New at Reason
Jacob Sullum asks whether the murders at Virginia Tech will lead to a rethinking of gun bans.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Other Matt | April 18, 2007, 7:34am | #
Wow, a clean blog!Just wanted to say this is an excellent article, not much to add other than congrats for something rational in the face of this irrationalit.
Guy Montag | April 18, 2007, 7:47am | #
Great article!Slightly OT: If Cho had been writing "disturbing" plays about 'nappie headed hoes' instead of whatever he was writing that 'alarmed' his instructors, he would have been counseled/reeducated/shipped away pretty quickly.
Supposedly he set fire to his dorm room once too. Mass murders from intended arson set more records for executions than the Cho execution "record", but for some reason that is not the Leftist media boogieman that "guns" are.
He had displayed plenty of signs of a loon. Too bad all of those signs are protected by the Left. Then he got his own gun and the Left wants to take them away from everybody who did nothing wrong with theirs.
Other Matt | April 18, 2007, 7:50am | #
He had displayed plenty of signs of a loon. Too bad all of those signs are protected by the Left. Then he got his own gun and the Left wants to take them away from everybody who did nothing wrong with theirs.In fairness, they're going to sensationalize things now. I'm not defending him, but let's assume that the fire was a true accident. It will be portrayed as willful arson, now, simply because of the circumstances. The same for his writings, etc. Without examining them, we can't tell if the reports are tame, right, or overblown, and we all know what sells more papers.
How many news outlets have reported that he passed a Brady Bunch Background Boondoggle? I haven't heard one yet, but I haven't been paying too much attention as I have other things keeping me busier.
Guy Montag | April 18, 2007, 7:58am | #
Other Matt,Actually, my post was intended to be more about how the "do gooders" protected his loonieness while some word substitution would have made him 'Enemy of the Left-State'. The same way a tool substution did.
I am having that "real world" interfearance in my recreational news and 'blogs too. Have to get scooting to learn more about server operations for my new job in 'the Orient'.
emma | April 18, 2007, 7:58am | #
quite a shock!as a graduate student, I do feel intranquil on this horrible news! and this piece of news spread quickly among my classmates. gun-free or not at campus seems matter less under the big circumstance of USA.
Other Matt | April 18, 2007, 8:13am | #
Actually, my post was intended to be more about how the "do gooders" protected his loonieness while some word substitution would have made him 'Enemy of the Left-State'. The same way a tool substution did.It does appear so based on what I'm seeing in the media, but my point is that we're taking his described weirdness at face value. This is no great sin as long as we realize we're doing it, and the reality may be something far less simply because the press wants to wallow in it as much as possible as that's their job (to sell coverage).
This letter to the editor is interesting, I would hope it's real and not a sock puppet or troll writing to the paper. I would hope more of this comes out.
One other thing that interests me is that there are interviews where kids claim that it was a joke (perhaps gallows humor in retrospect) that he would be a campus shooter. I remember when I was in exec security training with ESI, they made is read DeBecker's "Gift of Fear". The point is, as described in the book, these kids knew it, and they let their minds override their built in defense system that told them this kid was dangerous (I realize he's a legal adult, my use of "kid" is due to me having over twice his milage, and being to lazy to go back and edit). It would seem that this was a person who truly would have used the truck with fertilizer. It will be interesting to see if they ever do find a triggering event, and what it was.
Other Matt | April 18, 2007, 8:15am | #
Doggone lack of coffee...edit "to" to "too". Not too lazy to correct that....I may look like an idiot with that one but at least I caught it(heading to the caffiene machine).Tim Lambert | April 18, 2007, 8:15am | #
You are citing John Lott's research? Didn't you ever wonder why that paper was never published? Here's what an actual published, peer-reviewed paper:foundRight-to-carry (RTC) laws mandate that concealed weapon permits be granted to qualified applicants. Such laws could reduce the number of mass public shootings as prospective shooters consider the possibility of encountering armed civilians. However, these laws might increase the number of shootings by making it easier for prospective shooters to acquire guns. We evaluate 25 RTC laws using state panel data for 1977 through 1999. We estimate numerous Poisson and negative binomial models and find virtually no support for the hypothesis that the laws increase or reduce the number of mass public shootings.
anon | April 18, 2007, 8:16am | #
Other Matt-The same for his writings, etc. Without examining them, we can't tell if the reports are tame, right, or overblown, and we all know what sells more papers.
See "Richard McBeef", and "Mr. Brownstone".
Anonymo the Anonymous | April 18, 2007, 8:23am | #
Sample of his supposed writings are here: http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/17/cho-seung-huis-plays/.I think they'd definitely raise some eyebrows, even if you didn't know this guy was about to become a mass murderer. Problem is, that just puts him in the very large set of people who are just fucking weird. Everyone knows these people. Anyone who attended high school in the time of Columbine, etc., had a mental list of classmates most likely to go on a violent rampge. But most of those people never do anything, so there's little reason to pay them much attention.
What struck me about the plays posted above was not the violent content, but the general awfulness of the writing. Not that I expect that much from a random student's one-act play in an elective creative writing class, but this doesn't look like the work of someone who has any interest in writing. Language is just a blunt tool for what appear to be his bizarre revenge fantasies.
It's hard for me to think of why there should be an accross the board ban on anything, including guns. But I teach at a college in Virginia, and I have to say that while I think that some of my students could carry a firearm responsibly, perhaps even nearly all, I sure know a lot who are awful immature who probably should not. Should I mention though that these immature students could pass any background check that we now have (just like the shooter at VT could?). So I must say that I am very hesitant before I extend a concealed carry to students on a college campus. In fact, it seems unimaginable to think of some of these kids packing heat to Astronomy Class...
JonJoe | April 18, 2007, 8:35am | #
Unfortunately, all most people hear about are the ill-effects of guns on society. They rarely hear about citizens using guns defensively. So the overwhelming assumption among the masses is that guns are a blight on our culture and are mostly used to commit crimes and kill innocents.So when the idea of allowing students with permits to carry on campus comes up, most people don't think of the legitimate defensive nature of such a policy. They think of all the potential madmen walking around on campus with pistols tucked sloppily in their belts, just waiting for an excuse to go off.
They probably aren't aware, that in the state of Virginia alone, there are thousands of citizens walking around in public today, armed.
Lambert, Lott has discussions on multiple victim public shootings in both editions of More Guns, Less Crime. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that book published by the University of Chicago Press and don't they referee all their books?
Rhywun | April 18, 2007, 8:46am | #
I wonder, in these states with "lax" gun laws, what is the usual policy at work? Every job I've ever had had a "no weapons" clause in the contract - and that's where all the mass murders seem to occur: work. Hypothetically speaking, how would you convince millions of private entities to drop their anti-gun stance in order to allow citizens to protect themselves?Other Matt | April 18, 2007, 9:01am | #
how would you convince millions of private entities to drop their anti-gun stance in order to allow citizens to protect themselves?The problem is they're being fed a line by lawyers. It's actually not a bad line, it's forced by other lawyers, who, being
See "Richard McBeef", and "Mr. Brownstone".
Ok, if these are really his, they are pretty screwed up. My only point is that the media is going to wallow, you won't hear how he passed a Brady Bunch check, and like it or not in a free society writing such trash is not grounds for much of anything.
Lambert, The proven fraud gun researcher is not John Lott, its Michael Bellelise. They pulled his pulitzer because he lied about the prevelence of guns in early America. Why would someone fake evidence to try to convince us that guns weren't important back then? Aren't there any legitimate arguments on the gun control side?
JonJoe | April 18, 2007, 9:05am | #
Rhywun, most employers, being private entities, can set their own rules for weapons at work. There is not much that can be done to convince private entities to change these rules - it's their property, they can pretty much do what they want, and rightfully so.There is some leeway in Virginia since they recently passed a law allowing employees to carry weapons in their cars at work as long as the car is not parked in a private lot where access is controlled.
Campuses are a bit different since some are "publically" funded. In Virginia, it's not against the law to carry a weapon on VA Tech campus (unless you are otherwise prohibited from owning or carrying) - it's just against the University's policy. So while a student may not be arrested for carrying on campus, he will certainly be expelled.
Other Matt | April 18, 2007, 9:09am | #
In fact, it seems unimaginable to think of some of these kids packing heat to Astronomy Class...Ken-Why? You seem to be falling into the same trap a number of people do, that "packing heat" means they're out and about for nefarious purposes. I don't think it would shock you, though it might, that I carry a flashlight in my vehicle, as well as a rescue knife which can break through the windows. I don't use them every day, the breaking window part I've only used in a junkyard when I tested it. However, it's a tool which has a specific purpose, to help me get out of the car if needed in a wreck.
I don't drive to get in a wreck, I haven't in over 26 yrs, but it's there nonetheless. Most of the time it has nothing to do with what I'm doing at that particular moment. However, I keep it with me in case of emergency. I also carry a few days of food, a backpacking stove, and water filter. I also have a (legal) firearm most of the time, because my job (construction) brings me to bad places at bad times (can only work at night, etc). Unlike some, though I personally haven not had to go to guns, my work crews have witnessed kidnappings, assaults, murder suidides, burglaries, and at least one instance where a LEO had to drop someone. We have been subject to burglaries and assaults, and one attempted kidnapping. This is my workplace, it's a reasonable precaution to me.
It would seem that for statistical purposes, VA college students would be in greater need for a defensive firearm than I would be for my "get out of the car under water" tool. Statistically, as I have never been in that kind of an accident, and there has been at least one incident in a VA college.
brotherben | April 18, 2007, 9:12am | #
Ken,You make a valid point about the maturity level of some college students.
State to state, the concealed carry permit requirements are somewhat varied. Here in my state, I paid 15 dollars and gave them my driver
s license and soc. sec. # and in 48 hours I was permitted to carry concealed.I like that it was that simple for me, and I am very capable with weapons due to experience and training, but anyone without same could get the permit.
That being said, I think that when a person gets as disillusioned with society or govt or their job or whatever, and they are sufficiently ummm, mental, they will find a way to do harm. The man at VT happened to use guns. Mr McVeigh used a rental truck and fertilizer and diesel fuel. Andrea yates used a bathtub of water.
The hard truth to me is that as harsh as this tragedy is, it sometimes is the price we pay for the freedom we have in America. Sacrificing our freedoms in the name of safety is a very slippery slope indeed.
The issue that got a lot of play on the radio in Northern VA this morning (many victims and Cho are from this area) seemed to be about forced mental counseling. A professor referred Cho to counselors and the police, but they had no options since he had made no direct threats. Enforced counseling may be the "we have to do something" laws coming our way.
thoreau | April 18, 2007, 9:17am | #
For all the hand-wringing over this kid's disturbing writings, as has been pointed out above there are a lot of people out there who are just plain weird, but only a miniscule fraction of them do anything that harms others.My prediction is that there will be a lot of chest-thumping about the need to identify at-risk college students and help them, but very little will be done about it. Which is good. Because the reality is that there are a lot of college students who are just plain weird, and none of the faculty have any interest in further stigmatizing a bunch of students who are different but harmless. Oh, there will be a lot of talk, there will be Committees and Centers and Forums for Dialogue, as well as Official Outreach Coordinators. But these people aren't there to actually solve any unsolvable problems. No, they're there to make sure that everybody can see that Somebody Is Doing Something.
Hooked on Innuendo | April 18, 2007, 9:20am | #
I'm surprised that being a libertarian, Mr. Sullum did not mention that all the students were on the VT campus of their own free will and therefore chose to relinquish their right to bear arms. Any student is free to attend a private college where arms are allowed on campus, assuming the market provides for one.Jake Boone | April 18, 2007, 9:21am | #
Shoo, troll! Shoo!Any society where the expectation is that people will need to be able to defend themselves with force in academic classrooms, is a society that has much bigger issues than gun laws. It's always sad how these events provoke irrational responses from both sides - "ban all guns!", "arm everybody all the time, just like in Iraq!". I consider both approaches contrary to the best traditions of Western civilization. These massacres stand out because they are rare - the chances of anyone reading this blog being shot (or stabbed, or choked to death) by a deranged maniac while they are taking a German lesson are quite minute. Let's get back to worrying about real threats. If you want a gun to walk around a public area in Washington D.C. you should have that right, and that may even be sensible. But on a private university campus when going to class? Really, even after Monday's freak events you probably need that gun about as much as you need to wear a helmet all day on the off chance you're going to trip and fall down the stairs. I have no real problem allowing that if that's what the students really want - but let's not pretend that kind of rule will actually prevent any future massacres, or is any kind of effective response to making us really safer.
Hooked on Innuendo | April 18, 2007, 9:27am | #
Shoo, troll! Shoo!This sort of thing is Reason-speak for "Hey, we're into free minds here, no dissenting opinions!"
Other Matt | April 18, 2007, 9:31am | #
or is any kind of effective response to making us really safer(assuming "nor is it any kind.." is the intended)
Nor do airbags make us really safer, or seatbelts, they just help us survive when we get shown how unsafe the world really is.
JonJoe is exactly on point re Virgina open carry law. I guess the thing is even though I'm allowed to open carry in VA, can't say I ever felt the need to. If events such as what happened at VT were more common, perhaps I would feel otherwise. Why would I want to go the to trouble of packing heat when it would only invite scrutiny and make certain locations off limits (banks, federal property, other states) for a very very remote chance of having to deal with a nutjob? Morally I would have no qualms about defending others, even putting myself at risk to do so and I think most people would be that way. I do have to wonder about the folks I see in VA openly packing a weapon and their motivation - gung-ho about self defense? Returning from the range or a location that may have not been safe? One thing is for sure, people are polite to an openly armed person.
Sean Healy | April 18, 2007, 9:41am | #
The defensiveness of the pro-gun constituency WRT to this latest American mass murder suggests to me that even staunch supporters of the 2nd Amendment may see some discrepancy between its theory and practice. I'd call myself a lukewarm supporter: I'm fine with personal firearms ownership, but also fine with licensing and very uneasy about right to carry/conceal (for what I think are good libertarian reasons, but that's another argument). But even that level of tepid 2A support is getting harder to maintain. Notwithstanding well-known mass murders in Dunblane and German schools, gun violence rates in the US are way higher than in comparable countries. Why is this? I think gun availability is a good place to start looking for an answer.The fact that there is a large, legal gun market in the US means that guns are widely and easily available to law-abiders and criminals alike. I live in Ireland, which is culturally, socially and legally pretty close to the US (perhaps only Canada and Australia are more similar). It's possible to get a license for a rifle here (many farmers have them), but handguns are illegal for anyone who isn't a specialized law enforcement officer. Sure, you can get a handgun illegally, but it's very difficult. Basically, you need to source handguns from organized criminals or the IRA (there is considerable overlap between the two). Now, how successful do you think an ordinary Joe would be on the most dangerous streets of Dublin in a quest to a) find the right people and b) not get himself mistaken for a narc in the process? It's no coincidence that in the 12 years I've lived here I can recall one incident of an otherwise non-criminal person losing it with a gun - and the cops killed him after a long stand-off. I'm not saying Ireland doesn't have levels of violence comparable to the US - it does - but it is notable how much less gun violence there is. I think it just might have something to do with legal restrictions on private handgun ownership.
(There is also something to be said about how permissive gun laws validate firearms as tools for solving social problems - evidence for which I've seen on this blog and others. "An armed society is a polite society", anyone? I've never quite warmed to the authoritarianism lurking not far beneath the gung-ho sentiment of that particular slogan.)
Other Matt | April 18, 2007, 9:45am | #
I do have to wonder about the folks I see in VA openly packing a weapon and their motivation - gung-ho about self defense? Returning from the range or a location that may have not been safe? One thing is for sure, people are polite to an openly armed person.Could be all of the above. Sometimes, they're coming back from a range and want to grab something to eat, but unfortunately you cannot carry concealed in a restaurant that serves alcohol. So, they carry openly, get people all riled up (see here), though admittedly some people are doing it as a political agenda.
As for businesses prohibiting carry, if you're truly concealed nobody would know anyway. So, they're protecting themselves from overzealous lawyers. Most malls can throw you out for a pocketknife for the same reason, they have a sign prohibiting knives, but nobody really cares, it's for lawyers. I, personally, have carried in a private sector job where it was against the rules. I got to be the one firing people, and we had people who I could envision coming back armed for payback. I was willing to risk my job so I'd have at least a chance to stop it if it started, though fortunately I never had to use it.
Other Matt | April 18, 2007, 9:47am | #
The defensiveness of the pro-gun constituency WRT to this latest American mass murder suggests to me that even staunch supporters of the 2nd Amendment may see some discrepancy between its theory and practiceNo. It suggests that we see this as a failure of irrational gun control laws, and yet we're going to get a bunch more jammed up our collective backsides as a result. We're too used to it, so we bristle. That's what you're seeing.
belle waring | April 18, 2007, 9:48am | #
of the 26,000 or so gun deaths in the US each year, about half are suicides, no? while it's true that an armed student might have been able to limit the carnage that just occurred, I think it's pretty likely that the increased number of successful suicide attempts/drunken bullshit/killing your ex-girlfriend that would result would end up erasing the difference after not too long. I'm a 2nd amendments right supporter and think gun-control arguments based on tragedies like this are stupid. while there must be marginal cases deterred by gun laws, budding serial murderers are going to find a way to hurt people no matter what we do. however, I think "we need lots more armed citizens" pro-gun arguments based on tragedies like this are also stupid, and seem based more on personal fantasies of heroism than the facts at hand. sometimes crazy people do evil stuff that should have no impact on our nation's gun laws.Perhaps there should be a Deputy Corps, to train and vet people to carry. Limited to taking action only in extreme circumstances, I would think it would make our country safer. It could give a civic minded person a reason to be armed and guidance on when intervention was appropriate. The police can't be everywhere and I'd bet a violent criminal would give pause not knowing whether his victim was armed or not.
Sean and Vanya are right that the odds of finding yourself in an armed confrontation are pretty low - but they aren't zero. And so I think having the option to exercise your right to keep and bear arms is a valuable one. It's an individual decision - and I have no qualms with Sean or Vanya deciding it's not worth it for them. I do have a problem with others deciding that for me by legislating that right away or restricting so much as to make it worthless.
Hooked on Innuendo | April 18, 2007, 9:54am | #
The police can't be everywhere and I'd bet a violent criminal would give pause not knowing whether his victim was armed or not.How exactly do violent criminals know now who is armed and who isn't?
Hooked on Innuendo | April 18, 2007, 9:56am | #
unfortunately you cannot carry concealed in a restaurant that serves alcoholYes, that's terrible. What could possibly go wrong when you mix drinking and guns?
Sean | April 18, 2007, 10:01am | #
The police can't be everywhere and I'd bet a violent criminal would give pause not knowing whether his victim was armed or not.How exactly do violent criminals know now who is armed and who isn't?
The point is right now the percentage of armed people is so so as to be a non factor in the calclus of a crime. Increase the percentage significantly and it may not be so.
Seamus | April 18, 2007, 10:05am | #
I guess the thing is even though I'm allowed to open carry in VA, can't say I ever felt the need to.Actually, there are many times I've felt the need to carry an open container in my vehicle in Virginia, but the damn General Assembly banned open carry a few years back. I figure that if my BAC stays under 0.8, there's nothing wrong with taking a few sips while I'm at a stop light.
VM | April 18, 2007, 10:12am | #
"One thing is for sure, people are polite to an openly armed person."Why? Because they represent a threat to you? If you present no threat to life and limb, it shouldn't matter if they're armed or not.
Or is the fear that if they get dissed, they'll draw? That myth that you have to be polite to someone who's openly carrying cuz you have to fear them is one of the dumber things out there. Balls. Only in bad movies or in Nancy Pelosi slashfic designed to keep non-gun owners' ignorance at all time highs (else the gov't can't "protect" them. jerks)
Your gun owner is, basically, hugely responsible with his/her weapons. At my cousin's club, they're all certified in first aid and CPR, to boot. It's a tremendous responsibility, and carriers rise to the occasion.
I think "we need lots more armed citizens" pro-gun arguments based on tragedies like this are also stupid, and seem based more on personal fantasies of heroism than the facts at hand.
Agreed. But lots of people are convinced that's how they'd behave in a crisis situation.
But since these incidents are so rare, it shouldn't be a significant part of the decision-to-carry process. There are lots of legit, significant reasons for people to make and exercise that choice.
Sean | April 18, 2007, 10:15am | #
I think "we need lots more armed citizens" pro-gun arguments based on tragedies like this are also stupid, and seem based more on personal fantasies of heroism than the facts at hand.Hmmmm... "fantasies of heroism".. Given the unlikly event of being in a VT situation, I see little reason to strap on a gun. However were it an obligation I commited to as an unpaid depuy it would be different. And so are our police and fireman suffering from "fantasies of heroism" too? Or are they different because in the risks they take they are paid and full time?
Dave W. | April 18, 2007, 10:19am | #
How exactly do violent criminals know now who is armed and who isn't?Open carry should be mandatory. No concealment.
Dave W. | April 18, 2007, 10:22am | #
My prediction is that there will be a lot of chest-thumping about the need to identify at-risk college students and help them, but very little will be done about it. Which is good.True enough. Other than taking these kids guns away, any other enforced sort of "help" is likely to be counterproductive.
joe | April 18, 2007, 10:22am | #
It's good to see that anti-panic libertarians can fall for the "plane crashes get more press coverage than car crashes."Yup, a mass killing like this is a big, scary events. High body count. Press all over the place. Ergo, when contemplating how to avoid gun murders, we should focus all of our concern on this type of event, and ignore the more pedestrian varieties of gun murders, regarless of their comparative frequency and body count.
Of course, people who think it's safer to drive across country than fly aren't just ignorant about statistics; they are also misled by the fact that they themselves will be in control if they drive the car, but not if they fly.
mediageek | April 18, 2007, 10:33am | #
FWIW, Tim Lambert is John Lott's anti-groupie. He stalks the web, searching to tear down Lott's positions wherever he finds them.Some of Lambert's stuff can be worthwhile, some of it, not so much.
Hell, even in Colorado, which has fairly liberal concealed carry laws, those with permits are still prohibited from carrying in schools.
You know, like Columbine.
Rhywun | April 18, 2007, 10:34am | #
Your gun owner is, basically, hugely responsible with his/her weapons.If only all gun-carrying criminals were so responsible! :)
I used to be anti-gun, until I realized that the whole premise is based on the fantasy that you're somehow going to be able to get the world to stop manufacturing them. I still don't like the things, but I have to support the RtKBA out of practicality.
mediageek | April 18, 2007, 10:36am | #
To clarify my previous post:In nearly every mass shooting I've read about, they almost invariably take place in a location that prohibits law-abiding, trained, and background-checked citizens from carrying a defensive implement.
mediageek | April 18, 2007, 10:38am | #
"Ergo, when contemplating how to avoid gun murders, we should focus all of our concern on this type of event, and ignore the more pedestrian varieties of gun murders, regarless of their comparative frequency and body count."Joe, if I ever (Gods forbid) find myself in a situation where I'm faced with someone who intends to murder me, I'd rather have the means to defend myself than not.
Quite frankly, whether his motivation is a spree killing or the fiver in my wallet is utterly immaterial.
VM | April 18, 2007, 10:43am | #
"If only all gun-carrying criminals were so responsible! :)"given time, the big, illin', chillin' Pelosi Ska Gang will make 'em illegal, so the legal group will become that :)
seriously - You raise an interesting point. What is it about guns you don't like?
joe | April 18, 2007, 10:47am | #
mediageek,"...if I ever (Gods forbid) find myself in a situation where I'm faced with someone who intends to murder me..."
There's your problem right there. Tailpipe solutions are inherently inefficient.
Might it be worth considering some of the events that took place before that "someone" put a gun in your face?
Dave W. | April 18, 2007, 10:49am | #
I used to be anti-gun, until I realized that the whole premise is based on the fantasy that you're somehow going to be able to get the world to stop manufacturing them.Tort liability. You won't stop the world from manufacturing them, but you will get them to manufacture and distribute them safer.
If Glock GesmbH knew that it would be on the hook for $32 million based on the events of two days ago, Cho would not have had such an effective weapon.
joe | April 18, 2007, 10:50am | #
mediageek,If I ever find myself in my basement with sewage up to my knees, I'm going to want hipwaders than not.
Quite frankly, whether my outflow line backed up or the neighbor's septic tank blew out is immaterial.
Yes, at that particular moment, it is. Can you see why "would you rather have hipwaders in that situation" isn't the most important matter to discuss?
Somebody Oughtta Do Some Rethinking | April 18, 2007, 10:56am | #
"But as criminologists such as Don Kates have pointed out, gun homicides are overwhelmingly committed by people with long records of anti-social behavior, not by Walter Mittys who have spats with their wives and end up killing them only because there's a gun in the house. That scenario is not impossible, of course, but it is not likely to have a noticeable effect on the homicide rate."joe | April 18, 2007, 11:00am | #
Uh, yes, whomever thinks that "Walter Mittys" commit a signficant portion of murders of robberies needs to do some rethinking.As do those who think this point is relevant to the discussion.
Other Matt | April 18, 2007, 11:01am | #
Yes, that's terrible. What could possibly go wrong when you mix drinking and guns?If you're not drinking, it's still open carry just because the place serves alcohol. I have no problem with saying one cannot have any trace of alcohol and be in control of a firearm.
I'm taking your comments that you're serious and not just a'trollin. I understand you are probably ignorant of the mechanisms of the laws. It's good for people to understand how silly the laws are sometimes.
Other Matt | April 18, 2007, 11:04am | #
There's your problem right there. Tailpipe solutions are inherently inefficient.Might it be worth considering some of the events that took place before that "someone" put a gun in your face?
Like, maybe, sitting down getting ready for the lecture in school? What are you trying to say Joe, normally I can follow your point, irrational I may consider it to be, but you've completely lost me here.
Dave W. | April 18, 2007, 11:06am | #
Uh, yes, whomever thinks that "Walter Mittys" commit a signficant portion of murders of robberies needs to do some rethinking.I think you have chosen the wrong standard of comparison.
The question is whether the "Walter Mittys" kill a lot of victims relative to the number of lives saved by defensive use of firearms.
I don't have an answer, because I don't know how many people save their lives with guns in the aggregate, but I certainly do think that Cho qualifies as a Walter Mitty who did what he did because guns are easy to get.
Have to go with what Other Matt said. Not sure I get what you're saying.
MP | April 18, 2007, 11:11am | #
Yes, at that particular moment, it is. Can you see why "would you rather have hipwaders in that situation" isn't the most important matter to discuss?It may not be the most important, but if I was stuck with shite up to my knees, I'd certainly be somewhat pissed that while dealing with the situation, I didn't have hipwaders because they were banned.
mediageek | April 18, 2007, 11:11am | #
Dave W.You're a delight!
A Corn-Syrup drenched delight!
Please, tell us more!
joe | April 18, 2007, 11:17am | #
Yes, MP, me too. Still, I maintain that advocating the benefits of hip waders is not an optimal solution for dealing with the problem.mediageek, my point is pretty obvious - it's better to avoid a crisis than to try to minimize the damage it does once it happens. Simply taking gun crimes as a given, beyond any ability to influence whether they occur, and putting all of your thought into what to do when they do occur, is a bad way to go about attempting to reduce the harm done by gun violence.
thoreau | April 18, 2007, 11:24am | #
it's better to avoid a crisis than to try to minimize the damage it does once it happensOr you could walk and chew gum at the same time. The goals of prevention and response need not be mutually exclusive.
joe | April 18, 2007, 11:30am | #
True enough, thoreau.Of course, any effective strategy is going to depend on an accurate, non-hysterical appraisal of the problem.
Walter Mittys account for a vanishingly small portion of gun murders.
So do massacres like this.
Dave W. | April 18, 2007, 11:35am | #
Would you similarly call the number of (non-law enforcement) people who save themselves (or othrs) with guns "vanishingly small?"I mean we both know the anecdotes, but what about the aggregate numbers on defensive use of guns. My gut tells me "vanishingly small," but I was wondering if you had a better handle or a different take.
Jake Boone | April 18, 2007, 11:35am | #
Can you see why "would you rather have hipwaders in that situation" isn't the most important matter to discuss?Okay, joe, why don't you just come out with it and say what you think is "the most important matter to discuss"?
Rhywun | April 18, 2007, 11:52am | #
Cho seems closer to anti-social than Walter Mitty to me, unless Walter Mitty also avoided speaking to people and carried out homicidal fantasies in crudely written play form.Jim Bob | April 18, 2007, 11:56am | #
Simply taking gun crimes as a given, beyond any ability to influence whether they occur, and putting all of your thought into what to do when they do occur, is a bad way to go about attempting to reduce the harm done by gun violence.Well, joe, how would you have influenced the VT shootings to not occur?
Rhywun | April 18, 2007, 11:56am | #
My bad, I guess Walter Mitty DID do that - but I think he was getting senile, not homicidal.the larger issue does seem to be grappling with the question of crazy fucking people and how to deal with them.
marc | April 18, 2007, 12:01pm | #
I wonder why the discussion of self defense has centered around guns?To me one of the lessons here should be what if 6 people (with or without guns) reacted? Waiting for police or government to protect you in situation like this is clearly the wrong thing to do, you don't need a gun to react - it does even the fight. 6 people could have ended the slaughter, a few of them would have definitely died in the process.
Look at flight 93, we should learn.
joe | April 18, 2007, 12:02pm | #
Dave W.,I don't believe the "2 million per year" figure that gets tossed about. How many people report that they prevented an assault when they start a fight and pull a gun when they're losing? How many panicky people make a young, minority male cross the street and report that they deterred a violent crime? How many people have yelled "I have a gun" at a an unseen cat making noise on their screen door and report scaring off a burglar?
On the other hand, I wouldn't call it "vanishingly small," either. Given the amount of violence in this country, I could beleive a six-figure figure. Still, that's just my gut, nothing I'd want to make up numbers for and write a book about.
Jake,
OK. The most important things to discuss, when talking about how to limit gun murders, are the types of murders that account for most of the death toll - those committed by career criminals in the commission of crimes, and those committed by abusive spouses as part of an escalating pattern of violence.
joe | April 18, 2007, 12:06pm | #
Jim Bob,I'm not sure how much could be done to prevent these types of crimes. Identifying high-risk individuals like Cho would be the most important thing. The only gun-control solution that would make sense would be more effective psychological screening as part of the Brady check. Asking people to check the "I'm not crazy" box and leaving it at that doesn't seem terribly effective. They certainly don't screen out violent felons that way.
Eric the .5b | April 18, 2007, 12:06pm | #
Shoo, troll! Shoo!*takes a drink*
This sort of thing is Reason-speak for "Hey, we're into free minds here, no dissenting opinions!"
Dave W. | April 18, 2007, 12:07pm | #
Cho seems closer to anti-social than Walter Mitty to meI would agree that Cho was anti-social, as was Walter Mitty.
However, I don't think that was what Sullum meant when he said "a long history of anti-social behavior."
It is also worth noting that in that March 2007 HnR entry Sullum was using the relative rarity of Mitty type massacres to persuade his readers that guns were useful defensive tools, on balance. Which is why I am hounding joe about what the aggregate numbers look like on defensive use of guns. Do the defensive uses of guns really outweigh the Mitty type massacres in a utilitarian sense? I mean I know the Democrats need the gun vote to win, but I still want some clarity.
Dave W. | April 18, 2007, 12:09pm | #
Look at flight 93, we should learn.Flight 93 was shot down by a big gun.
Eric the .5b | April 18, 2007, 12:12pm | #
I wonder why the discussion of self defense has centered around guns?Because few people in these situations react aggressively, especially when they're unarmed, which is why you didn't get six people willing to die to stop this guy. If someone of the people around had been carrying, you'd be more likely to have just one or two people willing to do something with a better chance of surviving. Perhaps more so, since the people who actually end up carrying concealed weapons actually take classes and train in their use, making them at least somewhat more likely to be able to act.
To me one of the lessons here should be what if 6 people (with or without guns) reacted? Waiting for police or government to protect you in situation like this is clearly the wrong thing to do, you don't need a gun to react - it does even the fight. 6 people could have ended the slaughter, a few of them would have definitely died in the process.
Eric the .5b | April 18, 2007, 12:13pm | #
If someone of the peopleEr, "if some of the people".
Dave W. | April 18, 2007, 12:13pm | #
I don't believe the "2 million per year" figure that gets tossed about. How many people report that they prevented an assault when they start a fight and pull a gun when they're losing? How many panicky people make a young, minority male cross the street and report that they deterred a violent crime? How many people have yelled "I have a gun" at a an unseen cat making noise on their screen door and report scaring off a burglar?Fair enough. Anybody have a number about how many people are shot by (non police) shooters acting in self defense?
I mean, I have been badly frightened by illegitimate use of guns a couple of times in my life. It is quite unpleasant. Maybe we should just compare the actual Walter Mitty shootings to the actual, legit defensive shootings.
Rhywun | April 18, 2007, 12:13pm | #
I know the Democrats need the gun vote to winMeh. They've never needed it before.
Dave W. | April 18, 2007, 12:16pm | #
"illegitimate use of guns"By which I mean people threatening me with guns, in case that was unclear.
marc | April 18, 2007, 12:17pm | #
Eric the .5b,so you need government permission to react?
I bet a guy in Iraq with 2 hand guns couldn't kill 5 people in room of 30 unarmed individuals. Self-reliance is essential there, as the government does not work. Americans rely too heavily on government, we have been trained to let the professionals do the job, this is clearly the wrong strategy in a case like this.
Jim Bob | April 18, 2007, 12:17pm | #
joe,Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You're right; this does raise the question of how to prevent people who are batshit crazy from getting hold of weapons. Ideally, without restricting the ability of the rest of us to have them.
It would be a tall order to attempt to ascertain if somebody really was nuts before selling him a weapon (unless he was just truly, obviously, and irredeemably disturbed); there's probably no truly foolproof method.
and/or shooting or threatening to shoot other people near where I am.
thoreau | April 18, 2007, 12:22pm | #
Identifying high-risk individuals like Cho would be the most important thing.The problem is that for every college student who acts weird and eventually does something like this, there are a bunch of others who act weird but don't snap. I'm not sure what you can do for them without running the risk of stigmatizing them or making them suspicious of faculty and staff.
I've only been an adjunct this far, but this fall when I start a full time position I suspect I'll learn more about mechanisms for reporting suspicious student behavior. The thing is, I'd have to see REALLY bad signs before I'd put a report on a student's Permanent Record. I'd fear that the report would generate resentment and make it harder for me to engage the student in the course of my primary task: Teaching.
Now, there is a certain amount of faculty lounge gossip, but we have full deniability, usually the gossip is "This one's really smart!" and "That one may need some academic help", and if anybody gossiped too much (especially about troubled students) it would be seen as inappropriate. So it's self-limiting.
I fear that increased scrutiny of potentially troubled students will lead to incidents like Geraldo saying "Hey, here's an Asian kid who has pictures of guns on his web page!" That kid could be a hunter, a target shooter, or simply a responsible hobbyist who engages in safe practices and obeys all relevant laws. For all we know, the kid that Geraldo pointed to could be a guy for whom shooting is a social activity, something that he does with friends. (That's how it is for me, I almost never go to a range alone.)
As far as Flight 93: On Flight 93, they knew that they were on their own, and the guys that they were dealing with didn't have ranged weapons. They knew that they had no other option, and while charging a guy with a knife isn't exactly a safe thing to do, it's at least less dangerous than charging a guy with a gun. Besides, it's coming out that students at VA Tech did act to protect themselves, sealing doors (even while the guy was trying to shoot through the door). They didn't charge him because they didn't have to charge him to survive, they only had to block doors and wait for either the cops to show up or the ammo to run out.
It seems that in tragedies there are people who will rise to the occasion and take whatever risks are necessary for survival, but they won't take risks above and beyond that. Which is eminently reasonable.
The problem with mental screening for gun purchases is that it raises all sorts of concerns about privacy, the doctor-patient relationship, and just how much medical information the government should have access to.
joe | April 18, 2007, 12:30pm | #
The people on Flight 93 had a period of time to appraise their situation, weigh the alternatives, come up with a plan, and get themselves into the required mental state.These victims were sitting classrooms when someone burst in and started shooting them. Of course they ducked.
joe | April 18, 2007, 12:35pm | #
BTW, in the classroom where the kid barred the door with his feet and waited for the police to chase the guy off, not a single person was killed.As opposed to the bonzai charge certain internet heroes would, apparantly, prefer he had done instead, which would have certainly resulted in multiple deaths.
mediageek | April 18, 2007, 12:43pm | #
Joe, if it works, I'm for it.I'm not one of the people screeching about how they should have charged him. I've been in plenty of classrooms and realize that even if there were people intending this, that the physical layout of the room and the reaction of other people may well have prevented that.
So I presume that you're not casting me as an internet hero.
thoreau | April 18, 2007, 12:47pm | #
So I presume that you're not casting me as an internet hero.Send a photo, audition tape, and resume, and joe will get back to you.
joe | April 18, 2007, 12:57pm | #
mediageek,Mostly I was thinking about John Derbyshire. He, like, totally would have charged the guy. And he would have spit in the Iranian military's eye if they'd captured him, even if they'd tortured him.
I've got a pretty low threshold for chickenhawkery.
"You know what I would have done?"
Yes, lardass, you would have crapped your pants and tried to remember what comes after "...full of grace..."
No, I was not thinking of you in particular.
Kap | April 18, 2007, 12:58pm | #
joe,The 2M figure is if I recall based on phone surveys and statistical extrapolation, not on crime reports. Various sources put it at 500k-2M. I believe the DOJ puts it at the lower end of that range, but multiple studies have produced figures in that order of magnitude.
I've had 2 experiences myself, and 1 experience on the other end of the gun (young and stupid, tresspassing). It isn't uncommon. I can easily believe any number in that range.
There are also lots of situations where the presence of a gun makes a material difference but not in a direct way, and not in a way that produces statistics. I once while walking my dog happened upon two youths who looked to be stealing a car - one was hovering about on his bike on lookout and the other was didling with the the lock for several minutes. I stood there directly across the street from them staring at them for several minutes until they realized they were being watched, and then they slunk off. I walked over, looked at the car, the lock had been clumsily damaged, and I called the police (who promptly showed up 3 hours later and asked if I was still waiting on the street corner - "yeah, I'm the guy in the tent" was my answer). A day or two later I saw the owner and asked her about it - she hadn't even noticed he lock was buggered yet.
I stood across the street from these two teenage thugs, alone in the dark, because being armed I knew I had options if they decided to go the "what the fuck are you looking at?" route. If I hadn't been armed I probably would have pretended not to have seen it and just kept walking, and the car would have been stolen.
A crime was prevented, no shots fired, the gun remained hidden, I don't recall that I ever mentioned to 911 I was armed (and if I did, does that go into some statistical database? No, it doesn't.)
Unfortunately my common and mundane experience is completely lost in comparison to Monday's events.
And to our Irish friend above, America has a huge problem with gun violence (I am not denying this) because it has a huge problem with gangs, and with an underclass that is spiraling downwards into social suicide.
The overwhelming majority of gun violence is young thugs shooting other young thugs. Deaths like Monday's represent on average about 1 in 1000 gun murders in the USA.
FDM | April 18, 2007, 1:07pm | #
It was a late, dark night in Buffalo, NY when the two hoodlums approached from across the street. I made the reaching gesture under my overcoat. The two hoodlums immediately crossed back across the street and I double-timed it to my vehicle.Damn straight joe, guns save "two million lives" a year. I was one of them.
Dave W. | April 18, 2007, 1:20pm | #
I believe the DOJ puts it at the lower end of that rangeDoes the DoJ have any statistics on how many are actually shot in self defense?
I mean I have been approached by hoodlums 4 or 5 times and actually mugged once. If I had been carrying, I guess that would mean that a gun saved my life 4 or 5 times. But I wasn't.
Eric the .5b | April 18, 2007, 1:21pm | #
Marc,so you need government permission to react?I'm sorry, but I don't see what your question has to do with anything I wrote in my comment. Could you rephrase or expand upon why you think I was talking about government permission?
FDM | April 18, 2007, 1:36pm | #
That's why I put it in quotes -- The number might not be two million, but it's significant. And the fact that we use guns defensively all the time, but since it doesn't bleed it doesn't lead.I'm just tired of being told, in general,that I don't have right to self-defense, that I have to walk defenseless when criminals wish to do me harm, and that if 10% of us would carry it would be Iraq, when in point of fact, the crime rate at 10% carry would be f'ing negligible. The DOJ might even have to retire it's statistics dept. And it's not a fantasy -- just look at matched cities from the last century, and you will see the striking difference in crime rates due to carry.
jimmy smith | April 18, 2007, 1:58pm | #
I have never been approached by hoodlums, hit on by a gay or had any nappy headed ho's want me to buy them a drink. I'm guessing the kid with the gun would have skipped me, too. All I fear is the IRS.Dave W. | April 18, 2007, 2:25pm | #
I'm just tired of being told, in general,that I don't have right to self-defense, that I have to walk defenseless when criminals wish to do me harmI certainly don't advocate a gun ban.
However, Sullum was making the point in March that defensive use of guns outweigh the extra violence that easy gun accessibility causes. He is especially dismissive of the Walter Mitty type shooter. Too dismissive I think.
I would like to see a comparison of people shot in self defense to the number of people shot because guns are handy. Obviously neither number is going to be precise, but I would like to know.
As far as the "softer" occasions of self defense, where showing or threatening gun may have stopped some indeterminate, inchoate violence, I don't count those incidents for that much.
I have been threatened by people with guns 3 times and witnessed somebody being threatened once. here is the list:
1. Once for "trespassing." The property upon which I was trespassing was not marked or fenced. I was walking on a well-established path. The property owner (if he really was), ran toward me with the gun and it was pointed generally in my direction during this running. I did not like that.
2. Again for "trespassing." I was not trespassing in that I was coming to collect money on my paper route from the guy's house. the man apologized after I identified myself -- I knew the man, he was a customer. I have no idea why he pulled a gun on me that time, besides the fact that it was dark and did not recognize me walking into his yard (as I did every week at about that time).
3. One afternoon home early from work, I caught girlfriend with ex, who was a policeman and supposedly abusive. He did not show his gun, but did threaten to kill me if I did not leave immediately. I asked the girlfriend if she was okay. She said she was and I got out of there and broke up with her later on the telephone.
4. Witnessed man chasing woman with gun. She wanted to take an accidental shooting (whom I did not see) to hospital. the man with the gun did not want to do that.
What is my point, you are probably wondering. It is that when I hear about "self defense" episodes that do not involve actual shootings, I realize that guns are helpful in those, but also that they balance against the pain and fear caused to people like me from non-shooting incidents where no gun should be brought to bear, but is anyway.
That is why I think, in any utilitarian analysis, that it is fairer to compare self defense shootings (where someone gets shot) to "Walter Mitty shootings" like the 50 on Monday.
joe | April 18, 2007, 2:28pm | #
Kap,"The 2M figure is if I recall based on phone surveys and statistical extrapolation, not on crime reports." Yes, self-reporting, as I said.
If we get to count Kap and FDM's experiences as crimes deterred by guns, does that mean we get to count every event of pointing a gun at someone, or even saying "I have a gun," as a gun crime?
joe | April 18, 2007, 2:31pm | #
I'm glad having the gun gave you the courage to confront those would-be thiefs, Kap.Can you think of any other situations when having a gun could encourage someone to be confrontational?
the sobsister | April 18, 2007, 2:38pm | #
Dang, now why didn't I think of that? Arm college students so that, when the inevitable moment comes and one of their classmates goes on a maniacal death spree, they can wing the mofo and minimize casualties.The clearly-demonstrable preemptive value of armed students aside, I know nothing would make me feel more secure on campus than, come Friday night keggers, seeing bands of armed, roving Greeks--enjoying their protected Second Amendment rights just like the Founding Fathers intended, consarnit!--reacting reasonably and coolly to any sort of provocation.
< /irony > You, sir, are an ass.
a woman | April 18, 2007, 2:39pm | #
Seamus said: Actually, there are many times I've felt the need to carry an open container in my vehicle in Virginia, but the damn General Assembly banned open carry a few years back. I figure that if my BAC stays under 0.8, there's nothing wrong with taking a few sips while I'm at a stop light.Dude, if your BAC is .8, then you've got WAY bigger problems than a DUI. I'm guessing you mean .08 BAC. ;-)
ed | April 18, 2007, 2:43pm | #
Jacob Sullum asks whether the murders at Virginia Tech will lead to a rethinking of gun bans.Rethinking?
First there has to be thinking.
Gahan | April 18, 2007, 2:49pm | #
"That is why I think, in any utilitarian analysis, that it is fairer to compare self defense shootings (where someone gets shot) to "Walter Mitty shootings" like the 50 on Monday."Even setting aside any anecdotal evidence of guns brandished but not fired, there is the statistical deterrent to consider. Just knowing that a significant number of Americans keep guns either on their person or in their home is enough to discourage a potential burgler or mugger.
Dave W. | April 18, 2007, 3:04pm | #
Even setting aside any anecdotal evidence of guns brandished but not fired, there is the statistical deterrent to consider. Just knowing that a significant number of Americans keep guns either on their person or in their home is enough to discourage a potential burgler or mugger.I don't think this counts as statistical evidence. There aren't statistics on this. It is more like a guess that may or may not be true.
Brian Sorgatz | April 18, 2007, 3:20pm | #
You guys on this thread may want to know that someone on another thread is calling Congressman Ron Paul a cynical opportunist for saying essentially what Sullum says.Gahan | April 18, 2007, 3:22pm | #
"I don't think this counts as statistical evidence. There aren't statistics on this. It is more like a guess that may or may not be true."There is no way to know statistically how many potential criminals are disuaded by the possibility of being met with a gun. It is possible to know, however, roughly what percentage of Americans own and or carry firearms, which is likely to be a factor in deciding whether or not to break into a home, hence the U.S.'s relatively low break-in rate compared to countries that excercise stricter gun control.
Ken | April 18, 2007, 3:26pm | #
"I think it's pretty likely that the increased number of successful suicide attempts/drunken bullshit/killing your ex-girlfriend that would result would end up erasing the difference after not too long."That was my concern exactly. I agree that few people will get concealed carry permits planning on "nefarious" activity. I'm worried about those many kids who tell me in class of crazy things they did drunk over the weekend, I imagine similar stories but with them packing...Yikes...That being said, some people go to college in sketchy urban areas (I went to VCU in Richmond), and they may want to have a gun in their car for example. The school forbids it but does not make them safe (or even feel safe). It seems wrong to tell that guy he can't, though if we allow it once again I fear the drunk or just impulsive kid who would always do "something stupid" but now his something stupid has resulted in murder..
Dave W. | April 18, 2007, 3:55pm | #
There is no way to know statistically how many potential criminals are disuaded by the possibility of being met with a gun. It is possible to know, however, roughly what percentage of Americans own and or carry firearms, which is likely to be a factor in deciding whether or not to break into a home, hence the U.S.'s relatively low break-in rate compared to countries that excercise stricter gun control.yeah, I know the drill: all the murders would still happen with or without guns, but many additional break-ins would happen without all the guns.
It seems like taking advantage of the lack of statistics to try to have it both ways to me.
Kap | April 18, 2007, 4:15pm | #
Joe,To clarify: I don't count the above anecdote as one of "my 2 experiences". I was trying to illustrate how the law-abiding side of gun usage involves a very large number of incidents which fall below the statistical radar, and which are difficult to compare in a utilitarian sense with a very small number of very dramatic and highly negative events.
And insofar as "confrontation" goes, I was being as non-confrontational as I know how. I did not accost the two in any manner, I did not speak to them, I did not shine my flashlight at them, I only stood quietly and immobile 50 feet away and waited until they saw me. That's it. That is all I did. I even waited until they had left eyeshot before I dialed 911.
Part of my CHL training involved an hour or two of nonviolent dispute resolution training, and a long discussion of why you don't want to consider a gun as your first-choice solution to a problem. Not every state requires this of CHLs, but at least (scarequotes) Famously-Gun-Permissive-Texas does.
I handled that situation that non-confrontationally because I was armed, and I am fully aware of how it badly events could have transpired had I not shown discretion. Earlier in my life I might have handled it much more loudly.
It also affects my behavior when I am not armed. The most common cause of CHL revocation is a DUI charge; nowadays if I am driving I don't drink at all, not even one drink. It simply isn't worth it to me. Likewise if some drunk in a bar tries to pick a fight with me: laugh it off, whatever. Guns change behavior in both directions, Joe. The overwhelming majority of gun owners understand the responsibility required of gun ownership and step up to the plate.
The two events I do count:
The first is too complicated to succinctly retell here. It involves a former neighbor of mine who had a severe methamphetamine problem, was very mentally ill (in the judgment of my wife, a licensed practicing psychotherapist), was on felony probation, was evicted by our mutual landlord, had returned to stalk my wife and I, and had literally hid in the bushes and attacked me in my backyard. No shots fired, police called, advice on restraining orders offered by a detective (in TX they are civil, not criminal, so what's the point?).
The second instance I was walking my dog New Year's Eve 2 years ago when I came upon an extremely intoxicated homeless man beating the crap out of a woman. She was lying on the ground face up, and he was straddling her, pounding her face with a closed fist. When I realized what was happening I was about 75' away. I remember thinking to myself, "no gun, just yell" (I had had enough with the previous incident a year or two earlier) and so I yelled at him to get off of her. He did, but then he turned around, grabbed a full 40oz bottle by the neck in the manner you would if you were going to swing it rather than drink it, and covered about 25' of the distance between him and myself, cursing me out, before I processed and reacted. I unholstered my gun, did an indexed low ready (pointing at the ground a few feet in front of me) and yelled at him to drop the bottle and walk away. He was surprised, and he did. I called 911 and waited with the woman until the ambulance and police arrived. She was homeless as well, she knew him, it was domestic violence, if you can use that term for a homeless couple. I called the police a week later to check on her, she was transported to a local hospital, but didn't file charges.
The VT incident generates statistics, the above incidents don't. Multiply my experience by 500k-2M; how do you weigh that against Monday?
Gahan | April 18, 2007, 4:42pm | #
"yeah, I know the drill: all the murders would still happen with or without guns, but many additional break-ins would happen without all the guns.It seems like taking advantage of the lack of statistics to try to have it both ways to me."
Is it any less speculative to assume that more ambitious gun legislation would have prevented Monday's events?
Other Matt | April 18, 2007, 5:05pm | #
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'm about ready to buy a Harley and pack my shit and head down with them to screen these protesters. Most probably with my Virginia nonresident CCW and carry gun to boot. I asked him to forward the email, I'll post a copy here if it is the case and anyone wants. Un-fucking-believable, and I'm not prone to post profanity here.
LarryA | April 18, 2007, 5:13pm | #
If you want a gun to walk around a public area in Washington D.C. you should have that right, and that may even be sensible. But on a private university campus when going to class?Actually, I only carry my concealed handgun when going somewhere I don’t think I’ll need it. If I was thinking, “If I go to that place I might need a gun,” my response is “don’t go.”
These massacres stand out because they are rare - the chances of anyone reading this blog being shot (or stabbed, or choked to death) by a deranged maniac while they are taking a German lesson are quite minute.
Absolutely true. As are the chances I’ll need to wear my seatbelt when I run the short errand I need to get done. (Note to self: Quit blogging and go.) But if I am the unlucky one at the next school shooting, Luby’s massacre, courthouse shootout, etc. one thing is certain. There’s no do-over. Just as when the wheels start to skid there’s no timeout to put on seatbelts.
And I also carry in the event of a far more common robbery or other “routine” crime.
gun violence rates in the US are way higher than in comparable countries. Why is this?
One of the main reasons is that we are in the middle of a civil war, AKA the War on Drugs. Look up the statistics on who gets shot, and who does the shooting. Hint: “Random” it ain’t.
"An armed society is a polite society", anyone? I've never quite warmed to the authoritarianism lurking not far beneath the gung-ho sentiment of that particular slogan.
AASIAPS is often taken to mean that if everyone is carrying no one dares be impolite. Actually the opposite is true. People who accept the responsibility to carry tend to be polite to avoid starting anything that could end up serious. Attend a shooting match sometime. If any competitor pulled anything like what is common at tennis matches, much less in a hockey rink, he would be immediately banned for life. The concealed handgun licensees I train are the most polite bunch I hang with, and given my lifestyle that's saying a lot.
Under Texas self-defense law, for instance, use of force is never justified in any situation you provoke.
Perhaps there should be a Deputy Corps, to train and vet people to carry. Limited to taking action only in extreme circumstances, I would think it would make our country safer.
There is. They are called, “Concealed Handgun Licensees.”
unfortunately you cannot carry concealed in a restaurant that serves alcohol
Yes, that's terrible. What could possibly go wrong when you mix drinking and guns?
1. In Texas you can carry concealed in a restaurant, but not a bar. (Bars earn more than 51% on drinks.)
2. Entering or eating in a restaurant that serves alcohol doesn’t mean you have to consume any.
3. Such restaurants have parking lots, too. That doesn’t mean they mix driving and alcohol.
Francisco Torres | April 18, 2007, 6:38pm | #
If Glock GesmbH knew that it would be on the hook for $32 million based on the events of two days ago, Cho would not have had such an effective weapon.IF they are held liable. They will not, of course - the sale of the gun that the perp used was 100% legit.
david still | April 18, 2007, 7:50pm | #
What a silly article. Every time some bad thing happens and a gun is involved, the gun lovers claim that had some 18-year-old had a gunh thenm this might not have happened. Of course it might not have happened. It did. The student that was a mad killer was deranged and was hardly thinking that maybe some fellow students might have had guns. I am not against gun ownership. I have shot guns during tours in the army. But i also know that college kids drink, do drungs,and are hormonal: I sure s heck don't want wasted students going to parties on campus or elsewhere with guns while they put away a 6 pack.Don't feel threatened. No one will change the 21nd Amendment. But stop it, at long last, to believe that a few people with concealed guns will suddenly eliminae gun mjurders in our nation. It is a silly argument and and no one, especially law enforecement people, know this.
ps: the Lott and Landres arguement does not wash: no gun course taken by this kid and no background check made