VA Tech

[Rapunzel]

Modern legal interpretation:

From the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2001:

"there are numerous instances of the phrase 'bear arms' being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service." [1]

Regarding self-defense of the individual:

Additionally, the U.S. courts have repeatedly ruled that the citizenry of any given jurisdiction do NOT have the right to police protection in individual circumstances or crimes. See Hartzler v. City of San Jose, Riss v. New York, Warren v. District of Columbia, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department

Therefore, the ultimate right to protection of one's self must be inferred. The other option is that individuals have NO right to life or liberty (ie they cannot defend their life or liberty).

[DCJenn]

As I have said, I can't think of a reason why any average person today would think that they would need a gun.

I won't have them in my home, and I will absolutely forbid my son from having one. As has been mentioned, it's likely (especially here in Texas where the mindset is, well...unique) that Nikolai will be in a home with a gun. He will know that under no circumstances if there is a gun anywhere where he can see it, touch it, smell it is he to stay in the home. There have been way too many incidents of one child killing someone or themselves playing with guns.

and since my husband is actually in the all volunteer United States Army, I don't really think I need to worry too much about the standing British Army, the Montana militias or the crackhead down the street.

My SIL was raped at gunpoint in her own home on Christmas Day 13 years ago. She walked in her front door after unloading her car and the rapist grabbed her from behind. She's who I think about when I think about gun control. Guess where he got the gun? Virginia. and it was legally his.

So, we can debate what the founding fathers may think about the current state of affairs all we want to. But let's not distract ourselves from the fact that people have done crappy things to each other since the beginning of people. I just think we need to limit the damage, if at all possible. I'm relatively sure that Joe Average doesn't need 9/10s of the weaponry available.

Jenn

[Stella]

My SIL was raped at gunpoint in her own home on Christmas Day 13 years ago. She walked in her front door after unloading her car and the rapist grabbed her from behind. She's who I think about when I think about gun control. Guess where he got the gun? Virginia. and it was legally his.

Jenn

Jenn, that wasn't in Charlottesville, was it? Sounds like "the rapist's" MO...

Anyway, Kelly, I appreciate that you started this thread here. I can read it here, but not comment just yet, as I'm still trying to wrap my head around this one. Thanks, though.

[DCJenn]

I don't know where he specifically got it but he was the rapist that had hit Howard, and VCU before going on to UMD.

He's in jail for the rest of his life because most of the girls testified against him.

Jenn

I hate guns. I grew up w/6 rifles hanging on the wall of my family room (which shocks the hell out of me now). I never touched them - never wanted to. Guns repulse me.

That said - I believe guns can be owned responsibly. My neighbor owns guns, and has a big safe - that is locked. He's a hunter. That's why he has them. That is okay with me. Gun ownership as part of your profession - law enforcement - that's reasonable.

I believe the concept of individual gun ownership for personal protection is essentially laughable. If you store your gun responsibly, the likelihood that you have it at the precise moment you're in danger is slim. Unless you're carrying your weapon on your body all day - how is that possible? I think of the day when the strange man walked into Nellie's house. Ned barked and scared him away. That was lucky. But if Nellie had been a gun owner - what is the chance she would have had her weapon at her side or on her body to point at the intruder?

And the idea that an armed student or professor would have / could have ended the seige at VT? I don't buy it. The person would have had to be an excellent marksman, and willing to kill another person. In the sheer panic that must have been happening - the hypothetical hero would have only made themselves a target of a determined killer. IF they got off a shot, and IF they didn't kill any other innocents in the process, it would have been a miracle.

Not to mention - why would the terrified students assume that it's okay for our hypothetical hero to have a gun? Why would it not also be assumed that he/she was also a threat? And what if there were more than one person carrying a gun? How would anyone know who to shoot? Absurd? Right.

No matter the intent of the founding fathers concerning the "right to bear arms" -- the founding fathers could NEVER have predicted automatic or semi-automatic weapons. Reasonable gun control needs to happen. Now.

Not to mention - why would the terrified students assume that it's okay for our hypothetical hero to have a gun? Why would it not also be assumed that he/she was also a threat? And what if there were more than one person carrying a gun? How would anyone know who to shoot? Absurd? Right.

ITA. It's not like the movies.

I'm not certain but when that guy walked into my house, I might have had a gun in the house. A shotgun for hunting that was completely out of my reach and would have been useless because I didn't have ammunition and just...never had it in my house for protection in the first place. There is NO WAY I could have safely had a loaded pistol within reach to deal with him. (I wasn't home, a babysitter was and she handled it wonderfully. The guns were part of dealing with deceased FILs stuff and are now gone).

[PrincessFiona]

So...we have a *right* to bear arms, but not to have access to healthcare?

Look...blah, blah aside, the US is the only civilized country to have these school shootings and violent crimes.

I know that some of you are not fans of Europe. but really..something like this just would never happen there.

I'm sorry - I don't get out much these days and so I didn't realise that this thread was happening in two places, and that mention of gun control was not appropriate in the other area.

Tabula Rasa wrote:

Quote:
There are roughly 260,000,000 firearms in private ownership in this country. There are approximately 30,000 deaths every year involving a firearm. however, only a little over a third were homicides, so that means that there is only 1 homicide per 22,912 firearms per year. If they were designed to kill, they are doing a damned poor job in the hands of law abiding American citizens.

I must ask - if there are 30,000 deaths involving firearms, and 10,000 of them were homicides, what were the other 20,000 deaths due to? What percentage of that 20,000 were tragic accidents? To me, that spells 20,000 reasons why guns in the home are a very bad idea. And the idea of 260 million firearms scares me half to death.

I'm very aware that I'm on shaky ground to be participating in this debate, not even being a US citizen, so I appreciate you allowing me to join in. Consider mine the outsider's perspective! I'm not suggesting that this country has it all sorted - far from it - but I am damn sure I appreciate Australia's strict gun laws. I'm not in any way concerned about a militia-led coup occuring in this country. Gun control won't stop every tragedy happening (take our own Port Arthur massacre as an example - an isolated but awful event - and after which laws were tightened even further) but it sure stops some. And in my books, that makes it worthwhile. I don't know what I would do if I ever had to consider the possibility that my child might face gun-related danger at school, and my heart goes out to every parent in the US who must face just that.

[Stella]

I had no idea the exact laws that we DO have, so I looked this up:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/schools/gun.control/

Holy smokes. The only states with decent gun control are VT, CT, NJ, HI, and D.C. I didn't realize it. Surprisingly, VA doesn't seem that out of line with most of the country.

However, that said, Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.

Also, 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.

New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred: Homicide rate (down 37% while US rate was down just .4%); Handgun homicide rate (down 41% while US rate was up by 24%!!)

Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.

20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.

UK banned private ownership of all handguns in 1997. Since 1998 the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled, despite massive increase in number of police personnel.

Of the ten states with the highest violent crime rates for 2003, seven have relatively permissive gun laws, and three are relatively strict, requiring legal affidavits stating special need before one can be issued a temporary license to carry a handgun.

In the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms.

Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times.

In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim.

As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense.

The Brady Bill was implemented in February of 1994. In 1997, the number of violent crimes committed with firearms had fallen 25% since 1994, while the overall number of violent crimes had declined 14%.

In about 5 years since enactment of the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban in 1993, there have been more than 10 "school massacres."

In October of 1997, sixteen-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death and then went to school with a rifle where he shot 9 students, killing 2 of them. Assistant Principal Joel Myrick raced to his car, retrieved a .45 caliber handgun, and used it to subdue Woodham until police arrived.

Firearms made up only 1.5% of fatal accidents in 1995. Car accidents made up the most. For children 14 and under, this number is 2.7%. Car accidents still made up the greatest cause for fatal accidents.

In 1988, The NRA developed a gun safety program for schoolchildren (pre-K through 6th grade). As of 1998, the program has reached about 10 million children. The goal of the program is to teach children what to do if they should encounter a firearm. Children are taught to "STOP! Don't Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult."




So... that's a lot of facts. A lot of facts for both sides. I don't know what thing to do IS, but I agree we need to do SOMETHING. I don't want to BAN guns, but we need much tighter control. There should not be free reign for this kind of thing. This killer (bastard) purchased his gun at a shop for about $500. No one thought anything of it.

[SuzySunshine]

Until neighboring states carry the same laws I don't think you'll see much of a decrease. Its not a stretch for anyone to drive a couple hours to get a gun in another state if they need or want one.

I agree with Jenn P. guns for law enforcement personnel and hunting are the only ones that are acceptable to me. My parents get a lot of food off of hunting and I know that sounds primitive but when you live out in the middle of no where and make minimum money its not only a hobby its a necessity.

The ones I don't understand are the AK-47s that people can buy - tell me what the hell anyone needs with one of those?

This is a quick drive-by. Just a couple random thoughts. First, in this scenario regardless of gun laws -- nobody was ever allowed to carry a firearm on campus. So, the notion of a fellow student or professor saving the day with a well-timed shot doesn't really apply unless they would be carrying a gun without regard for current laws.

Second, places like D.C. where people are shot up frequently with handguns are not struggling to put a lid on that violence b/c a neighboring state like VA hasn't yet jumped on board the strict hangun law bandwagon. If tomorrow VA changed its laws, would that have any impact at all on gun toters in southeast d.c. who arleady have and will continue to have access to illegal guns (despite current strict laws in the district)?

Third, though I know plenty of citizens have murdered while toting a gun legally purchased under current laws, this event does seem to raise questions about someone who is not a citizen being able to bear arms like one who is. Of course, that's a interesting departure point for debate given that we allow non-citizens the other rights enumerated -- free speech, freedom to worship.

Fourth, haven't been able to follow too closely regarding what university officials did or didn't do in the immediate aftermath - the gap between the first shooting and the later events. But a very superficial scan of the media tells me the talking heads are being way too harsh on the administrators. No one can prepare for this or react as quickly as one might expect when viewing it in retrospect.

All the yammering about the administrators seems eerily similar to the lens with which the media and the average joe seems to view doctors -- i.e. there should never ever be any bad outcomes. And if there are someone will pay e.g. lawsuits. Seems like in some quarters it could be terribly misplaced anger and fear and wishful thinking -- e.g. my child will be safe at X university because those administrators would've been on the ball and had a crack team and plan which they would have executed flawlessly as opposed to entertaining the frightening but more realistic thought that something like this could've happened on virtually any campus in the entire land.

[houseelf]

Thanks for all the civility. This single political issue creates a TON of passionate disagreement between my father and myself. Actually, we are able to have more civil disagreements on issues like abortions, civil rights, etc better than gun control. Dad believes not only should we citizens have the right to bear ANY and ALL arms at all times, he believes that it is unpatriotic if we don't do so. He analogizes this to people who don't vote in a democracy. Ummm...alrighty Dad? Let's just say that as the mother of two small children with a husband who has cared for more gang bangers than one can count, I see the world in slightly different terms.

ITA with the pro-2nd amendment advocates that the legal gun owners who properly apply for the license, submit to a background check, endure the wait period, and keep their guns safely locked in their home are not the problem. I have two family members who have a virtual arsenal in their home. One is a detective and the other is a ballistics forensic scientist. Being responsible gun owners, they keep their weapons safely locked in a gun safe and I'm quite sure that they don't participate in "LIVE, LIVE, LIVE, SWAP MEET EXTRAVAGANZAS!!!" culture that permeates our daily lives.

I have an GINORMOUS problem with the ever present swap meets advertised on t.v. Further, I'm not a huge fan of creating more accesibility to guns to combat a violent culture. This logic escapes me. However, I think that we truly and passionately need to discuss all access to guns and enact some more reasonable limitations.

Finally, I'm going to have to politely disagree that we, as Americans, have some sort of monopoly on people going off the deep end becoming either homicidal and/or suicidal. This has been happening in every culture since the beginning of time. The key difference is that here it is much easier to take a couple dozen people out with you when you go.

Kelly

Third, though I know plenty of citizens have murdered while toting a gun legally purchased under current laws, this event does seem to raise questions about someone who is not a citizen being able to bear arms like one who is. Of course, that's a interesting departure point for debate given that we allow non-citizens the other rights enumerated -- free speech, freedom to worship.

I haven't kept up with the coverage today but from what I heard yesterday, this even doesn't seem to have anything to do with his citizenship or feelings for a particular nation. Perhaps that would have made it harder for him to get a gun?

[Deebs]

Kevin, I have to agree with you on the criticism that has come on University Administrators. It sounds like they listened to exactly what the police advised them to do (especially regarding notifying students, lock-down of campus, etc), and took appropriate actions. But, my opinion is that much of this is stemmed from the media trying to make a story even where there isn't one. DH was interviewed by a national news outlet regarding the incident. I have no doubt that his commentary will never air. The interviewer was trying to get him to criticize the University and/or police response, and he simply wouldn't. Then, they tried to get him to give detailed information on how a tactical operation following such an incident would be carried out (so, let's give response information to the next bad guys), and again, he wouldn't. They weren't very interested in his information about how Columbine and 9/11 have helped us learn how to make such responses, and that we would learn what worked well in this instance, as well as anything that could be improved. They are so hungry for dirt, that the media will create it, even where it might not exist. I really hope that the focus of Universities when they are preparing for violence, etc, is to work with law enforcement, and follow their lead. I would like to think that their primary job is educating people!

this even doesn't seem to have anything to do with his citizenship or feelings for a particular nation. Perhaps that would have made it harder for him to get a gun?

Sorry to be unclear. I didn't mean to suggest that he had a motive for killing that was intrinsically linked to his ethnic background, his citizenship status, etc.

Just thought - wow, you mean a non-citizen can apply for the same permit that I as I citizen can? And the counterfactual, if that wasn't the case, at least he would've had to try a little harder to get a gun ... but I think he would've found one anyway.