It is an interesting opinion you have provided. That gun control is not going to solve the rampant killings in american universities. It is a cause of worry not only for people in the US but also for international students which form a significant percentage of the university considering that exporting education is big business among american universities. In fact, in this fiasco, even a professor of Indian origin and an Indian student has been killed.
I agree with you to a large extent on the uselessness of gun control considering that USA is a very large country and people do need to have protection where the Cops find it hard to patrol such as in lonely highways or outbacks. But at the same time, I believe that enabling anyone to just walk into a store and buying heavy fire arms should be curtailed. It should be made mandatory for anybody who want to own a gun to prove that they are sound in mind. Perhaps they could get a certificate from a psychologist certifying that the person is mentally fit to own a fire arm and show it at the gun shop before he is allowed to buy a gun.
Matt
· 2 years ago
"Perhaps they could get a certificate from a psychologist certifying that the person is mentally fit to own a fire arm and show it at the gun shop before he is allowed to buy a gun."
That would be nice, but I don't know how successful it would be. The guy in the VT shootings had been to a psychologist and issued a clean bill of health. He also could have easily taken someone else's gun or obtain a gun in some illegal manner. If he couldn't get a gun, he would have used explosives, knives, or something else.
Anonymous
· 2 years ago
There is no failure of gun control in the UK. Their rate of homicide (the most noticable crime involving a gun) is 1.3 per 100,000 versus ours of 5.5 per 100,000. Rwanda, which has more liberal concealed-carry laws than we do, has a rate of 18.6 per 100,000. Japan has stricter laws than the UK, and its rate is 1.5 per 100,000. Kuwait also has strict gun laws, yet its rate is 11.1 per 100,000. Switzerland probably has the most liberal gun laws, and the most armed citizenry in the world, and its rate is 4.5 per 100,000. None of these numbers form any sort of useful correlation. They are garbage with respect to each other.
Gun control and homicide rates do not neatly intersect in a graph, and are not strongly related compared to other factors. Poverty has a much stronger correlation with crime and violent crime than gun laws or lack thereof. If you truly wish to help eliminate violent crimes, work first on eliminating poverty and creating global access to medical care. These two elements have a much stronger effect on the homicide and crime rates than any application of gun laws.
Michael S Black
· 2 years ago
Ravi:
How do you define Heavy Fire Arms? Is it assault weapons? Is it rifles capable of penetrating armor and bulletproof vests? Is it automatic weapons? What about a .50 caliber rifle? What about a M-1 Garand/AR-15/Springfield M1903? The reason I ask about all of those individually is that I own an example from every category except the 50 caliber. I have a legitimate reason for even the most unusually powerful weapon I own (a Damascus steel "punt gun" that is the equivalent of a 0 gauge shotgun).
Fortunately, the Constitution (currently) allows any citizen to walk into a store an buy a firearm, subject to some light background checking. Who gets to define who is of sound mind? You? Me? Some random shrink?
The truth is as most NRA boosters claim (disclaimer: I am a lifetime member). Gun control is a knee-jerk reaction to statistically insignificant events that cause emotional turmoil, or a personal opinion. Many people just don't LIKE guns, and because of that, don't want other people to have them. The problem is, when you take 'em all away from the legal owners, the only ones left are the criminals, and they tend not to buy licenses.
Steven G. Harms
· 2 years ago
Here's an interesting notion.
In the UK gentlemen ( i.e. people of a certain class ) were allowed to carry short swords both on the theory that a boatload of Frenchman ( or worse, irate Welshmen! ) might invade the grounds *and* so that they could proceed to massacre each other ( which has proven quite favorable to the mercantile classes since the Tudors onward ).
This all worked out very well for those in power as those in power were those in the government and as it was a homogeneous cultural / economic group, it was fine for that bastard from Wessex to have a sword on him as did that scum from Sussex. At the end of the day, dealing with each other was a known quantity. And, as long as it was the nobility that had the weapons, the worst of activities would be hurting one another.
The key take away is "the "right people" have the cutting edge weaponry of the time on their person ( a Spanish rapier being the ne plus ultra ).
Could I see, today, "the right people" sporting Glocks or my beloved Sig-Sauer .325? Yes.
Then the question is, what is the procedure for determining "right people".
Is Yao Ming right people? Nope, fur-nur.
Is Jay-Z right people?
Is Dick Cheney, ur, scratch that one.
Nick Nolte, Tom Cruise, who? How to apply a criterion unilaterally and fairly as we no longer live in an oligarchaic ( uh, in theory anyway ) society?
Most people arguing your very good point of view will inevitably come to the conclusion: "People like me should have the ability to carry, because I'm responsible and good."
I would feel much better knowing that the man in the Armani suit stepping out of the M5 with the Patek Philippe glancing in the sun had a .9mm versus some guy with crazy hair, three days beard growth mumbling to himself was packing a .44.
So while I like approach, i think our access to handguns is far too democratic in this country. Were guns like 10K each and strictly regulated ( see Spanish Rapiers and Fencing knowledge ), then it might be possible ( although again, this uses the economic machinery of class: only people of certain earning power are likely to get their hands on the weapon: i.e. M5 guy, not Crazy Dodge-dude ).
If you could wed expense and privilege you might be able to price out "wrong people".
But then you say, what about upstanding citizens in dangerous areas ( I recall a great arcticle about a grandmother in Hunter's Point who could drop people from 100 yards { "You know what neighborhood this is." } )? Naturally you would say, yes they should have access.
But then that blows the whole scheme ( again ). In absence of a way to implement that doesn't inhibit people with need and that doesn't naturally impose some sort of classist filter, I don't see a way for practical implementation.
That said, here in Texas I've seen plenty of shotguns on plenty of trucks, and I daresay it makes people drive just a little bit nicer.
Daniel Miessler
· 2 years ago
Steven,
I agree that it would be nice if we could have some sort of filter for quality that we could use to determine who gets carry licenses. Unfortunately, there's only one such filter, and that's one for criminal record.
I think it'd be interesting to create some sort of metric that combined negative psychological findings, criminal history, and maybe even credit score and/or education, but the problem is that we start getting a bit too big-brothery at that point. The irony is that this is exactly the same stuff that credit card companies use to determine how much money they'll risk giving you. But it's different when the government withholds weapons from you based on it.
Anyway, it's an interesting discussion. I mean there is a ton of data on this stuff already. This is what insurance companies basically do all day long. Determine the chances of something bad happening based on gatherable information. Again, the problem is the political ramifications of the bad side of town not qualifying to protect themselves because they're at higher risk for unstable behavior.
Tim
· 2 years ago
In Switzerland, every male is required to serve in the armed forces for some years (2? 5? I can't remember) and is issued firearm(s), which he gets to keep.
Pardon the lack of detail there. It's secondhand information.
So basically, every Swiss male has a gun and knows how to use it. Perhaps that's why Swiss banks are considered so secure.
I tell people I'm against gun control, but that's not exactly true. If you don't know how to properly (and safely) use a gun, you shouldn't have one.
I think required military service is a good idea. I think it would do more for our country than lower crime.
Ken
· 2 years ago
To pick up on Mike Blacks statement; "Who gets to define who is of sound mind? You? Me? Some random shrink?" I beleive the warning flares were fired over a year ago by the english teacher that offered her resignation if the idiot wasn't taken out of her class. Shortly followed by her boss that warned the school administration chain of command about his unstableness, followed by the campus police "watching him carefully", and last of all, the idiot being declared a danger to himself and mentally ill by a magistrate empowered by the state to make such determination during the idiot's 2 day stint at the mental ward.
I call attention to all of this because I don't believe a "random shrink" was calling the shots here as Mike suggests. The failure to heed the warning signs that were underwritten in university, and state and court documents should have been sufficient enough to prevent this idiot from purchasing the sidearms if there was a process in place that allowed the light to shed on the fact that the state had determined him to be "mentally ill" a little more than a year ago.
So, I would be open to adding to the existing criminal background check for purchasing a gun the following; a check to determine if at any time, an individual was declared "mentally ill" and/or "a threat to himself or others" by a state magistrate. Further, if under 23 and enrolled in a University or College, a check to determine if a person was under any violation of campus policy to include such things as stalking and or counseling to assess mental stability. If any thing pops up during the check, then it's up to the individual to prove his mental stability after undergoing an examination by a certified health professional. If the idiot had stayed on his anti depressent medication and was undergoing treatment by a trained professional, I don't think it would have happened.
I think the wrongfull death law suits are on the way holding the university responsible for allowing a threating and dangerous individual to maintain a normal student status.
My disclaimer, I own a gun, have a Virginia concealed carry permit and a strong supporter of the second amendment. The idiots mental illness disqualifies him as being part of the "well regulated" militia. In other words, I don't want him in my fox hole.
Steven G. Harms
· 2 years ago
Dan,
There is only one taboo in the world of insurance actuaries: Foretelling One's Own Death
( On Actuaries and their Tatoos: _The Areas of my Expertise_ by John Hodgman )
Tim
· 2 years ago
Funny I should find this story the day after I read this post.
Daniel Miessler
· 2 years ago
Yes, funny indeed. :) Sometimes the intuitive thing (less guns) just doesn't work as well as people would think. In this case it's a simple matter of the criminals always having guns, and the only question being whether or not they're afraid of their victims having them too.
Lew Rockwell writes that to carry or not to carry a weapon should be left to the individual actors ub society since they alone can judge how much risk they have and how to deal with it. Central planning will always fail.
Another example of citizens stopping killers short is the mall shooting that happened in Utah last year (I think - to lazy to look it up). The killer marched into the mall and began shooting people. He was then shot by a civilian carrying a gun.
The killer boys of Columbine were in the school for 2 hours before the cops finally found them. If a teacher or two had a gun, the story might have ended with less people dead.
Carl M
· 2 years ago
My concern about teachers (or students) having guns is that while events like the one we just saw might be (or would LIKELY be) put to a stop before the death toll reached 30, I fear that there would be far more single death events. I fear that the net effect would be additional deaths.
I know about the statistics for isolated communities with large gun ownership. And, I don't doubt that there are no killing sprees in such places. But the sample is too small to draw conclusions. After all, in a country the size of the US, we (thankfully) have only rare events like the recent one at VT. The fact that an isolated community hasn't had a crazed individual bent on murder, doesn't mean that other communities wouldn't.
Simply put, I am not convinced that widespread gun ownership is in the best interests of the citizens of the US. I think that we'd have MORE gun related deaths than we have now. What we need to do is somehow get our citizens to value human life.
Ken
· 2 years ago
It looks like Kennesaw, GA has picked up on the Swiss model, where crime, war, and other forms of civil disturbance virtually don't exist. In the 100% gun ownership country of Switzerland, every able bodied 18 year old male undergoes two years of intense military training where upon after leaving the service are expected to maintain their military proficiency throughout their lifetime.
I'm willing to bet that once the security posture at VT returns to the pre 4-16 level, there will be quite a few armed VT staff and students carrying on campus despite the schools "gun free zone" policy. Which btw, contradicts the states concealed carry laws, and was challenged, but never adjuticated, after a student with a vailid Virginia concealed carry permit was charged for carrying a weapon on campus a year ago.
All Comments
I agree with you to a large extent on the uselessness of gun control considering that USA is a very large country and people do need to have protection where the Cops find it hard to patrol such as in lonely highways or outbacks. But at the same time, I believe that enabling anyone to just walk into a store and buying heavy fire arms should be curtailed. It should be made mandatory for anybody who want to own a gun to prove that they are sound in mind. Perhaps they could get a certificate from a psychologist certifying that the person is mentally fit to own a fire arm and show it at the gun shop before he is allowed to buy a gun.
That would be nice, but I don't know how successful it would be. The guy in the VT shootings had been to a psychologist and issued a clean bill of health. He also could have easily taken someone else's gun or obtain a gun in some illegal manner. If he couldn't get a gun, he would have used explosives, knives, or something else.
Gun control and homicide rates do not neatly intersect in a graph, and are not strongly related compared to other factors. Poverty has a much stronger correlation with crime and violent crime than gun laws or lack thereof. If you truly wish to help eliminate violent crimes, work first on eliminating poverty and creating global access to medical care. These two elements have a much stronger effect on the homicide and crime rates than any application of gun laws.
How do you define Heavy Fire Arms? Is it assault weapons? Is it rifles capable of penetrating armor and bulletproof vests? Is it automatic weapons? What about a .50 caliber rifle? What about a M-1 Garand/AR-15/Springfield M1903? The reason I ask about all of those individually is that I own an example from every category except the 50 caliber. I have a legitimate reason for even the most unusually powerful weapon I own (a Damascus steel "punt gun" that is the equivalent of a 0 gauge shotgun).
Fortunately, the Constitution (currently) allows any citizen to walk into a store an buy a firearm, subject to some light background checking. Who gets to define who is of sound mind? You? Me? Some random shrink?
The truth is as most NRA boosters claim (disclaimer: I am a lifetime member). Gun control is a knee-jerk reaction to statistically insignificant events that cause emotional turmoil, or a personal opinion. Many people just don't LIKE guns, and because of that, don't want other people to have them. The problem is, when you take 'em all away from the legal owners, the only ones left are the criminals, and they tend not to buy licenses.
In the UK gentlemen ( i.e. people of a certain class ) were allowed to carry short swords both on the theory that a boatload of Frenchman ( or worse, irate Welshmen! ) might invade the grounds *and* so that they could proceed to massacre each other ( which has proven quite favorable to the mercantile classes since the Tudors onward ).
This all worked out very well for those in power as those in power were those in the government and as it was a homogeneous cultural / economic group, it was fine for that bastard from Wessex to have a sword on him as did that scum from Sussex. At the end of the day, dealing with each other was a known quantity. And, as long as it was the nobility that had the weapons, the worst of activities would be hurting one another.
The key take away is "the "right people" have the cutting edge weaponry of the time on their person ( a Spanish rapier being the ne plus ultra ).
Could I see, today, "the right people" sporting Glocks or my beloved Sig-Sauer .325? Yes.
Then the question is, what is the procedure for determining "right people".
Is Yao Ming right people? Nope, fur-nur.
Is Jay-Z right people?
Is Dick Cheney, ur, scratch that one.
Nick Nolte, Tom Cruise, who? How to apply a criterion unilaterally and fairly as we no longer live in an oligarchaic ( uh, in theory anyway ) society?
Most people arguing your very good point of view will inevitably come to the conclusion: "People like me should have the ability to carry, because I'm responsible and good."
I would feel much better knowing that the man in the Armani suit stepping out of the M5 with the Patek Philippe glancing in the sun had a .9mm versus some guy with crazy hair, three days beard growth mumbling to himself was packing a .44.
So while I like approach, i think our access to handguns is far too democratic in this country. Were guns like 10K each and strictly regulated ( see Spanish Rapiers and Fencing knowledge ), then it might be possible ( although again, this uses the economic machinery of class: only people of certain earning power are likely to get their hands on the weapon: i.e. M5 guy, not Crazy Dodge-dude ).
If you could wed expense and privilege you might be able to price out "wrong people".
But then you say, what about upstanding citizens in dangerous areas ( I recall a great arcticle about a grandmother in Hunter's Point who could drop people from 100 yards { "You know what neighborhood this is." } )? Naturally you would say, yes they should have access.
But then that blows the whole scheme ( again ). In absence of a way to implement that doesn't inhibit people with need and that doesn't naturally impose some sort of classist filter, I don't see a way for practical implementation.
That said, here in Texas I've seen plenty of shotguns on plenty of trucks, and I daresay it makes people drive just a little bit nicer.
I agree that it would be nice if we could have some sort of filter for quality that we could use to determine who gets carry licenses. Unfortunately, there's only one such filter, and that's one for criminal record.
I think it'd be interesting to create some sort of metric that combined negative psychological findings, criminal history, and maybe even credit score and/or education, but the problem is that we start getting a bit too big-brothery at that point. The irony is that this is exactly the same stuff that credit card companies use to determine how much money they'll risk giving you. But it's different when the government withholds weapons from you based on it.
Anyway, it's an interesting discussion. I mean there is a ton of data on this stuff already. This is what insurance companies basically do all day long. Determine the chances of something bad happening based on gatherable information. Again, the problem is the political ramifications of the bad side of town not qualifying to protect themselves because they're at higher risk for unstable behavior.
Pardon the lack of detail there. It's secondhand information.
So basically, every Swiss male has a gun and knows how to use it. Perhaps that's why Swiss banks are considered so secure.
I tell people I'm against gun control, but that's not exactly true. If you don't know how to properly (and safely) use a gun, you shouldn't have one.
I think required military service is a good idea. I think it would do more for our country than lower crime.
I call attention to all of this because I don't believe a "random shrink" was calling the shots here as Mike suggests. The failure to heed the warning signs that were underwritten in university, and state and court documents should have been sufficient enough to prevent this idiot from purchasing the sidearms if there was a process in place that allowed the light to shed on the fact that the state had determined him to be "mentally ill" a little more than a year ago.
So, I would be open to adding to the existing criminal background check for purchasing a gun the following; a check to determine if at any time, an individual was declared "mentally ill" and/or "a threat to himself or others" by a state magistrate. Further, if under 23 and enrolled in a University or College, a check to determine if a person was under any violation of campus policy to include such things as stalking and or counseling to assess mental stability. If any thing pops up during the check, then it's up to the individual to prove his mental stability after undergoing an examination by a certified health professional. If the idiot had stayed on his anti depressent medication and was undergoing treatment by a trained professional, I don't think it would have happened.
I think the wrongfull death law suits are on the way holding the university responsible for allowing a threating and dangerous individual to maintain a normal student status.
My disclaimer, I own a gun, have a Virginia concealed carry permit and a strong supporter of the second amendment. The idiots mental illness disqualifies him as being part of the "well regulated" militia. In other words, I don't want him in my fox hole.
There is only one taboo in the world of insurance actuaries: Foretelling One's Own Death
( On Actuaries and their Tatoos: _The Areas of my Expertise_ by John Hodgman )
http://www.mises.org/story/2556
Lew Rockwell writes that to carry or not to carry a weapon should be left to the individual actors ub society since they alone can judge how much risk they have and how to deal with it. Central planning will always fail.
Another example of citizens stopping killers short is the mall shooting that happened in Utah last year (I think - to lazy to look it up). The killer marched into the mall and began shooting people. He was then shot by a civilian carrying a gun.
The killer boys of Columbine were in the school for 2 hours before the cops finally found them. If a teacher or two had a gun, the story might have ended with less people dead.
I know about the statistics for isolated communities with large gun ownership. And, I don't doubt that there are no killing sprees in such places. But the sample is too small to draw conclusions. After all, in a country the size of the US, we (thankfully) have only rare events like the recent one at VT. The fact that an isolated community hasn't had a crazed individual bent on murder, doesn't mean that other communities wouldn't.
Simply put, I am not convinced that widespread gun ownership is in the best interests of the citizens of the US. I think that we'd have MORE gun related deaths than we have now. What we need to do is somehow get our citizens to value human life.
I'm willing to bet that once the security posture at VT returns to the pre 4-16 level, there will be quite a few armed VT staff and students carrying on campus despite the schools "gun free zone" policy. Which btw, contradicts the states concealed carry laws, and was challenged, but never adjuticated, after a student with a vailid Virginia concealed carry permit was charged for carrying a weapon on campus a year ago.