…it’s the GUNS!
I recognize that I’m stirring up the beehive here, but I want to start a conversation about gun control.
According to some sources I’ve read, if one doesn’t have a gun license in Virginia, one is allowed to buy one handgun a month, on the spot, if one passes a background check (I’ve heard that the background check for the VT shooter took less than one minute). No waiting periods, no stringent policies: “Hello, Mr. Gun Shop owner; I’d like to buy a handgun today, if you please. Nope, I’ve never been arrested. Here’s your money, I’ll take my gun. No, I don’t need a bag for that; thank you very much.” Possession of a license removes the one-a-month restriction.
It is also legal in Virginia for children as young as 12 – TWELVE – to be in possession of rifles and shotguns.
What’s even MORE exciting for me is that MY state received a lower grade on the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence site; Virginia received a C- and my New England state received a D-. Well, isn’t THAT lovely?!
While expressions of sympathy and grief for the Virginia Tech community have been coming in from around the world, there have been some politicians, most notably England’s Tony Blair, who have “stopped short” of critcizing the United States’ gun control policies. Many of these countries have far stricter gun laws than we have (if you can even call what we have “gun laws”) and, as a result, have seen marked decreases in the kind of gun violence that seems to have become a staple in American culture. They’ve obviously figured out something that we haven’t.
Don’t start with me about the Second Amendment and the whole “right to bear arms” thing, either, because I’m not buying it. What the Second Amendment says, and I quote, is:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Now, I understand that the Constitution is vague and open to interpretation – our founding fathers were smart enough to know that, if the document – and the nation – had any hope of long-term viability, both needed to be flexible – but I just don’t see how that can be interpreted to mean anything but that people have a right to bear arms IN DEFENSE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED FREE STATE. I’m certain that our forefathers would be horrified to learn that children are being murdered in their school rooms with almost numbing regularity and that we are, in fact, just a couple of rounds short of full-on anarchy.
Now, I DO have to say here that I lean toward old-fashioned conservatism. I’m not entirely sure that I LIKE the idea of more government interference in our lives, never mind the fact that I’m not sure that we’ve not already passed the point of no return in even being able to get a handle on this whole gun culture. I’d be willing to put up with more government involvement, though, if it meant that I could worry a little less about my sending my daughters to school.
I know there’s no easy answer, but I want to know what you all think.
Just remember, freedoms, when the are taken away, are ALWAYS taken away in the name of public safety.
I am confused that anyone who despises the Patriot Act can also favor outlawing gun ownership.
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com
Things become cliche because they’re true. To whit, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Like sex, like kindness, like hate, like freedom of religion it comes down to educating people about how and why you use any of these very powerful things. Angry people will get guns. Addicted people will get drugs. I am always discouraged by the monumental task of educating people so that growing up to think that violence or drugs or anything in excess is the right answer. The flip side of that is that if excess is not the answer then neither is a complete lack.
Matt, when did I say I despised the Patriot Act? I’ve got some issues with it, sure, but I don’t think “despise” ever came up as a verb I’ve ever used in a discussion about it.
Kizz, THIS is the part that feels so hopeless. I AM trying to raise my kids to be moderate and empathetic and thoughtful, but I’ve only got two kids; I despair at how I see other children being raised. There’s a kid in Beanie’s SECOND GRADE CLASS who’s ALREADY a bully. Mr. Chili was JUST talking this morning about how he’d be heartily surprised if that kid didn’t end up in juvie before he graduates high school – IF he graduates high school, that is. What’s happening in HIS home, and will I be surprised if my daughter, as his classmate, is a victim of his violence in the future? I see my own students being casually and carelessly rude, disrespectful and violent. No one has stood up to tell them that this is unacceptable, and I fear that MY doing that will be entirely disregarded because it’s coming too late in the game. I am horrified most of the time.
I am MORE than willing to blame parents here; I am fully aware that MOST of them don’t do their jobs. They expect the schools to raise their kids and I’m here to tell you that this is NOT a job for schools, even if they did have access to the resources they’d need to make it happen. I have NO idea what kind of upbringing the VT shooter had, but I DO know that a lot of teachers brought the student’s writings to the attention of authorities – people saw this coming, and I can only imagine the profound grief, rage, guilt, and frustration those teachers must be feeling right now. May I never be put in a situation like that.
Shouldn’t some of the education of which you speak come from a clear, national policy of not accepting these kinds of acts? I mean, I agree with your assertion, Kizz, that angry people will find a way to get guns, but do we have to make it so EASY for them? Shouldn’t we be standing up to say NO, you may NOT have a gun “just because” and you SHOULD have to be background checked and you SHOULD have to re-register every year and you SHOULD have your ballistics on record. It’s harder to get a DRIVERS’ LICENSE than it is to get a gun in most states, and I find that wrong on more levels than I care to get into.
The Second Amendment DOES NOT guarantee your freedom to walk into a school, or an office, or a subway car, or a Wal-Mart and start opening fire. It DOES NOT guarantee your right to settle your problems with bullets. Our policemen, National Guardsmen, and military personnel should have firearms; my students should not.
How can people not see this?
I’m a libertarian and very wary of government. I personally hate guns and would never own one. I know many sportsman who are very responsible gun owners and teachers of gun safety. That being said,
kids under 18 or 21 should not be able to buy a gun or have gun license and there should be a reasonable waiting period/background check to buy a gun. Unfortunately, the liberal Democrats don’t know where to stop. Each time they have an opportunity, they try to get closer to a total gun ban. If they had their way, there would be a constitutional amendment to ban gun ownership. This is the problem! Relative to the UK, I wonder if the tighter gun laws have actually resulted to a significant reduction in violent crime. I haven’t tried to research it. Remember, Tony Blair is a liberal. I would not be surprised if he supported tight gun laws.I would be very surprised if
these kind of laws will reduce violent crime. There are always ways for criminals or mentally disturbed people to get a gun on the black market. If we want to reduce ( not stop ) violent crime, maybe we should start mb reducing the sales of violent video games, movies, and music to kids.
To echo Anonymous, I personally don’t want to have a gun, but I do feel that non-criminal adults should have the right to own guns. Should there be waiting periods and background checks? Of course! At the same time, we’re guranteed the right to bear arms because an unarmed people wouldn’t be able to throw off a tyranical government (which is, in the end, what I think that right is all about). Unfortunately, this is just one of those issues where freedom and safety aren’t necessarily on the same side of the issue (since even with all the background checks in the world, a few crazies can still slip through).
It’s very easy and very tempting to transfer of evil deeds of the individual to the tool used to perpetrate those evil deeds. It seems as though if he couldn’t get the gun, he couldn’t become violent, and then all of those people would still be alive. However evil is as evil does. Eliminating a tool does not eliminate the evil beast. There are plenty of other tools. Remember that Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with fuel oil, fertilizer, and a truck. He didn’t fire a single bullet.
We tread a dangerous road we decide to loosely interpret Constitutional amendments in order to make them fit with our own personal views. How many of us would agree that the 1st Amendment should be tightened up in order to, for example, improve national security? The case could be made (and HAS been made) that tighter control of what the media can say will make the job of national security much easier. I’m sure that many would see such controls as mere “common sense.” I, for one, would NEVER want to see such a tightening of the 1st Amendment. I fear that slippery slope much more than any perceived “media mess up.”
With regard to the 2nd Amendment, please keep in mind the quote from Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto of the Japanese Imperial Navy during WW II: “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” Interpret that quote as you will.
No, The Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee your freedom to walk into a school, or an office, or a subway car, or a Wal-Mart and start opening fire. It doesn’t guarantee a right to settle your problems with bullets. No more so than my driver’s license gives me the right to run you down if I get mad at you. IF I do that, the government now has the right to arrest me, prosecute me, and possibly send me to jail. The government does not, however, have the right to deny other people a driver’s license because they “might” do the same thing.
BTW. My post above is not to imply that I oppose all forms of guns control. BG checks, training courses, ballistics records, etc. are all things that knowledgeable and respectful gun owbers should have no problem with.
I should probably just do a “Yeah, what he said.” about Dudley. But where would the fun be in that?
Thank you, Dudley, for the Timothy McVeigh information. It’s a sobering bit of perspective. No matter what we ban or change or think we can protect ourselves from we can’t control everything.
What’s interesting about the Yamamoto quote is that then someone did invade the US, but not with rifles, with fuel oil and flesh and airplanes. No number of handguns are going to be much of a match for that.
I, too, support background checks and waiting periods and above all gun safety education. I don’t have any stats but I suspect that children who grow up knowing about guns in controlled environments where they are taught about gun use and gun safety are far less likely to use that as their means of destruction than a child who has been banned from using so much as a potato gun.
Personally, I’d like to learn how to shoot a gun. I’d like to know what all the moving parts are and what it feels like even though I have no interest in shooting anything live and making it stop being that. I’d like to know both just to know and so that if, god forbid, I’m in a situation where someone is threatening me and mine with gun violence that perhaps my little knowledge will hold well placed power. Maybe not but then again maybe so.
My first comment wasn’t really aimed at refuting the need for a system of checks and balances but was a reaction to “It’s not the economy it’s the GUNS.” I don’t think it’s the economy (in this case) but I don’t think it’s the guns either, though, as usual this case shows us how the protective system continues to fail. I do find it unconscionable that there was no response to the concern about this kid’s writings being reflective of his stability.
Will you talk about this with your classes, Chili?
Kizz,
Interesting follow up. With regard to “concern about this kid’s writings being reflective of his stability,” I don’t believe that his writings have any relevance, except maybe in hindsight.
While I have only read snipets of what he wrote, it doesn’t seem any more unbalanced than the writings of Edgar Allan Poe; and Poe is required reading in many middle and high schools.
I, for one, don’t want to see a ban on Poe.
Shakespeare wrote some disturbed, angry and violent stuff in Hamlet, and no one points the mentally disturbed finger at him. Cho, on the other hand, was mentally unstable, had a history of stalking women (via unwanted text messages), scared his English teacher enough for her to have a guard stationed outside her classroom when Cho was in attendance and go to the authorities with his writings. If there was ANY question as to his sanity, he should have been placed on a “watch” list of some kind. A waiting period MAY have resulted in his being identified as dangerous. Hindsight. This system does not function as is. There is gun control in Canada, but then there is no second amendment to wrestle with there but fact is, the stats I pulled from 2004 are these:
* 7.1 million registered firearms in Canada
* 172 gun related homicides in Canada in 2004
* 112 committed with handguns
* 71 gang-related homicides in Canada in 2004
* 70.4 percent of gang-related homicides committed with a gun
* 20.7 percent of non-gang related homicides committed with a gun
Folks, it is the guns, the relative lack of wait times and paperwork and the not vocal enough condemnation in this country, where the gun lobby is enormously powerful, that are the largest part of the problem. Guns are too easy to obtain. And the most terrible thing? We’re inured to the gun violence.
I LOVE you all for engaging me in this conversation! Thank you!
Kizz, you bet your patootie that I’m going to be having discussions in class about this, particularly when we get to the “persuasive speech” part of the syllabus.
You all make very good points, and I want to emphasize here that I’m still finding my way around the issue, so don’t shoot the messenger. I haven’t made up my mind about the idea of “gun control” per se – there are very good and valid arguments for both sides of the issue – but I DO stand very firmly with the belief that the system we’ve got going on now DOES NOT WORK.
I respectfully disagree, Dudley, that Cho’s writings were irrelevant, particularly if we’re going to continue to hold teachers responsible as the proverbial gatekeepers in our society. As teachers – and I think particuarly as English teachers, but I could be wrong about that – we get to KNOW our students and how they think and express themselves. Our experience with language and with the intention of language and with the craft of art gives us an insight into what’s being imagined for creativity’s sake and what’s intended as something more. Cho’s English teacher recognized the line and knew that it had been crossed. That her attempts to get help for this student eventually ended with a massacre leaves me bereft for her; I can’t even imagine how she must be feeling right now.
Quick illustrative story: I turned Megadeth Dave in for his “the internet is being a jew” comment, but I DIDN’T report his offensive journal entries. In my judgement, the journal entries were deliberate bait to see how hard he could push my buttons. The internet comment was made off the cuff and had a far more sinister implication; because he didn’t intend it to be a shock to me – this is just something he says – the comment crossed that line between creativity and intention that I mentioned above. My best judgement told me that the internet comment was dangerous where the journal entries were not.
What it all comes down to is woulda-coulda-shoulda. There SHOULD have been some kind of report made on this student that would have shown up in the background check database. There should have been a waiting period – maybe he would have cooled off in the time he had to wait to get his weapon. There should have been a plan in place to deal with this on the campus. I know there are no answers, but that doesn’t stop me from trying to imagine a world in which something like this doesn’t happen with such numbing frequency.
I know that we all want to find ways to prevent this type of thing from happening. Take away the guns. Put people on a watch list. Get them into counseling. It all sound so good, but it scares me more than the gun violence itself.
Unfortunately the only illegal act this person ever committed was what he did at VT (Or was he arrested for stalking? I’m open to being corrected here). If I am correct, he never broke the law. Everything else may have been disturbing, but nothing was illegal.
The day that anybody is placed on a watch list for something they “might do” is very frighteneing to me. Do we force people into counselling and not let them out until they think the way we ant them to think? Do we limit their freedoms because we aren’t sure what they’ll do even though all they have done is disturb our own sensibilities?
My point is that many of the proposed “solutions” are as frightening as the problem; maybe more so.
It is a sad state. The question that keeps coming to my mind is, “What is it that pushes people to such states of anger and despair that they loose all their humanity and behave in such a manner?” Really, it’s not the gun. What could possibly push someone so far? Thanks Dudley for your comments, I could not agree more.
So, what makes something like this happen? What makes it possible for a human being who has functioned in a reasonably “normal” fashion most of his life to go off like this? What makes someone shoot randomly at a passing car? What makes people agrue and shoot over a parking place? What make someone angry enough to swear and gesture and cut off another driver? What makes a parent angry enough to shout at a child? It’s a sliding scale.
Mr. Weed is telling me that law enforcement does NOT want any more gun laws. They want the money to enforce the laws that already exist. He just read that this shooter was in a mental institution. On the background check form, with which Mr. Weed has personal experience, the applicant is asked if they have ever been institutionalized, along with many other questions. Obviously, this man falsified the application. Why was this information not in the federal database which is searched when an application for purchase is made? Privacy of medical records? I don’t know. This man was also well know to the campus police and local authorities. Why was this info not accessed with the background check?
The system that is in place is not working, not because it is not strict enough, but because it is underfunded.
Mr Weed and I both have pistol permits here in the hinterlands. 3 references were checked. The thing is, no one would have ever known if I didn’t apply for the permit. The other disturbing thing, to me, is that when pushed the policeman Mr. Weed talked to when we first arrived here said that it is best to carry the weapon concealed. People here would call the police if they see you with a gun. Now, wouldn’t you rather know if a person has a gun on them? In AZ, where we came from, the permit was for a pistol which MUST be visible.
Horrible acts are committed every day. This one is just so big that we can’t ignore it. People are stabbed, do we restrict everyone’s access to knives? What about arson? The issue is not the instrument but the arm that wields it. Chili, you spoke of the behavior and home environments of kids at school. There is a pertinent point.
Mr. Weed grew up with guns. He was 8 when he got his first gun. You better believe father Weed didn’t just hand it to him. He was raised in a culture where guns are everywhere and everyone is aware of their POTENTIAL danger. He practiced, he was taught, the people in his life talked to him.
It seems to me that this issue is about our failure as a culture. We are inundated with violence until we are numb through news and entertainment, we don’t teach our kids the difference between fantasy and reality, we are uninvolved in our communities, we are unwilling to involve ourselves in other peoples lives and with their children.
This is a grass roots problem, a problem in which each of us has some responsibility. This is a human problem, not a gun problem. I, personally have experienced situations in which I have become so angered and frustrated by my own depersonalization that I can almost understand how someone could be pushed beyond endurance. This was a broken man. How was he broken and why didn’t anyone notice?
One final thought on this issue.
I went to HS and college in the 60’s/70’s. Back then there were very few gun control laws, yet we had no gun violence in school. When people got into a disagreement, the worse thing that would usually happen was a fist fight. So, what has happened over the last 30 years to get us to this point in schools and elsewhere? Why has gun violence and violence in general increased so much ? I would argue that many issues in society have got us to this point. I would argue that this is a much broader issue and focusing on gun control will not solve the problem.
What has changed since 1960/1970?
1. The family unit has changed a lot. In a majority of families, both parents work with many kids being left without supervision for significant periods of time. Child drug use is on the rise, respect for teachers is on the decline, etc.
2. TV programs and movies have got more and more violent.
3. More and more toys include guns and other implements of violence
4.Many video games involve violence.
5. Gangster rap music is full of vulgarity and violence.
My point is violence is all around kids every day. I don’t remember all this violence when I was growing up. Most TV programs were without violence. Yes, we did have cow boys and indians shooting guns, but that was about it. I don’t think we should be surprised that all these violent acts are happening. Our society is in a steady decay and decline. These violent acts will continue to happen until the American public recognizes what is happening, mostly in our media, and demands change. I don’t believe outlawing guns would do very much to change this situation. I think we need to access the broader problem and act from facts, not emotion.
YES! I absolutely agree with what you’ve said here, Anyonymous. I’m in a position to see a lot of that culture of violence – as are a lot of my teacher-peers – and I can say with certainty that the roots of our problems lie here.
I’m very much enjoying this conversation. I know it’s a hot-button topic (and I know a lot of you are approaching me as if I’m entirely pro gun control, so I need to remind you here that I’m still feeling my way around the issue and am open to listening to others’ opinions), and I really appreciate the time and effort you’re taking to entertain the conversation. I’m thinking – and learning – a lot. Thank you all for all of that…
Even through all this thinking, I’m still standing by my assertion that it should be harder to get one’s hands around the handle of a gun. I just got my yearly car registration bill in the mail. Do gun owners have to re-register their guns every year? WHY not?
“Do gun owners have to re-register their guns every year? WHY not?”
Annual car registration is about generating state revenue to do such things as pave roads.
Handgun registration is about knowing who owns the handgun. Assuming the gun owner is following the law, if he/she, sells the gun (at least in my state), it has to be through a licensed dealer to record the exchange of ownership.
Long arms (i.e rifles, shotguns) do not need to be registered, and can be easily traded, sold, given away, etc.
My son owns 3 vintage WW II rifles: M1, a .303 Lee Enfield, Moisin Nagant (Russian). He also has a 20 guage shotgun. None needed to be registered. You do need to be at least 18 years of age to purchase them.
Now you may wondering why anybody needs four such weapons. It’s not a matter of “need.” It’s a hobby. He likes to target shoot. He likes to hunt. He likes to do WW II living history. The weapons are a means to an end.
Keep in mind that a quick google search will show that about 35% of US housholds have guns. America, as a nation, has over half of the world’s leaglly owned firearms. Gun owners are not a “special interest.”
Most gun owners I know do support measures to keep guns out of the hands of unstable people who shouldn’t have them. If the ATF was able to have records of anybody who was classified as mentally unstable, maybe that would have been picked up on the instant BG check of Mr. Cho. I don’t know. That probably gets into privacy of medical records issues, but I digress.
As far as waiting period, most gun owners I know also support that, however it would not have mattered here. The VT shooter purchased his 9mm a month ago.
Also please consider that a good portion of the population of this country is not urban. They need guns for varmit control, to protect the herd, keep the fox out of the hen house.
Yeah, I can keep that in mind – but who shoots foxes with AK-47s or semi-automatic handguns?
I gotta chime in here…
You CAN hunt with handguns. In some cases, I believe handgun hunting even has a seperate season from the other weapons. Many hunters carry a handgun as a backup weapon to finish off an animal if it is wounded beyond the capability to flee with the initial shot but still not dead yet.
As far as AK-47’s (or any other assault weapon goes), if it was purchased legally, it’s semi-automatic only. If it’s being used legally as a hunting weapon, it has only five rounds in the magazine max. So, other than its appearance, it is no different than any other semiautomatic rifle out there.
“But AK-47’s and other assault weapons can be converted to full auto!” Yes, they can – and so can any other semi-automatic weapon, even pistols or shotguns.
I hate to use the cliche’, but guns don’t kill people – PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. A gun is soulless, heartless, brainless. If left alone, it’s just a chunk of metal. It’s a tool. Don’t blame the tool, which has no say whatsoever in how it’s being used. I could kill you with a kitchen knife – are you going to keep me out of your kitchen? I could kill you with a pen or a pencil – are you never going to let me write again? I could kill you with my bare hands – are you going to have my hands cut off?
I will own a gun someday. That being said, my need or desire for one is not so intense that I have to have it RIGHT NOW, nor is my need for personal privacy so deep that I absolutely forbid anybody looking into my past. When I get around to buying that gun, I’ll wait as long as the government asks me to wait to buy it, and I’ll provide them with whatever info they want to prove that I’m not a threat when I own it.
The bottom line is that a lot of the gun control laws like the Brady Bill only keep law-abiding people from buying guns. The criminals, the gangs, the terrorists, etc, are not walking into Wal-Mart or the local trading post to stock their armory. You need a whole different set of laws to deal with THAT problem!
[...] lines of respect and propriety are, and they cross them often and with alacrity. D) Just like with the guns, laws aren’t going to do a damned thing to help this problem. The solution has to come from [...]