Why no resurge in gun control advocacy?

[Pangloss]

One of the most interesting things happening this week in American politics was something that actually didn't happen in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings: Gun control did not become a central issue again.

 

The reason why it didn't happen is because Democrats have been pulling back on this issue for some time now. Some of them have even joined the other side, such as Virginia Senator Jim Webb. It's been under discussion for some time now that Democrats decided to back-burner gun control in order to help win the 2006 mid-term elections, and it appeared to pay off for them in spades. They want to keep that majority, so it seems likely that they'll continue to leave that issue right where it is.

 

It was interesting watching the media pop its clutch and stall. As soon as the incident took place, reporters began to raise the issue of gun control, running the flag up the flagpole, as it were. Much to their shock and dismay, nobody saluted. I can understand their surprise, too -- you'd think SOME Democrat would have broken ranks and stepped up to a camera or microphone on this.

 

Could this be an indication of Nancy Pelosi's ability to keep the rank and file in line?

 

Perhaps. But also of interest was the low key response of special interests. There was some reaction, for sure, but not nearly as much as one might expect. Where are all the "new studies"?

 

The newsies just don't know what to do with this. They're sitting there waiting in the wings, notebooks packed with names and addresses of single mothers working two jobs with three children in daycare, just waiting to tell us what they're worried about today. For once, the darn politicians just aren't cooperating!

[ydoaPs]

One of the most interesting things happening this week in American politics was something that actually didn't happen in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings: Gun control did not become a central issue again.

Especially odd with the NASA shooting just a few days later.

[John Cuthber]

Maybe people have realised that if the last mass shooting didn't produce gun control, and the one before didn't, then why should another few dozen dead?

[Sisyphus]

It should also be noted that several existing laws were broken, so legislation would be somewhat irrelevant. This is different from something like Columbine, where legal loopholes were exploited.

[bascule]

Bloomberg's been pushing for it pretty hardcore. I'm glad that Pelosi hasn't buckled.

 

Perhaps a motivating factor is that existing laws already disqualified Cho Seung-Hui from owning a gun.

 

The problem here seems to have been a bureaucratic one: automated background checks already in place did not disqualify him, apparently because they didn't catch that he was declared mentally ill in court. Pretty egregious oversight.

 

I suspect if we see any legislation out of this it will be higher standards for automated background checks.

[Haezed]

Maybe everyone is taking care not to be seen to take advantage of VT. I did see that the Brady's were on one of the Sunday morning shows although I've not seen it yet.

[Sayonara]

It's because the Terrorists Are Coming.

[ParanoiA]

It's because the Terrorists Are Coming.

 

Actually, that would be an interesting development if it turned out that americans are depending more upon self defense rather than police defense.

 

Maybe these shootings and terrorism actually validate the fact that the government can't protect you. The police are more of a discouragement and damage control entity. You'll have to be packin' to save yourself from an assault. The police will only rescue your dead body...

[Dak]

that implies that the correct responce to school shootings is to allow the kids to carry guns into school.

[Saryctos]

that implies that the correct responce to school shootings is to allow the kids to carry guns into school.

 

The kids over 21 and have a clean background check, yes.

[Phi for All]

The kids over 21 and have a clean background check, yes.

It's 18 in Vermont. And if the sale is private there's no background check. And no permit is required, ever. No waiting period either. Even if you want to carry it concealed.

[ParanoiA]

that implies that the correct responce to school shootings is to allow the kids to carry guns into school.

 

No, it implies someone in school should carry them. So far, our schools are gun-free victim zones.

[Pangloss]

BTW, I don't think there was a single victim at Virginia Tech who was under 21. I could be wrong on that, but I seem to recall that most were in their early 20s. They were NOT children.

 

For what it's worth.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm not sure I'd rather like a gunfight in a crowded environment any more than a massacre. Untrained civilians (students, even) may well end up shooting the wrong person, getting themselves shot, or drawing things out into a bloody gunfight that might just kill more people than otherwise.

 

If you're going to give guns to people to help them prevent massive killings from occurring, you'd have to give them appropriate training, too.

[SkepticLance]

The interesting thing about this thread is that no-one seems to be screaming for more gun control. This surprises me.

 

I am aware of the adage that guns do not kill, only people kill. However, it is also true that it is a damn sight easier to kill if you have a gun. Mass killings require potent weapons. And places with easy access to weapons and with a tradition of gun use have very high murder rates. The USA, per capita, has a murder rate at least 3 times as high as my country, which has strong gun control, and no tradition of resorting to firearms.

 

For what its worth, I am totally in favour of very strong gun control. While 90% of the population will be reasonably responsible with fire arms, there is that other 10% ....

[PhDP]

I also tend to favour gun control, but it's not an easy task to get a reasonable discussion about gun control when the debate started with an event like this.

 

We could discuss for years about hypothetical scenarios, what could happen if there was no weapons, what would happen if most people were armed, and this could be easily fuelled by tons of anecdotal evidence and statistics published by partisan organizations.

 

However it all comes down to this; does an increase in gun ownership leads to an increase in crimes. Probably.

[Dak]

No, it implies someone in school should carry them. So far, our schools are gun-free victim zones.

 

untill someone takes a gun in. then they're victim zones with guns.

 

are you suggesting some kind of armed response unit made up of teachers? (not mocking; it kinda makes sense. schools train for fires, i guess they could also train for shootings.)

 

BTW, I don't think there was a single victim at Virginia Tech who was under 21. I could be wrong on that, but I seem to recall that most were in their early 20s. They were NOT children.

 

For what it's worth.

 

ah, right, cheers. i allways get confused about american schools/colleges/etc.

[Sisyphus]

This kind of hypothetical is always hard to judge, and its made an order of magnitude harder by the idealogical agendas coming into play from various directions. The way it seems to me is that the most vocal parties in the "gun debate" tend to be the least reasonable, and the least prepared to deal with the actual consequences of whatever they're suggesting.

 

For what it's worth, it seems to me that something like the VT massacre would have been less likely to happen, and less severe when it did happen, if civilians carrying guns was common. Inferior numbers (one psycho vs. dozens) can't succeed without superior firepower (guns vs. hands). On the other hand, it seems equally apparent that, if carrying guns was common, there would be a much higher rate of shootings in general. (Just look at the U.S. vs. other nations.) Yet the "blind spots of partisanship" so often cloud one obvious conclusion or the other.

 

So I'm glad we're not seeing a big resurgence in this debate, because it's an annoying one. Maybe the stupidly passionate version of this debate was an anomaly of only a few decades, and is on the road to more realistic pragmatism. Who knows.

[Saryctos]

However it all comes down to this; does an increase in gun ownership leads to an increase in crimes. Probably.

 

Plenty of evidence to the contrary.

[Sisyphus]

Plenty of evidence to the contrary.

 

And plenty in support:

 

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/pdf/litreviewfirearmdeaths.pdf

[ParanoiA]

However it all comes down to this; does an increase in gun ownership leads to an increase in crimes. Probably.

 

Why would it come down to that? Freedom of speech could increase crime. Our civil liberties can increase crime. If we couldn't leave the house after 10:00 PM it would probably decrease crime, but that's mostly irrelevant isn't it?

 

For what its worth, I am totally in favour of very strong gun control. While 90% of the population will be reasonably responsible with fire arms, there is that other 10% ....

 

Oh yes, that minority of idiots should dictate what the majority is allowed to do now?

 

This is a perfect example of tunnel vision. Where our only concern is that 10% and no consideration for the 90%. Isn't this the same as GWB's idea of battling terrorism that you go on about? Rather than hunt down and kill only terrorists, we invade with traditional armies and kill everything. Funny how you have no problem doing it with other policy.

 

How about this: How about we think a little harder about how we can deal with that 10% without trampling all over the rights of the 90%? Surely we're smart enough - it's just a matter of laziness and no regard for others.

[Phi for All]

How about this: How about we think a little harder about how we can deal with that 10% without trampling all over the rights of the 90%? Surely we're smart enough - it's just a matter of laziness and no regard for others.

Does gun control have to mean gun banning? I favor background checks, registration and waiting periods. What's so unreasonable about knowing who has the guns and keeping them out of the hands of those who've proven they're unstable?

[ParanoiA]

Does gun control have to mean gun banning? I favor background checks, registration and waiting periods. What's so unreasonable about knowing who has the guns and keeping them out of the hands of those who've proven they're unstable?

 

Well, perhaps I should have first asked what "very strong gun control" means. In my mind, your idea of gun control is not "very strong" at all. It's reasonable.

 

I'm not sure I'd rather like a gunfight in a crowded environment any more than a massacre. Untrained civilians (students, even) may well end up shooting the wrong person, getting themselves shot, or drawing things out into a bloody gunfight that might just kill more people than otherwise.

 

I hear this alot. I'll happily take the chance. If some guy is opening fire in a crowded restaraunt trying to kill people - I'll be more than happy to see a 12 year old fire back at him.

 

I'm sorry it's not ideal. I'm sorry there isn't a "perfectly trained" gun handler, privileged to the latest "procedures and flowcharts" in the restaraunt to neutralize the threat. But, I'll take what I can get - it's better than letting the murderer continue the assault.

 

I think we underestimate each other too much. Yes, maybe they'll shoot some innocent person. But more than likely not. Yes, maybe they'll inflame the shooter and cause more death. But more than likely not. Do you really think more people would have died if someone fired back at the VT shooter? Columbine? The McDonald's massacre?

 

The common citizen may not be trained in such things, but that doesn't mean they're going to make a complete mess of the situation. That's a bit too presumptuous in my opinion. Most people aren't that inept. I think we take that too far and short change ourselves - gloss over the pragmatic reality that a mass killing like this is a mess already.

 

A situation like that is not perfect. The best solution will still result in death. It's worth it to take the chance. By trying to be too safe about who should conceal and carry and fight back, we could be losing a lot more lives being sure that the only person in the room with a gun is the dude that wants everyone dead.

[GutZ]

I am not for banning fire-arms because that just wont work, but on the other hand if every other person has a hand-gun, I can see a tendency for people to bring bigger weapons around. I don't think the mentality of these crazy people is going to be "Hey, now they have guns too, maybe I shouldn't kill anyone anymore", it more of a "Now I need bigger faster guns."

 

When it comes to bringing death I am sure many people want the upper-hand.

[Haezed]

 

I think we underestimate each other too much. Yes, maybe they'll shoot some innocent person. But more than likely not. Yes, maybe they'll inflame the shooter and cause more death. But more than likely not. Do you really think more people would have died if someone fired back at the VT shooter? Columbine? The McDonald's massacre?

 

There is a lot of truth in what you say Para (the period key on my laptop went kaput today, so i'll use semicolons); I've had a few experience in near death experiences, although nothing like VT of course, and people were rational, not hysterical; my late uncle told me he was on a plane once that from all appearances was going to crash, yet people were not going nuts; they were quietly making peace with what they thought were there last minutes of life

 

Likewise, on United 93, once the passengers had the information they needed - fake bomb, twin towers already down - they took rational action which barely fell tragically short;the real question is would the VT killer have even tried his gambit if he knew half of the students in class might be armed

 

I'm torn on this issue because I know police hate the idea of allowing everyone to carry concealed and I personally do not want a gun in my house; otoh, I'm far less than certain that VT is any kind of argument for gun control