Virginia Tech shooting and gun control

[JB]

Rudy Giuliani claims that gun contol helped reduce crime in New York City. In 1997 a Palestinian man open fired on the observation deck of the Empire State Building, killing one and wounding several others. At that time Giuliani called for uniform federal licensing requirements. He said that lax laws in the south allowed criminals to easily bring weapons into the northeast. (The man acquired his gun in Florida.) He also supported the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban. Now that he's running for President he's toned down his support for gun control.

The problem is that what's good for big cities isn't necessarily good for rural areas, and it's very easy to transport weapons across state boundries. Here we have a conundrum.

 

[haha]

Also, do you think a Palestianian bent on mayhem would have any trouble getting a gun? Even if he lived in England?

I don't think he would.

Ha

 

[JB]

I don't know. If he was bent on mayhem he'd probably choose a place where he could cause the most damage without being stopped. I think it would be difficult in Hawaii where gun laws are strict and an ocean separates us from places with lax gun laws.

The point is that what makes sense in urban areas may be different than in rural areas and that ease of transport causes a problem. When Giuliani was responsible for the safety of NYC residents he was for gun control. But now he wants to get elected nationally. Same goes for Mitt Romney. Are there any big city mayors or police chiefs that support widespread gun ownership?

 

[Zipper]

HaHa, you're one sick puppy!

 

[dumpster56]

Listen I keep hearing oh Washington DC NYC and New Jersey are places that you cannot buy handguns, or it is very difficult but there are many hand gun killings.

Most of the handguns come from the southern states! Right up Interstate 95! Virginia is one of the worst!

 

[samclem]

Listen I keep hearing oh Washington DC NYC and New Jersey are places that you cannot buy handguns, or it is very difficult but there are many hand gun killings.

Most of the handguns come from the southern states! Right up Interstate 95! Virginia is one of the worst!

Right. As you point out, it is only difficult for law abiding citizens to buy handguns in those places. Criminals have no problem getting them. Disarming the populace has done wonders for the crime--well, to be clear, it does wonders for the practicioners of crime. I like the idea that people who invade homes, mug people, rape, and conduct assaults just for fun should face a real possibilty that some of their victims, or someone near enough to take action, just might be armed. When you find out just how many crimes some of these thugs commit in just a single year, it becomes clear that maybe the odds might just catch up with them fairly quickly. And maybe their hoodlum friends will get the word, too.

You mention Virginia. Approximately 2% of Virginians have concealed carry permits (Source: Roanoke Times, 3/11/2007). Assuming a regular distribution of permit holders among those on the VT campus, and a campus population of 30,000 on that day, that would mean 600 concealed carry permit holders were on campus. Unfortunately, in part because of regulations designed to "make people feel safer," none of these law abiding citizens had a weapon available when Cho began his deadly spree.

 

[lets-retire]

Well, there are so many other things preventing someone from breaking into my house. Morals. Fear of arrest/imprisonment. Fear of getting hurt by non-firearm weapons. Fear of the starving rotties I've been training to pit-fight that I leave inside my house. Fear of an alarm system. Fear of getting shot by the police if they are caught in the act. Fear of shame when their face is on the 5 o clock news.

How significant is the fact that I might have a gun? What marginal deterrent benefit does random gun ownership convey on me?

90% of burglaries occur when the home owner is away. Most of what you ask is irrelevant. Most criminals do not fear any part of the criminal justice system. I found it easiest to scare the crap out of criminals when they thought I was about to go off the deep end. Many consider it good to be on the news. The people who break into your house are not doctors or lawyers they are criminals. When they see themselves on the 5 o'clock news it adds to their reputation with their friends. Many have just as many friends in jail as out of jail. The biggest thing the criminals fear is an armed homeowner. That is why few burglaries occur with the home owner present. Many do not like dogs in someones house and if they hear a dog barking they will go to the next house.

 

[dex]

I'm going to hijack this thread - the real discussion is here:
http://early-retirement.org/forums/index.php?topic=13607.0;topicseen

 

[bosco]

Disarming the populace has done wonders for the crime--well, to be clear, it does wonders for the practicioners of crime. I like the idea that people who invade homes, mug people, rape, and conduct assaults just for fun should face a real possibilty that some of their victims, or someone near enough to take action, just might be armed. When you find out just how many crimes some of these thugs commit in just a single year, it becomes clear that maybe the odds might just catch up with them fairly quickly. And maybe their hoodlum friends will get the word, too.

I don't know about disarming, but I have read that making guns more available has cut down on crime in Florida. But it hasn't cut down on shooting deaths if you factor in all the accidental shootings, children getting ahold of guns, that sort of thing. Yes, I know--people should be responsible. But often they aren't, and often it's others, including children, that pay the price.

The tragedy that results from crime gets a lot of press and possibly more sympathy because it plays to all of our fear of powerlessness. But accidental shootings are just as tragic. That being said, I do own guns so call me a hyporcite

I'm not for banning guns--far from it. I just personally don't feel more secure with the notion that the streets are full of people carrying concealed weapons. After observing how some people behave with automobiles, the thought of them packing is very disturbing....

 

[bosco]

We should be banging down the doors of our worthless political hacks demanding they rebuild the mental hospitals in the country and take these sick people off the streets. If we are going to keep guns around the sick humans need to be locked up. The idea that a shizophrenic will continue to take his medication when he feels better living alone is just dumb! They need to be put away safe and to keep society safe.

Nuts on the street is part of the Reagan legacy. Thank him for it. He closed down all the the mental hospitals as part of budget cuts.

 

[mathjak107]

an armed society is a polite society!

 

[dumpster56]

an armed society is a polite society!

Dude have you seen Iraq ? The west bank and gaza? Somolia? They all have guns.

 

[donheff]

Unfortunately, in part because of regulations designed to "make people feel safer," none of these law abiding citizens had a weapon available when Cho began his deadly spree.

I am generally OK with guns and even wish I could own a pistol in DC. But the idea of a bunch of pistol packing kids in class or a vastly increased number of armed drivers flashing into road rage is horrifying.

 

[dex]

Dude have you seen Iraq ? The west bank and gaza? Somolia? They all have guns.

Dude have you seen Switzerland? All people who have been in the service are required to have a gun at home.

 

[Joss]

"Dude have you seen Iraq ? The west bank and gaza? Somolia? They all have guns." 


If you see those place as just like us, you must think just passing a new gun law in those places would solve their problem.  You ready to go take their guns away?  Oh wait... we have most of the US Army in Iraq trying to do just that. 

How's that working so far? 

But it would be totally different if we did it here... right?   

 

[samclem]

I am generally OK with guns and even wish I could own a pistol in DC. But the idea of a bunch of pistol packing kids in class or a vastly increased number of armed drivers flashing into road rage is horrifying.

I've heard the courts have invaldated a key provision of DC's gun ban, so you may have your wish soon.


There's been a lot written about the value of concealed carry laws in reducing crime. Much of this compares places which allow concealed carry of weapons to places that do not. I think these comparisons are highly suspect (since places with high crime often prohibit concealed carry--the comparison confuses cause and effect, IMO). But on the subject of multiple shootings such as the VT case, there's strong evidence that allowing more liberal concealed carry of weapons has been effective in reducing these incidents.

"In a letter to the Los Angeles Times in April 1999, John Lott (author of More Guns Less Crime) said, "When states passed them [shall-issue CCW laws] during the 19 years we studied, the number of multiple-victim public shootings declined by 84%. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90%, injuries by 82%."

Road RAge: Does not appear to be a significant problem, though I didn't dig too far. According to Lott (quoted above) at least as of 1999, there had only been one reported case of a "road rage" shooting involving the holder of a concealed carry permit (it was in 1996), and in the end the shooting was ruled to be in self defense. There may have been more since then, I don't know.

 

[bright eyed]

well, gun violence is still one of the top causes of death and injury to adolescents...not heart disease or cancer - they get lost in the stats...

 

[dex]

well, gun violence is still one of the top causes of death and injury to adolescents...not heart disease or cancer - they get lost in the stats...

While homicide is number 2 I can not tell from the information what the instrument was - gun; knife; poison, automobile, blunt instriument


http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html

FIVE LEADING CAUSES OF DEATH, USA, AGES 15-24, 1998
CAUSE

PERCENT OF TOP 5

NUMBERS
(1) Accidents 51.8% 12,752
(2) Homicide 21.3% 5,233
(3) Suicide 16.3% 4,003
(4) Cancer 6.8% 1,670
(5) Heart Disease 3.9% 961

 

[perinova]

From age 10 to 60 more than 50% of all homicides are gun related.
At about age 20 -> 75% of all homicides are gun related!

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

 

[mathjak107]

Dude have you seen Iraq ? The west bank and gaza? Somolia? They all have guns.

we arent dealing with sane reasonable people here, in fact i bet all the guns and bombs maybe keeping them in check somewhat. just imagine if only 1 of the sects had guns and bombs.

 

[rw86347]

I don't own a firearm but I'd like to reserve my right to own one in the future.

How common is it for a homeowner to actually repel a burglary/home invasion with their firearm? I hear about burglaries, break-ins, and home invasions pretty frequently around here, but I hardly ever hear about a homeowner actually stopping the burglary in progress by shooting the perp or scaring him off.

Is the argument that the big unknown of gun ownership scattered throughout our neighborhoods is a significant deterrent to home invasions and burglaries when the homeowner is home? As an analogy, does random gun ownership work against crime like vaccinations work against contagious diseases/illnesses? If 90% of a population is vaccinated against a certain illness, then the illness might be essentially eradicated. If 30% of homes have a gun in them, then burlaries and home invasions (when the homeowner is home) have been severely reduced as a result? In other words, do I, as a non-gun owner get protection from burglaries and home invasions because criminals are scared of the 30% chance that I may have a gun?

You ought to read the book "More Guns. Less Crime". John Lott, the author, has spent his career as a criminologist studying the issue. He has found, that your gut, instinct was correct. 2.5 million crimes are stopped every year by a citizen owning a gun. Most simply by banishing the firearm. As fewer good guys own guns, more of these 2.5 million crimes are realized.

In interviewing prison inmates, criminals say the number on thing that scares them is a home owner with a gun. Police arrest, home owners shoot to kill.

My moto... "Tresspassers will be shot, survivers will be shot again."

 

[perinova]

Nice try but having less guns in the society doesn't mean leaving them to the bad guys and taking them from the good guys. It means leaving guns to law enforcement (i.e. the militia).
Statistics comparing countries show there are less casualties with less guns. IT also means that crimes are less dangerous.

If I had a choice I'd rather being robbed than being shot.

I prefer to keep my homeowner's insurance for peace of mind just in case. Better than keeping a mean of killing an individual being who could be a member of my household.

 

[lets-retire]

The only problem I see is how to figure out who has firearms. The lawful owners are on record as owning them. Even if they did not have to register the firearm, when it was purchased from the store a paper trail was made. This trail follows the firearm from manufacturer to the first retail purchaser. The criminals who aren't allowed to own firearms had to obtain them from a source other than a traditional retail outlet. Bad guys are notoriously bad at keeping a paper trail of sales. So even if the firearms were outlawed today, there would be no practical way for law enforcement to track the ownership of illegally purchased weapons or sales of weapons between private persons. The end result will be the only people to lose their firearms are those who own them legally.

If you prefer not to own a firearm that is fine. Actually it is better that you don't own one, if you are unsure of your ability to use it when needed.

 

[sgeeeee]

This topic is like global warming. If you don't like what the legitimate studies say, there are dozens of people torturing data, making up facts, and publishing results that you can embrace.

Relative to other industrialized countries, the US has very liberal gun ownership laws and a very high gun/citizen ratio. Most of these guns are in the hands of people who treat them with appropriate respect and are never used in a manner that hurts anyone. Occasionally, a desperate drug addict, sociopath, or nut case gets hold of one and wreaks havoc. More occasionally, a gun is used against a family member by a good person having a very bad day.

I just don't see how this situation leads people to honestly think the answer is more liberal gun ownership laws. It seems to me that more guns that are easier to get will tend to make it even more common to find one in the hands of the nut jobs, etc. How will more guns reduce the violence of family on family? Advocating more guns for vigilante enforcement after we give more guns to the nut jobs seems like trying to get the genie back in the bottle. Why not focus on keeping the guns out of the hands of the nut jobs? If someone is shooting holes in your boat, do you recommend more lifeboats or do you try to stop the shooting?

I also question the wisdom of providing guns to students to avoid this sort of thing. It seems to me that highly trained law enforcement people with thousands of hours of training and apprenticeships under experienced officers are going to be hampered when they arrive at a scene to find armed students doing their own enforcement. How are they to tell the good guys from the bad guys? Why do we think students are going to be good at law enforcement with minimal training and experience when we require the law officials to have so much?

 

[Texas Proud]

How common is it for a homeowner to actually repel a burglary/home invasion with their firearm? I hear about burglaries, break-ins, and home invasions pretty frequently around here, but I hardly ever hear about a homeowner actually stopping the burglary in progress by shooting the perp or scaring him off.

Most of the 'almosts' don't get reported to the police... unless of course you have a dead perp in your house...