevented This? […]
Pingback by SayUncle » Short answers and a fun experiment — April 18, 2007 @ 8:41 am
I’m thinking a trigger lock law would have stopped it, because we all know that even mad men and criminals follow the laws and he most certainly would have had the internal trigger lock turned on. Right?
Comment by Sean — April 18, 2007 @ 10:19 am
. . . or maybe a smart gun that only allows the owner to fire it.
Comment by nico — April 18, 2007 @ 11:02 am
nico,
We need to exist in reality. Such technology is the product of science fiction and does not exist. There are a slew of issues that need to be dealt with in order to make such technology acceptable in private firearms ownership (military application is different).
Calls for “smart guns” demonstrate a lack of knowledge with regard to firearms.
Comment by Armed Canadian — April 18, 2007 @ 11:15 am
I’m going to say nico was being face*tious. Like the trigger lock post.
So far the only new “gun control” scheme that they (the banners) could push except for a complete ban that would correspond to this would by psych evaluations.
Comment by Thirdpower — April 18, 2007 @ 11:34 am
I don’t even think a ban on handgun sales would have prevented this. If you can get to the illegal drug market, I’m sure you can get a handgun and ammunition from one of them for the right price.
Comment by Doctor Suarez — April 18, 2007 @ 11:43 am
Of course it wouldn’t have stopped it. Just like making it a “gun free zone” made those students “feel safer” but less safe actually. Kind of like Wash DC.
Comment by Thirdpower — April 18, 2007 @ 11:57 am
The AWB never exactly limited mags to 10 rounds. It prohibited manufacture in the US of mags with capacity greater than 10 rounds. Mags made outside the US after 1994 were also prohibited from transfer in the US. Mags made before that date were not limited from transfer or use. Parenthetically high capacity mags carried a premium purchase price. As to Cho’s purchase, he purchased the 9 MM approximately 5 weeks before he committed the murders at VT; I’m not aware of any state waiting periond anywhere near that long.
Comment by Pete Farris — April 18, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
Armed-Nico was being humorous, at least I hope so (pretty good, too). The owner did fire the pistols, so a “smart gun” would not have stopped it.
Comment by Matt — April 18, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
I’ve been discussing this with a lot of anti-gunners, and of course they say that we need to pass laws to prevent tragedies like this, and then are at a loss of words as to how (although to be fair they generally say something about evil high-capacity magazines).
I am so sick of this shit.
Comment by Morgan Hyson — April 18, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
Hey Morgan…I’m home, gimme a call so we can help you prep for your debate.
Comment by Administrator — April 18, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
Off topic cross post from Reason that I just made:
As they say, you can’t make this shit up…
The office mate of mine is a member of the Patriot Guard. Whether you agree or disagree with what they’re doing is not the issue. What is the issue is that he tells me that he just got an alert that these same assholes who are protesting at military funerals because the military allows homosexuals to serve, are going protest at funerals for VT, alleging that this is God’s punishment for having homosexuals at the school.
I added some more but it’s quite R rated. I’ll send you a copy when he forwards the email, Sebastian.
Comment by Matt — April 18, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
just for the record, my post was 100% sarcastic. As Matt said, the guns were used by their legal owner.
Such a push wouldn’t surprise me though, given the anti’s incredible ignorance. Just tonight, Carolyn McCarthy couldn’t explain to Tucker Carlson what a barrel shroud is, but she knows she wants to ban them
Comment by nico — April 18, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
I don’t think that pointing out that he could have done what he did with a car or IED is a good argument. Yes he could have killed as many or even much more if he say placed bombs in the classrooms that would go off simultaneously. The question is would he have been resourceful and patient enough? Probably not. If you accept that then the gun itself is of course not “responsible” but an enabler for the huge carnage. (I recognize that more guns in the hands of the right people could have prevented this as well but that is beside the point)
He showed himself as unstable wacko in the past. Maybe I am being naive but why shouldn’t there be a mechanism which could have allowed the school or the magistrate court to throw a red flag against his gun purchase? Would that be so hard to legislate or be a real infringement normal healthy people’s gun rights?
Comment by gonaran — April 18, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
“The question is would he have been resourceful and patient enough? Probably not”
He was able to get into VA Tech. How much more proof do you need of his resourcefulness? It’s not exactly William and Mary (
) but idiots don’t get in there regularly.
You think that Tim McVeigh was remarkably resourceful or unique? Gimme a break. You think the idiots blowing people up in the ME are uniquely patient and resourceful? Please.
“Maybe I am being naive but why shouldn’t there be a mechanism which could have allowed the school or the magistrate court to throw a red flag against his gun purchase? ”
Uhmmm…probably there should be. The more we learn about this dillweed, the more we realize he probably wasn’t a good candidate for gun ownership.
The problem here: let’s pretend NICS was configured such that dude was denied. What makes you think that would have denied him access to a gun in the end? If the knuckleheads in my hood can get guns…what makes you think a guy resourceful enough to be a grad student at Tech couldn’t?
Comment by Administrator — April 18, 2007 @ 10:07 pm
Re: post #13: Dianne Feinstein professes to be an “authority” on gun issues because of the Milk/Moscone assassinations in San Francisco in 1978.
I missed my calling by not passing myself off as an “expert” and lecturing in medical schools/arguing with other physicians about rehabilitation methods after being treated for a fractured leg in the same year.
Comment by Michael Baumgarten — April 18, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
[…] I refer you to my earlier question: exactly what gun control law do you actually think would prevent this sort of thing? […]
Pingback by Pro-Gun Progressive » Oh Goody! Paul Helmke on What to Do about VT — April 18, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
“You think that Tim McVeigh was remarkably resourceful or unique? Gimme a break.”
Not unique but yeah he was somewhat resourceful. After that and the 1993 WTC bombings I don’t think that you can purchase ammonium nitrate or nitroglycerin as easily as a firearm right now. At least not without raising some eyebrows.
“You think the idiots blowing people up in the ME are uniquely patient and resourceful? Please.”
I’d say that is completely different. Most of them have an organization that they depend on for logistics, money and also social support in the case of suicide bombers. They are not lone wolf terrorists.
“The problem here: let’s pretend NICS was configured such that dude was denied. What makes you think that would have denied him access to a gun in the end?”
Look, nothing can deny someone the ability to cause massive destruction if he has patience , determination and ted kaczynski(sp?) like intellect. I understand that. But that is hardly an argument for not trying to make that harder. It increases the chances of your bad guy being detected earlier, fucking up or getting inpatient and striking in a less deadly manner. Case in point : Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar. He tried to run over people at UNC Chapel Hill. This is from the letter he wrote :
” I am writing this letter to inform you of my reasons for premeditating and attempting to murder citizens and residents of the United States of America on Friday, March 3, 2006 in the city of Chapel Hill, North Carolina by running them over with my automobile and stabbing them with a knife if the opportunities are presented to me by Allah.
I did intend to use a handgun to murder the citizens and residents of Chapel Hill, North Carolina but the process of receiving a permit for a handgun in this city is highly restricted and out of my reach at the present, most likely due to my foreign nationality. ”
He injured nine people but none of them died.
re: knuckleheads in the hood. Do you think that disqualifying felons is a bad idea since they are going to get the guns anyway?
Comment by gonaran — April 19, 2007 @ 7:26 am
“Not unique but yeah he was somewhat resourceful.”
Well, the world is full of resourceful people. That’s kinda my point. He didn’t do anything that somebody willing to plan something awful couldn’t do. Look at the planning Cho put into this.
” After that and the 1993 WTC bombings I don’t think that you can purchase ammonium nitrate or nitroglycerin as easily as a firearm right now. At least not without raising some eyebrows.”
Uh, you can make glycerine the same way I make biodiesel…making nitroglycerine is pretty easy to do discretely. The Anarchist Cookbook comes to mind…
“I’d say that is completely different. Most of them have an organization that they depend on for logistics, money and also social support in the case of suicide bombers. They are not lone wolf terrorists. ”
Sure; but the point stands–people willing to die in an effort to inflict mass casualties don’t need guns to do it.
“re: knuckleheads in the hood. Do you think that disqualifying felons is a bad idea since they are going to get the guns anyway? ”
No, but it is an indication that A) it’s not all that productive or B) something to hold a whole lot of hope in. It certainly isn’t a justification for denying law abiding folks who want the means for self protection access to firearms.
Comment by Administrator — April 19, 2007 @ 7:16 pm