Could absence of gun control have saved VT victims?

[Sir_Knight]

I’ve heard this point and I understand it. I’m not sure I have an opinion on it yet. And that was what that editorial I referred to was all about. Seems VT just did what the city of Philly once tried to do but was not allowed to. Are you saying VT should change back so that all can carry weapons? I think the alcohol-fueled, testosterone-heavy environment of college is the wrong place for guns. Just think about why that’s the prime age for a soldier.

The state of Virgina has a procedure for licensing people to legally carry firearms. If a person is licensed by the state, VT should not interfer with that – as they do.

Time and time again, people licensed to carry a gun have a MUCH LOWER rate of crime than the general population. I challenge anyone to should me a stat where people licensed to carry a gun have a higher crime rate than the general population.

All that sounds good if they actually do a background check. It seems that neither gun dealer seemed to figure out he was just the kind federal law is suppose to prevent from buying guns.

The buyer fills out an application. The gun dealer calls it into the government and if it is approved, receives an approval number. If a gun dealer allows someone to buy a gun without this approval number, he can kiss his license good-bye and he will no longer be allowed to sell guns.

AND, his records are checked regularily by the BATFE.

So, what we hear from the gun advocates is that “the mass-murderer broke the guns laws” but we don’t hear that 2 federally licensed gun dealers also broke the gun laws.

If they broke the law, they are prosecuted. In this case, nobody broke the law except the shooter.

This is what I meant when I said there are laws to protect us that are not working. According to some, the failure of these gun laws, should be reacted to by MORE people having guns. That is either

1. a great marketing pitch from the gun companies,
2. great propaganda from the NRA
3. total paranoia
4. satan’s practical joke on humans
5. All of the above

Then explain why place that have strict gun laws also have high levels of violent crimes while places that have less restrictive gun laws also have less violent crime. You can not show me a SINGLE example, either nationally or internationally, where more restrictve gun laws did not lead to more violent crime and less restrictive gun laws lead to less violent crimes.

“Paranoia” that reflects the truth is not “paranoia” but the truth.

Should the average peaceful citizen have to go out and buy a gun, because his/her neighbor down the road has gun, is angry, and drinks alot?

Should the “average peaceful citizen” have no means of self defense for him and his family when the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no obligation to protect the public?

And, in 2005 OVER 800,000 calls to ‘911’ took an hour or more for police to arrive. Don’t we have a DUTY to protect ourselves and our loved ones from harm? According to the CCC, we do. The CCC even calls it a GRAVE responsibility – something not to be taken lightly.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I firmly believe that the eradication of most gun control laws could, in fact, have saved many lives at VT and in other tragic shootings.

Why did no one hear about this shooting at Appalachian Law in 2002? (sarcastic shrug)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting
One of the Luby’s survivors, a woman whose parents were shot right before her eyes, had a gun in her car. She didn’t have it on her person because it was illegal in the state of Texas to carry a firearm. Now THAT is a crime!

My husband and I own a Taurus revolver, and it stays loaded at our bedside. If MD had legal concealed carry, we would own two and both keep our firearms with us. Think about it. Most individuals are law abiding citizens. If it was legal to carry a gun, the vast majority of people carrying guns would be law abiding citizens. If I was a criminal, I would think twice about pulling out a weapon if I knew that was a good chance someone in the vicinity would have a gun.

Gun control accomplishes one thing, and one thing only. If it is a crime to own a gun, only criminals will own guns. It’s as simple as that.

I may agree that he might have been stopped sooner. However how many others would have been hit by the additional bullets from the other 10 guns? Granted those 10 guns would have been pointed at the gunman and of course would possibly hit anyone behind him. Then there are bullets bouncing off things and floors and walls. I’m not sure if I would want to deal with a loan gunman who I might be able to evade or be in the middle of a shootout!

 

[system]

The buyer fills out an application. The gun dealer calls it into the government and if it is approved, receives an approval number. If a gun dealer allows someone to buy a gun without this approval number, he can kiss his license good-bye and he will no longer be allowed to sell guns.

So is this where the system failed?

 

[catholicbuckeye]

Make it legal for everyone to carry a gun from age 1 to death. (which will come a lot sooner than if they are not carrying)
I still will not have one in my house and would reaaallllyyy reconsider sending my kids off to school, be it grade, middle, high or college, where every kid in the room is packing!

And I don’t see where gun control had any part in this. Cho bought his guns quite legally.

I think the point is a criminal will not be deterred by a gun control law any more than he is deterred by current gun control laws, or laws against murder. There would be plenty of black market opportunities for Cho to procure guns even if there were laws forbidding any sale of firearms to any individual under any circumstances…and I don’t think people are seriously saying people should send their kids to kindergarten with their gun. Honestly, most people I have ever met who own guns and teach their children about them have children who are more firmly based in reality and have an educated respect for weapons.

 

[Sir_Knight]

So is this where the system failed?

The system failed because the shooter was not OFFICIAL commited to have psychological problems. Thus, he was never flagged.

 

[jman507]

While both of you bring of valid points, the FACT of the matter is that it has yet to happen that way.

A similar situation to the one that happened at Virginia Tech occurred on January 16th, 2002 at Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Virginia. A disgruntled former student began a similar shooting spree. The difference in this case was that the attack was stopped by three individuals, two of whom were legally armed with handguns. Unfortunately, the attack was not stopped until three people had been killed and three more wounded. Why did it take so long to stop the attack? The good guys had to retrieve their guns from their parked cars before they could confront the gunman because ALS was a gun-free zone.

They didn’t shoot each other with friendly fire. They didn’t even shoot the attacker but because they had guns, they were able to stop the killing.

I won’t disagree with you. I think if people had concealed hand guns at the school, the situation would have a good chance of neutralizing quicker. I think my proposed idea would be better with a lower chance of innocent people being wounded or killed, I doubt though that it’d ever be implemented though.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I wonder, though, how many other spur of the moment crimes, by less crazy people, would occur if ordinary people were packing pistols. For instance, you’re carrying your gun and get in an argument with your brother at his house, things escalate, and instead of punching him, in a fit of passion you kill him. I don’t think it’s an unrealistic scenario. It could be that ordinary people might occasionally find themselves losing control and shooting people.

Your question is easily answered.

There are 39 states in which you may legally carry a concealed weapon. In 37 of them (Virginia included) you take a one-day course and go through a background check. These are called “Shall Issue” states, because the law requires that you be issued the permit if you apply. In two other states (Vermont and Alaska) you don’t need a permit to carry a concealed handgun.

In addition to that, there are several states (Virginia included) where you can legally carry openly (but not concealed) without a permit.

Most of this is due to laws passed in the last quarter of a century. And in each state, the very question you asked was asked – loudly and persistently. “How many other spur of the moment crimes, by less crazy people, would occur if ordinary people were packing pistols?”

The answer is, in 39 states, in a quarter of a century, violent crime has gone down in those states which allow ordinary people to pack pistols…

 

[Sir_Knight]

I may agree that he might have been stopped sooner. However how many others would have been hit by the additional bullets from the other 10 guns? Granted those 10 guns would have been pointed at the gunman and of course would possibly hit anyone behind him. Then there are bullets bouncing off things and floors and walls. I’m not sure if I would want to deal with a loan gunman who I might be able to evade or be in the middle of a shootout!

But that is NOT what typically happens …

A similar situation to the one that happened at Virginia Tech occurred on January 16th, 2002 at Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Virginia. A disgruntled former student began a similar shooting spree. The difference in this case was that the attack was stopped by three individuals, two of whom were legally armed with handguns. Unfortunately, the attack was not stopped until three people had been killed and three more wounded. Why did it take so long to stop the attack? The good guys had to retrieve their guns from their parked cars before they could confront the gunman because ALS was a gun-free zone.

They didn’t shoot each other or others. They didn’t even shoot the attacker but because they had guns, they were able to stop the killing.

 

[system]

The system failed because the shooter was not OFFICIAL commited to have psychological problems. Thus, he was never flagged.

This article states otherwise:

**U.S. Rules Made Killer Ineligible to Purchase Gun **

nytimes.com/2007/04/21/us/21guns.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

The ATF said he never should have been allowed to buy a gun, a spokesman for the Federal Fireams agency said it also.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Then why did the firearms dealer receive APPROVAL from the federal government to make the sale?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Then why did the firearms dealer receive APPROVAL from the federal government to make the sale?

Because in all the years since this bill passed, the Federal Government has still not put in effective database together.

Currently, only 22 states submit any mental health records to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in a statement on Thursday. Virginia is the leading state in reporting disqualifications based on mental health criteria for the federal check system, the statement said.

Virginia state law on mental health disqualifications to firearms purchases, however, is worded slightly differently from the federal statute. So the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police about a mental health disqualification addresses only the state criteria, which list two potential categories that would warrant notification to the state police: someone who was “involuntarily committed” or ruled mentally “incapacitated.”

“It’s clear we have an imperfect connection between state law and the application of the federal prohibition,” Mr. Bonnie said. The commission he leads was created by the state last year to examine the state’s mental health laws.

In addition, of course, although supporters of the Brady Law like to trumpet how many “dangerous criminals” have been prevented from buying guns, only a tiny percentage of those “dangerous criminals” have been prosecuted – despite the fact that lying on the form is a criminal offense.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Even though they SAVE the lives of MANY other folks?

Then you should be for the banning of swimming pools – more children die by drowning than via gun accidents. If even "one child can be saved from drowning, we should get rid if them altogether.

And let’s not forget about cars. More than 18 times as many children are killed in car accidents than via gun accidents. We can save 18 times more children by banning motor vehicles than by banning guns.

I’m disappointed by how often people here resort to the “if you feel this way about X, you HAVE to feel that way about Y, too” argument. It is inherently flawed logic to apply the same argument to an extreme example in order to make a sweeping point.

The difference is that guns have no other application but to threaten and/or end a life. If swimming pools and automobiles had no purpose but that, I’d be for banning them, too.

Peace,
Dante

 

[vern_humphrey]

The difference is that guns have no other application but to threaten and/or end a life. If swimming pools and automobiles had no purpose but that, I’d be for banning them, too.

You are not correct – guns have many applications, from hunting to sport competition, to self-defense.

Swimming pools, which kill far more people – especially children – than guns are not so multi-facited. They are used only for recreational or sporting purposes.

 

[system]

Then why did the firearms dealer receive APPROVAL from the federal government to make the sale?

I don’t know why the system didn’t work…how 'bout, Satan?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I don’t know why the system didn’t work…how 'bout, Satan?

Read the cited article. It didn’t work because the database is woefully inadequate. While under the law, he should have been in the database, less than half the states report people who are mentally committed or otherwise considered a danger under the law. The Virginia law is different from the Federal law, and while he was reported to the Virginia State Police, the form didn’t match criteria for a Federal report.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

You are not correct – guns have many applications, from hunting to sport competition, to self-defense.

Swimming pools, which kill far more people – especially children – than guns are not so multi-facited. They are used only for recreational or sporting purposes.

Pardon me – perhaps I should have been more explicit: I was speaking of hand guns and assault rifles, and other such weapons. I assumed that, since we’re in a thread about a shooting massacre that didn’t involve hunting weapons (to which I am slightly less opposed), that hunting weapons were not part of the debate.

In any case, swimming pools are recreational – yes, that’s my point, too. Handguns, assault rifles, automatic pistols, and the like – as I said before – have but one application: to threaten or end a life. To soften that with the euphemism of “self defense” does not change the reality that these weapons are designed to kill human beings.

A “responsible” gun owner keeps his weapons locked up, and keeps the ammunition locked up separately. What good is that for self defense during a home invasion? Should one keep one’s loaded weapon handy at the bedside if one has children, for the sake of defense? That kind of risk is not just irresponsible, it’s reprehensible.

Should one carry a concealed handgun? Do we really live in a country in which such measures are necessary? Yes, we have a lot of violent crime in our country, but it’s not as if most of us live in chaos. We have well-trained professional law enforcement officers who are paid (not nearly enough, by the way) to police our cities. Does this prevent muggings and random shootings? No – but I have to believe that carrying a weapon changes one’s outlook on the world. It just doesn’t seem to jive with the concept of charity; even if one truly would never use the weapon for anything but protection, one is carrying a device that is designed to kill a human being.

No, I don’t have any data or research to back that up; if that negates my argument in your mind, then so be it. It just seems to me that carrying a weapon is like acknowledging that one might kill someone else. I will fight for my life and that of others if need be – just like anyone else. Embracing a weapon in that way seems no different to me than embracing a willingness to kill – which is far different from a willingness to defend oneself.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Steadfast_love]

I don’t consider myself rabidly anti-gun, and I have family and friends that have guns and hunt, and if I lived up in the mountains I may even consider having one (darn bears). But there are supposed to be some laws to protect us, and they are not working. Seems the VT shooter who had been judged (by a judge!) as a danger to himself and others, went to buy the gun; they ran an “instant- check” on him **(what happened to the 3-day wait?) **and he walked out armed. The second gun he bought online(!) This is not good.
.

[TRIVIA: The 3 day wait was only a temporary part of a deal worked out between the NRA and the Gun control lobby. The NRA came up with the instant check, it was their alternative to the waiting period. The Gun control lobby insisted that there be something until the instant check was online which is why there used to be a waiting period but there isn’t any more.

Congressman John Dingell (former NRA board of directors) has proposed a bill to force VA to comply fully with the federal insta check. As an NRA man it’s his baby so it behooves him to iron out the kinks. It’s got good support so far.]

 

[Montalban]

I firmly believe that the eradication of most gun control laws could, in fact, have saved many lives at VT and in other tragic shootings.

I firmly believe that the eradication of guns would, in fact, have saved many lives at VT and in other tragic shootings.

 

[Sir_Knight]

A “responsible” gun owner keeps his weapons locked up, and keeps the ammunition locked up separately.

Why?

What good is that for self defense during a home invasion?

Absolutely nothing. Which is why it is not a good idea to do that.

Should one keep one’s loaded weapon handy at the bedside if one has children, for the sake of defense?

Why not? If children are properly taught, there should be no problem. Do you keep all of your household cleaners locked up because they may reach for it and drink it? Maybe when they are younger but as they get older, you TEACH them. Same concept applies to guns.

That kind of risk is not just irresponsible, it’s reprehensible.

Children look to their parents to protect them. The time to prepare for that responsibility is NOT when someone it breaking down the door. To fail in that responsibility is reprehensible.

Should one carry a concealed handgun?

If one legally can, one should.

Do we really live in a country in which such measures are necessary? Yes, we have a lot of violent crime in our country, but it’s not as if most of us live in chaos.

Most of us will never have a fire in our home, yet most of us still buy fire insurance. Most of us will never be in a serious car accident, yet most of us wear a seat belt. It boils down to being prepared. Most of us will never be touched by violent crime but why not prepare for it as we prepare for other things in our lives?

We have well-trained professional law enforcement officers who are paid (not nearly enough, by the way) to police our cities.

Are you referring to the police which, in 2005, according to FBI Statistics, took an hour or more to respond to ‘911’ calls? Waiting for help to arrive may take the rest of your life.

Or, are you referring to the police force which, according to the US Supreme Court, does NOT have a duty to protect you? References:

1. • Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 – “. . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen . . .”
   • On June 27 1999, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection, even in the presence of a restraining order. By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband when he killed her three children.

   Does this prevent muggings and random shootings? No – but I have to believe that carrying a weapon changes one’s outlook on the world. It just doesn’t seem to jive with the concept of charity; even if one truly would never use the weapon for anything but protection, one is carrying a device that is designed to kill a human being.

   Just as our Savior and God commanded us to do …
   
   "He said to them, 'But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one.’" – Luke 22:36
   
   … Jesus Christ, who preached peace, turning the other cheek and loving thy enemy ALSO commanded us to buy a weapon – which has "but one application: to threaten or end a life. To soften that with the euphemism of ‘self defense’ does not change the reality that these weapons are designed to kill human beings. The sword of Jesus’s time is the equivelant of what a handgun is today.
   
   And, we are to do this even if we have to sell our outer garment to do it. Interesting that Jesus, who was a very strong supporter of the poor and constantly encouraged us to take care of them would command us to use the money from the selling of our outer garment NOT to help the poor but to buy a weapon – which has "but one application: to threaten or end a life. To soften that with the euphemism of ‘self defense’ does not change the reality that these weapons are designed to kill human beings.

 

[Sir_Knight]

No, I don’t have any data or research to back that up; if that negates my argument in your mind, then so be it.

Well, that’s part of the problem. You are expressing what you think & believe but that is not an accurate representation of the reality of the situation.
*

It just seems to me that carrying a weapon is like acknowledging that one might kill someone else. I will fight for my life and that of others if need be – just like anyone else. Embracing a weapon in that way seems no different to me than embracing a willingness to kill – which is far different from a willingness to defend oneself.

Embracing a weapon is embracing our Catholic DUTY to protect ourselves from death and serious injury. The Church teaches that this is just not a duty but a GRAVE duty. That means that we prepare for it ahead of time and use the best means that is available to us. In most case (not all but most) that will be with a gun.