Virginia Tech
I am so shocked by what has happened at Virginia Tech. It's horrible. It's a tragedy of proportions that I cannot understand, it has irreparably affected the lives of every single person on that campus, every family who has a child there, every family member and friend who lost someone there.
America, when are we going to learn?
I know all you Southern boys are going to leave hate comments on my blog for saying this, and y'all know I'm as good a Southern Republican Christian woman as might be found around here, but I'm saying it.
We need tighter gun control laws in America.
I know, I know. The Second Amendment! We have the right to bear arms! And true that is, but, just like our First Amendment freedom of speech, that right is not unlimited. We can't walk into a crowded theater and yell "Fire!!" It's illegal. It's time to limit guns as well. Specifically, I'm talking about handguns. Boys, keep your shotguns and your hunting rifles. But the primary weapon of choice in most crimes involving firearms is a handgun. A Glock 9-mm and a Walther .22-caliber handgun were used by the troubled boy in the Virginia Tech shooting. What if he had never had access to those guns?
In Britain, handguns are 100% outlawed. Their Olympic pistol-shooting team has to practice outside the country. However, rifles and shotguns and other things like that are allowed with a permit. There are three types of permits: personal protection, target and skeet-shooting, and hunting. You have to meet specific qualifications for the personal protection permit. With a population of 18 million, Great Britain had something like 84 crimes involving guns last year. Compare that to New York City, population around 7 million, around 850 murders involving guns.
If the US banned handguns, would crime rates drop tomorrow? No. In fact, it would be a huge hassle for every gunowner in the country, as well as a hassle and cost to the US government. But would it be worth it if 20 years from now, our violent crimes involving guns had decreased? Absolutely.
Also, as a sidenote. In the news they're now reporting that in 2005, Cho Seung-Hui was accused of stalking two girls and reported to the police. The police then got a judge to issue a detention order. As a result, Cho voluntarily checked in to a mental hospital for about 2 days. My question: how does a judge's detention order issued for the police not show up in a background check for purchase of a handgun? That just makes it all the more apparent to me that even the mild system we have in place for gun regulation isn't working. As a further sidenote, Congress is crazy because seriously, the ten year semi-automatic weapon ban that just expired really and truly needs to be continued. Check out this link http://www.slate.com/id/2164373/nav/tap1/ for an editorial on legislation concerning gun control.
My thoughts and prayers go out to everyone in Blacksburg, Virginia, and all the families affected by this tragedy. And also, I pray for the Seung-Hui family - that boy's parents and sister must feel so horrible right now. I hope that something positive can emerge from this tragedy to help the rest of the country become safer and hopefully prevent future tragedies like this one.
posted by Lady Godiva @ 10:19 PM
12 Comments:
Thanks for the link. It was a really good article. And, I think expanding the Brady Law to include gun trades and transfers from person to person would be a brilliant idea. It wouldn't solve all the problems, but it would be a step in the right direction.
I actually agree with you about strengthening background checks, however, I cannot agree with you about banning handguns.
My reasons are both philosophical and practical.
Philosophically, I oppose banning handguns because such would deny our 2nd right as defined by the Constitution. People have a right to self-preservation, and a handgun is often the best way of defending oneself. And if our government or any other government becomes agressive against our society, handguns will constitute a large part of the citizen's defense.
Also, although over time we might see a decrease in handgun violence, do you really think that a person who wants to commit a crime will give up his criminal ideas because he doesn't have a gun? He will resort to a knife, or some other such weapon instead. As the old saying goes, "where there's a will, there's a way."
My practical objections to banning handguns are many, but here are a couple:
1) Examine Switzerland - everyone has a gun. Everyone is in the national guard. Yet, odly enough, the crime rate is absurdly low. This flies in the face of your original premise that less guns equal less crime.
Perhaps the problem with America is that we don't have enough guns? Perhaps if every kid in that school was packing, the nut would have been blown away before he had time to fire a single shot. It's something to think about...
2) Imagine this scenario: the handgun ban just went into effect...a little old lady is home alone. A robber breaks into her house - he has a gun from the blackmarket. Which would you rather she have? A gun, or a can of pepper spray?
Let's change the scenario to a couple years down the road when there are no guns. The man breaks in the house with a knife in his hand. What is the lady to do in this scenario? She cannot fight him off...that gun was her method of self-preservation, and now it is gone.
Banning handguns only leaves the innocent defenseless.
Anyway, those were my thoughts after reading your post...
Nomos,
Nowhere in my post did I advocate banning handguns. I simply used Great Britain as an example of the good that can come from tighter gun control. My personal opinion statement in the post was "We need tighter gun control laws in America."
So, don't go saying that I think handguns ought to be banned.
And I think your Switzerland example is absurd, because if everyone was in the military in America the entire culture would be different. Bad guy dealing drugs on the street to survive? Oh wait you've been drafted. You now are trained, have acquired some technical skills, and have a salary. Bye bye violent crime life, hello military life.
Something that we should remember first and foremost is that the second ammendment doesn't mean what the media says it means. the right to "bear arms" orginial meant the right to form a militia for the defense of the community. That has been transfered over to today's national guard. In order to have a working citizen militia that meant each member had to supply themselves once again our government does that for our national guard. Finally, the constitution is a document that we are free to change as we feel necessary. We can ammend the amendment or ban it all together.
I do not propose we ban guns in America. I do think it is rediculous to have guns that are semi or fully automatic that fire 20 shots, or that work like machine guns. If you can hit an intruder or scare him off with 6 shots, he has probably already reached and killed you anyway. There isn't anything wrong with rifles and shotguns and the like, but keep them at home. There is no need to have a concelled gun permit and be walking around with them on our person or in our car. The custom was one in place before this nation had a regular police force.
I don't think a person out to be banned from having them unless they have a criminal record or a mental record. However, the test need to be through.
Finally, I don't really think that this a matter for the federal government to interfere with. There are certain powers and areas in which the federal government is given power, but all else is left to the state. We have gotten to the point that the federal government is too noisy into too many areas of life, that should have been left to the states. Perhaps this should be too.
Dani,
Right on, sister! The federal government is much too noisy in matters that ought to be left to the states.
Now if only Alabama had a functional constitution and an actual legislature in Montgomery instead of a collection of Alabama Education Associate employees......
I am ALL kinda for rewriting our state constitution, by constitutional convention with the aide of history and political science instructors.
haha. :)
it was good to see you this weekend.
If you don't think handguns ought to be banned, then I must apologize. However, I must ask why you brought up Britain, and why you said that banning handguns would be "absolutely" worth it 20 years from now? Was that just some random, unrelated comment, or did you actually have a point you were trying to make with that? Because if there was a point, or a way it tied in with strengthening gun control laws, I cannot make it out.
If you really only meant that handgun laws should be enforced and strengthened, then I agree with you.
What has happened to our brethren in Alabama? I'm glad to say that we still believe in Gun Rights in The Great and Sovereign State of Texas.
I disagree the idea that "If the US banned handguns....it would be worth it if...violent crimes involving hand guns decreased." Firstly, I disagree with the premise that violent crime in this country would decrease. Individuals willing to perpetrate a crime as heinous as murder aren't going to think twice about breaking "gun control" laws. The only people who would actually surrender their guns would be those who are law-abiding in the first place. In the end, it leaves the innocent defenseless and the dangerous armed.
Secondly, I think your analogy to GB is inapplicable to this country. Perhaps Britain's unique situation makes enforcement of hand-gun bans practicable, but it isn't practicable here. In GB the population is much smaller, and it is surrounded by a body of water, thus enabling them to preclude the entrance of firearms much more easily. In the US, it would be just as easy for psychos to purchase guns smuggled from south-of-the-border as it is to purchase marijuna, etc. Walking with a gun onto "gun-free" USA would be just as easy as it was to walk onto "gun-free" Virginia Tech.
Dani, AMEN! Leave it to the STATES! (I guess ya'll are still at least somewhat southern.)
A real solution would be to enact concealed handgun and castle doctrine laws like we have in Texas. Our concealed handgun laws allow you to carry your gone anywhere you want in your car without a permit, but you have to have one to walk around with it on your person. The "castle doctrine" allows you to gun down criminals that intrude into your car or home without the threat of some sort of legal repercussions to you. A real step in the right direction would be to encourage more people to buy guns--not .22's--REAL GUNS! We need MORE PEOPLE WITH GUNS in their homes, in their cars, and on their person.
More people running around with guns? You think that will help?
That's like Democrats claiming that handing out condoms in high schools promotes "responsible sex."
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lady Godiva, as much as I admire your analogy for its rhetorical prowess, I'm afraid it isn't a very good analogy from a logical standpoint.
The ideas, "responsible" and "sex" (outside of marriage) are contradictions in terms, and therefore conservatives disagree with anything that promotes sex outside of marriage (such as giving condoms to high schoolers). The ideas, "gun carrier," and "safety," however, are not contradictions of terms, as long as the gun carrier is responsible. SoooOOOooo...high schoolers having condoms is not comparable to good people having guns for personal safety, if you get my point.
Just thought I'd point that out...
Oooh...interesting side note: my word verification is "ygunn"! Isn't that ironic?
Nomos,
Ahhhh... but YOUR analogy is not logical for the same reason. It rests on the notion of "good" people being "responsible." Total depravity, my friend, assures us that that premise is unreliable at best. So we are actually on a level playing field with the sex analogy and the good people having guns premise because they have identical logical inconsistencies.
To all:
I hearby declare a moratorium on this subject, because I'm tired of responding to all these comments. Go post about guns (or sex analogies, or whatever) on other people's blogs now.
Post a Comment
<< Home