Virginia Tech Shootings: Gun Nuts Yet Again Politicize A Tragedy
The gunshot-riddled body of a Virginia Tech police officer making a traffic stop was not even cold yesterday afternoon before the gun nut lobby rushed in to politicize the tragedy on the campus where a student shot and killed 32 people in 2007. A second person who may be the gunman was found dead in a parking lot about a quarter mile away.
First up to the plate was Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, a group that advocates allowing university students to pack heat.
In a statement long on depravity and short on common sense, SCC said that:
“[It] sadly recognizes this incident proves yet again that nothing has changed at Virginia Tech. The college still entertain delusional beliefs that signs and stickers will prevent illegal weapons on campus, even as they protest paying fines for their failing to notify students of the initial murders preceding the worst shooting spree in history three (sic) years ago.
“This latest event shows evil people still exist in the world and all the laws in the world will not stop them from committing violent crime. Guns are not the solution to every problem, but they are a solution to some problems — a solution completely ruled out by college campuses in Virginia and nationwide.”
I have given up on there ever being a sensible national gun policy, let alone laws with teeth in the many states where it is easier to purchase guns than get a drivers license. The gun nut culture is far too powerful and the pernicious hold of the National Rifle Association on politicians is pretty much absolute. Let’s be clear that I’m not talking about the weekend target shooter or the father who goes hunting with his kids each fall. I’m talking about people for whom guns is a religion and being able to pack heat everywhere — whether in a tavern, church or shopping mall — is seen as a God-given right.
Face it, America is a gun-sick country, a place where people can legally possess and in some cases carry weapons specifically designed to kill large numbers of people. Pennsylvania is Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between, as James Carville famously remarked, and the Dixie-like legislature is so in love with guns that they are easier to obtain in the Keystone State than fireworks. For good measure, the legislature refuses to allow Philadelphia to enact its own tough gun laws in an effort to end a slaughter that takes four times as many lives on a per capita basis than New York City, which has among the toughest gun laws in the nation.
Except for the usual crybabies such as gun violence victims, emergency room doctors, the occasional mayor of a liberal city, some sane Democrats, our socialist president and The New York Times editorial board, the NRA would have pretty much run roughshod from sea to shining sea in its jihad to arm America to the teeth.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
28 Responses to “Virginia Tech Shootings: Gun Nuts Yet Again Politicize A Tragedy”
Pretty shameless business allright. Same old clueless opportunism.
Uh, yeah. Because, you know, the gun control advocates (yes, it’s possible to name an opposing group in a non-derogatory way) would NEVER EVER stoop to politicizing a tragedy.
Prof, tragedies like this one don’t require any politization, they speak for themselves. That doesn’t mean everyone is listening though. Some folks only listen to their own thoughts, regardless of what’s going on around them.
Yes, both sides politicize.
You had my friend who took a round for President Reagan, Jim Brady, who politicized the issue by calling for more stringent controls on the sales of handguns like the one that nearly took his life.
And you have a group like SCC that politicizes the issue by believing that if a drunken student pulls out a gun at an on-campus keg party another drunken student should be able to pull out his handgun and blow the guy into the next county.
Makes perfect sense, right Prof?
Nice cherry picking. We’re getting more crimes around here where the homes of elderly people are getting robbed and attacked for their prescription drugs. I’m sure they can call for police in time to keep the machete-weilding thugs from hurting them. It hasn’t worked so far, but I’m sure it will soon, right Shaun?
Prof:
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but you seemed to believe that an armed society is a polite society.
Elaborate.
No Shaun, I believe that criminals aren’t as scared of the police as they are armed targets.
This debate will continue on for years since this issue is handled the same as all issues are handled in the USA today. On one side of the issue guns are demonized and on the other, guns are cool. There is no moderate view of guns and gun control. On the left, guns should be controlled to the point that few can obtain them, on the other, no laws should restrict the right to own and carry a gun for almost anyone.
And this is a result of individuals in government that will not compromise on anything since the pro-gun lobby knows the anti-gun lobby will not stop at a moderate solution to controls. And the anti-gun lobby knows to get anything, they have to ask for the impossible.
RP:
I will leave it to you and others to decide whether my own view on gun laws is “moderate,” although it certainly is in the minority:
Each adult American would be allowed no more than one rifle, one shotgun and one handgun each unless they have a collector’s permit and can prove they keep their multiple weapons under lock and key.
Assault weapons, including rifles with automatic settings, would be outlawed.
The process of buying a gun, getting a carry concealed permit or a collector’s permit would be arduous with all costs being borne by the individual and none by the state.
The penalties for running afoul of gun laws would be harsh.
In the U.S., we’re all unfortunate Sons of Guns
Shaun, your view carries as much weight as my view does. Next to -0-. In the middle with few supporters.
Yes, there needs to be controls and the controls are the permits for hand guns. But I ask, how do we enforce those laws when they can not enforce what we have today. We have laws against drugs, but we can not control drugs. Before adding more regulation, we need to find a way to enforce the regulations we have today. Then base new laws on those regulations we find easy to enforce and eliminate those that can not be enforced.
I agree that assault weapons need to be controlled and automatic weapons outlawed. Again, how do we control that weapon. Seems like machine guns have been illegal for years, so they are now assault rifles and legal. Even the Justice department can’t control where assault rifles end up.
Your position on permits is right on, but their should not be a cost so high that a poor individual in rural West Virginia could not afford the permit, thus pushing them into buying an illegal gun and carrying without the proper permit.The technology is there to form a federal database where all gun purchases have to go through, even gun show trading. However, as I said, the right will not allow this as they know once they open that door, all the bleeding heart liberals will push for more controls until the rights have been taken away completely.
Again, this arguement will continue for years to come as few agree on a middle ground solution.
Shaun,
My views aren’t that different than yours on the gun control issue, except that I wouldn’t use the word “arduous”. Gun controls should be enough to require that responsible people can acquire guns after demonstrating that they are responsible, whether that takes a lot of effort or not. Obviously it’s impossible to demonstrate how one is going to act in the future, so reasonable lines have to be drawn.
But, I’d point out that we’re not talking about gun control laws, we’re talking about the policy on a particular (public, if I’m not mistaken) college campus. For private universities, they can do what they want. For public universities, the question is more vague, in my opinion. I’m conflicted on that issue.
As for the effectiveness of the policy, I don’t think we know one way or the other. But this case does seem like a strange one to bring it up, considering that the police officer was most likely armed. And yes, even if the SCC has a point, now is not the time to make it out of respect for the deceased who may not have shared their view.
Shaun
Your idea works fine in Canada. More Canadians hunt for food and enjoyment than here in the US with more stringent guns laws. Canadians hunt and target shoot without AK47′s and 19 slug clips. It’s safer to walk in the worse areas of Montreal or Toronto than VT or Northern Michigan.
You know one of the most important things to passing gun control laws, and one that they always seem to skip, is showing that what they want is effective and reasonable. That it would make a dang bit of difference. People like Shaun propose laws based not on how they would work but rather what they believe others behavior should be. He has no evidence that multiply guns in any way drives gun violence. In truth it has been shown many times that rates of gun ownership by law abiding citizens doesn’t affect crime rates. Still he pushes the idea of limiting access to what he believe acceptable. Why if it doesn’t hurt anything should people be limited?
That just isn’t true. Again it should be real evidence that it makes a difference and should unduly punish the innocent. Waiting periods for instance, have shown no clear cut evidence of any effect on crime what so ever but they obviously can delay the purchase of a gun meant for self defense. Background checks may not be effective but they don’t impose on law abiding citizens and that is why the NRA supports background checks.
Mr. Mullen advocates restricting qualified adults to ownership of just one handgun, one rifle, and one shotgun. The implication is that he does not understand why anyone would want or need more than one of each.
For starters, competition in the most common target pistol event, a “2700″ shoot, requires three semiautomatic pistols. (Technically, you could use two, because the pistol that’s required for the third phase would meet the requirements for the second phase, but if you want to have a chance at winning the competition, you need three different pistols.)
Then, if you also happen to enjoy single action, or “Cowboy Action,” events, you need two single action revolvers.
Similarly, the shotguns appropriate for waterfowl, upland birds, and sporting clays can be different. And those used for deer — or even bear — in those areas where rifle hunting isn’t allowed are different still.
Surely, he can acknowledge that a .22 caliber target shooting rifle and something appropriate for deer are going to be very, very different.
In short, anyone who shoots for sport is going to own a variety of firearms. And what difference does it make, so long as they are obtained legally and stored safely in a gun safe? Why not concentrate your efforts on the notion of safe storage rather than alienating potential allies among sport shooters?
This attitude reinforces the notion among gun owners that the real agenda of gun control advocates is outlawing firearm ownership and use altogether.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner here! This is one of the causes of the whole “not a sigle step back” feeling among gun owners. Few believe that the restrictions are for any real reason other than removing gun rights. Safety and other concerns seem meaningless when the laws are arbitrary and are concerned with the number of parts made in the US or apearance over performance. There have been efforts to ban guns of a model that have never been involved in a criminal shooting. How does anyone then assume that safety is really the first concern?
Shaun, there aren’t enough keystrokes in the universe to open up the minds of those who have convinced themselves the 2nd amendment should mean anything they want it to mean. I own a rifle, shotgun, muzzleloader and a handgun. In a world not constricted by nonsense and fools this should be plenty.
Question…was the cop carrying a gun? I will assume yes, because most do.
IF my assumption is correct…this situation in no way helps gun advocates because the fact that the cop had a gun and professional training did not keep him from becoming a victim.
My father has a carry and conceal license. He needs it because he has to work in some seriously shady areas sometimes…I am glad he has it. This is an example I can support…not the one above.
So we should guarantee that one could only be a victim and not allow anyone a chance at self defense? That logic seems a little weak to me. You are glad your Dad can defend himself but you would withhold that ability from others?
JSpence, now not meaning this in an insulting way but should your opinion on how many guns I own matter? There is evidence that there is no correlation between gun violence and the number of guns so my having more guns affects no one but me and my gun dealer. I will post links if you require them. Assuming that is the case then why regulate the number?
EE… No, I am just saying this is a very poor real life example of the “protection” guns afford. The officer was in a position he had been well trained to control. He had a gun. Neither his training nor weapon made a difference. Not a great example of why people should have the right to carry. Had the officer put a bullet in the guys head…yes, great example.
Well it is an example of possible danger on campus. Manny people think of collages as some separate, protected area where there is no need or call for weapons of defense. How would this event work for those people?
Spend 5 minutes at John Hopkins or USC and you’ll get a good idea of why many people really don’t believe that…
Not an answer Shannon, that’s pure dodge.
I just want to say that I’m pretty conservative on this issue. I do think it’s a constitutional right to bear arms and that a person has a right to defend themselves. No right is unlimited however and we accept those limits when there is cause. Freedom of speech doesn’t protect libel, yelling fire in a theater, etc. Even most gun nuts realize that there will be limits and are willing to deal with it if there is good reason. The problem is the gun control advocates consider gun control itself as the reason in and of itself. It doesn’t matter if laws are statistically ineffective. They don’t care if they remove the ability of people to effectively defend themselves. Will use any reason to ignore the 2nd amendment while believing the constitution covers everything. Gun control is good period.
“One cannot legislate the maniacs off the street… these maniacs can only be shut down by an armed citizenry. Indeed bad things can happen in nations where the citizenry is armed, but not as bad as those which seem to be threatening our disarmed citizenry in this country at this time.”
Jeff Cooper-
“The media insist that crime is the major concern of the American public today. In this connection they generally push the point that a disarmed society would be a crime-free society. They will not accept the truth that if you take all the guns off the street you still will have a crime problem, whereas if you take the criminals off the street you cannot have a gun problem.”
Jeff Cooper-
The Bottom Line Is that if you take my gun away I can’t protect my life or yours. If you don’t want to carry a gun that’s fine I wouldn’t want you to, it’s a hard lifestyle to have and one not chosen lightly. We don’t have to see eye to eye, I will all ways stand by my belief that
“I carry a Gun Because a Cop wont fit in my pocket.”
“There is no moderate view of guns and gun control.”
Sure there is. Halfway between those who believe that nobody should be allowed to carry any gun, and those who believe that anyone should be able to carry anything – those who believe that carry should be allowed only by those who obtain a license from the state – provided that the requirements for doing so are objectively defined, and not subject to arbitrary denial without grounds.
The gun control crowd will never admit it, but shall-issue carry is the common-sense middle ground. Which is why it’s succeeded in state after state.
AWFUL. Because of “legal” black market websites like THIS…
http://www.armslist.com/?utm_source=c000015&utm_medium=plink&utm_campaign=p012570
Any wacko can get a gun without a background check of any kind and go on a killing spree! How many cops and children need to die before we BAN GUNS? You can even buy HIGH POWRED ASSAULT WEAPONS off of this site with NO BACKGROUND CHECK!!! It’s DISGUSTING!
http://www.armslist.com/posts/185670/ohio-rifles-for-sale—308-panther
Who needs a gun like THAT???
Why We Need Legal Campus Carry
Michael Newbern
December 13, 2011
In recent weeks, twelve Ohio State students have reported being victims of violent crimes in areas surrounding campus. OSU Police Chief Paul Denton is quoted in “Timely Warnings from police increase, students react” telling The Lantern that he has “not seen a spike in crime on campus.” A quick check of UCrime.com uncovers data to support Chief Denton’s claim, at least in the categories of crimes violent in nature. In the 30 day period ending on November 6, 2011 there were 6 reported crimes on campus compared to 7 in the previous year for the same period.
However, few students stay on campus all day every day. The crimes addressed in the article took place off campus. A look at crime off campus is more appropriate. The difference can be shocking.
CrimeReports.com, the tool that the Columbus Police Department uses to disseminate crime data to the public, shows 71 violent crimes (homicides, robberies, and assault both sexual and non-sexual) in the University District during the 30 day period ending November 6, 2011. Data for the previous year is not available. That’s more than TEN times the crime on campus in areas where many students live and play. The Short North District saw 40 violent crimes and the Old North District saw 23 during the same time period.
Clearly of all areas near campus accessible by foot or a short bus/cab ride, the University District is the most dangerous. Why are students east of High Street targeted over patrons and residents of the Short North or Old North districts? The answer lies in victim selection.
The University District is a target rich environment. Students often walk the area alone during poor light conditions paying little attention to their surroundings while in the possession of valuable items such as laptops or other high tech devices. This is after all for a lot of students the first time in their lives they’ve been in such a large city let alone living away from home. People in the Short North and Old North Districts tend to be a little more seasoned and take precautions students often overlook.
However, there is one glaring difference between students and residents of the Short North and Old North Districts many do not consider. This difference is also the reason that Ohio State’s 23,000 faculty and staff are targeted. Residents of the Short North and Old North districts are permitted to exercise their constitutional right to carry firearms while students, faculty, and staff are legislated defenseless against criminals with campus firearm bans. The concept that banning firearms on campus makes campus safer is flawed logic in itself and completely fails to recognize that students, faculty, and staff are also disarmed off campus as a result.
Students, faculty, and staff walking to campus from their homes or vehicles do so without a firearm because once they cross high street possession of a firearm is illegal and violation of university policy. They also walk from campus without a firearm for the same reason. The ability for Ohio State’s students, faculty, and staff to meet an attacker with equal or greater force in their defense is denied at a time when they are most vulnerable.
Criminals understand this fact and use it to their advantage during the victim selection process. Economist Dr John Lott’s research over the past fifteen years published in now the third edition of his book More Guns Less Crime confirms that violent crime rates are higher in areas where firearm ownership and carry laws are strict than in areas with relaxed laws. The FBI recently reported that nationwide we have experienced a downward trend in violent crime. This downward trend has occurred in spite of a poor economy often attributed to higher crime rates. That this trend has followed relaxed state restrictions on firearm ownership and carry is no coincidence.
Crime is a risky business and criminals do not like to get hurt. This is why they choose their targets with care. Criminals fear armed citizens. In fact, criminals fear armed citizens more than they do the police. Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice points to the armed citizen or the threat of the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found that 85% agreed that the “smart criminal” will attempt to find out if a potential victim is armed, 75% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot, 53% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed, 57% of “handgun predators” were scared off or shot at by an armed victim, and 60% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by the police.
Extend this thought to process to a situation in which a criminal unknowingly targets an armed citizen and one could conclude that a criminal will move onto another target when presented with a victim who can match or exceed the criminal’s force. Gary Kleck, PhD writes in his book, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (Social Institutions and Social Change), that his research finds “only 3% of criminal gun assaults involves anyone actually being wounded, even nonfatally, and the same is true of defensive gun uses. More commonly, guns are merely pointed at another person, or perhaps only referred to (‘I’ve got a gun’) or displayed, and this is sufficient to accomplish the ends of the user, whether criminal or non-criminal.”
The idea that armed citizens will wound innocent bystanders in while defending themselves is also not supported by statistics. The FBI has determined that firearms are used in self-defense 2.5 million times per year. A wound rate of 3% indicates that 75,000 of those incidents resulted in injury or death. Less than 0.01% of those incidents resulted in a completely innocent bystander being injured.
Furthermore, the argument that a stray bullet is likely to hit an innocent bystander when a firearm is discharged by an ill-experienced shooter in self defense spits in the face of the things those opposed to campus carry tell us to do to be safe. Walking in groups in well lit areas is great advice indeed. The fact is that criminals statistically victimize people when they are alone and cries for help will go largely unanswered. The very things they will tell us to do to as an alternative to “relying on firearms” exploits the fact that other people aren’t in the near vicinity and dispels the myth that innocent people can be hit by self-defensive stray bullets.
The students, faculty, and staff that are licensed to carry a concealed handgun in Ohio obtained said license with considerable effort. They submitted to an extensive FBI background check to ensure a record clean of felonies, violent and/or drug related misdemeanors, mental defective adjudications, and active criminal protection orders. They took a state mandated 12 hour National Rifle Association firearms safety course and passed the competency testing subsequent to the course. Licensees in Ohio must also be older than 21.
These licensees have proven they desire to abide by the law. Statistics published by the Texas Department of Public Safety and Department of State Health Services have found that concealed handgun licensees obey the law. During 2009, 101 of the 65,561 (0.1514%) crime convictions were comprised of licensees. The 101 convictions comprised 0.025% of the 402,914 licensees in Texas. In comparison, the remaining 65,460 convictions comprised 0.392% of the 16,671,565 unlicensed Texans 21 years or older, the minimum age required to obtain a concealed handgun license. Non-licensees were convicted of crimes at a rate nearly 16 times higher than licensees.
We already allow 6 million licensees in 49 states to carry a concealed handgun in many other non-secure locations outside of campus and have yet to realize any of the “blood in the streets” predictions. Most recently in Ohio, we entrusted these people with carrying concealed handguns in liquor serving establishments and have still yet to see “blood in the streets.” Are concealed handgun licensees less trustworthy on a college campus?
We trust our faculty with overseeing the development of some of the brightest minds in Ohio, as well as from areas all across the nation and the globe. We trust them so much that many of them earn in excess of $100,000 per year. Are they less trustworthy with a concealed handgun for self defense?
Lawful campus concealed carry will not make campus less safe. Campus crime statistics in states that allow campus carry does not support this claim. There are 70 universities allowing concealed carry on 200 campuses in Michigan, Colorado, Utah, Oregon, Virginia and Mississippi. These campuses have a combined student population of ½ million. Add in faculty and staff and there are ¾ of a million people living, working, and playing on campuses allowing concealed carry. None of these campuses have seen experienced a single incident of gun violence (including threats and suicides), a single gun accident, or a single gun theft as a result.
Are Buckeyes less responsible? It is time we treat our students, faculty, and staff that possess a concealed handgun license like the responsible citizens they are and allow them the right to carry that defensive tool on Ohio State’s campus. It is time we remove campus carry restrictions both by law and university policy. Failure to do so demonstrates that we value the safety of criminals over that of our brightest young minds, those that engage them intellectually, and those that support the operations of the environment in which they learn.
[...] Virginia Tech Shootings: Gun Nuts Yet Again Politicize A Tragedy (themoderatevoice.com) [...]