- Brian Hickey Seriously Injured
- Filmmaker sought to Document and Follow the Timeline of Political, Zoning and Environmental Crimes in Philly
- FDR, Obama, and the Path to Health Care Reform in 2009
- How We Vote
- It's Our City Interview with Mike Nutter
- Witnesses to Hunger
- Reardon's Actual Library Closing Criteria
- Books for everyone: Buy, buy, buy, buy, buy
- Giving Thanks
- Coalition for Environmental Justice and Citizen Rights
On the Virgina Tech Shootings
Submitted by Ben Waxman on Tue, 04/17/2007 - 1:24pm.
Link: Virginia Gunman Identified as a Student
Another day, another senseless tragedy involving young people and gun violence. A lone shooter went on a rampage throughout Virgina Tech's campus yesterday and killed over thirty people. Across the country, colleges and universities are in mourning. President Bush flew back from a trip abroad to attend the memorial service.
According to New York Times, there was a two hour gap between first two shootings and the mass killing that occurred later. During that time, campus administration failed to take several key steps that could have saved the lives of students. The university discovered the dead bodies, but did not issue a campus wide alert until the second round of killings. Security personal thought the problem had been contained to one dorm.
At tragic moments like this, it's often best not to rush to judgment. It's important that we not automatically point fingers. After all, the real culprit is already dead. Still, students and lawmakers should carefully look at Virgina Tech's response and evaluate it. If there were mistakes, campus officials across the country need to learn the lessons.
It would be impossible to write this post with mentioning guns. The shooter was apparently heavily armed with weaponry that could easily be reloaded. Virgina has some of the most lax gun laws in the nation. As I said above, I am not going to rush to judgment and blame the NRA or anyone else for the shootings. However, this instance, like all other senseless acts of violence committed with guns, should make everyone take pause and think. This tragedy should cause lawmakers to at least discuss reforming our failed gun control laws.
Right now, our thoughts and prayers need to be with the victims and their families. Over the next few days, thousands of students across the country will participate in memorials to honor those who were killed. I encourage everyone to find out what is happening on local campuses and participate.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Two hour window to Life
How do you think a city like ours would handle a crisis like this, and would they take so long to react to finding dead bodies to realize that something is wrong? How fast can we react to something like this?
Junior Williams
juniorwililams007@earthlink.net
http://mycityscapephily.eponym.com/blog
We are handling a crisis
We are handling a crisis like this--and we are doing it poorly with more notice, resources and understanding. Every day Philadelphians are dying.
This is such a tragedy. The random aspects of violence are so frightining.
Handguns
I think we have some firearms enthusiasts on this board.
Can anyone give me one reason why anyone who is not in law enforcement would need more than one handgun?
I'm not saying that it's impossible to defend or even easily answer, but why does anyone need multiple weapons? Please refrain from hair-thin, the constitution-says-I-can reasons.
www.whatever-it-takes.net
How about this?
I own a shot gun--not a hand gun. But, to the extent you are talking all weapons:
I plan on getting another shot gun next year so I can hunt different things. The barrel of my current firearm is 28 inches long, which is long and allows me to hunt different types of game. But, for duck, I believe I'm stretching it. I definetly would not have luck with geese. So, I will likely have to get one with a 30 inch barrel.
Why do I want mulitple firearms? I just told you. I want another firearm to do what any law abiding, licensed citizen can do. It's not selfish or immoral.
But, here is my problem with your comment, AJ, what makes you think that in this case, where a person was so determined to take multiple human lives, gun control would have helped the situation? Maybe he would have shot 25 instead of 50 people. Or maybe he would have waited another month to get a second firearm. Maybe he would have built a bomb. Maybe he would have crashed his car into throngs of people. This person wanted to kill anyone he could find.
This is a senseless tragedy. But, let's not use it and it's randomness to argue the gun position. We have 111 reasons to do that here in Philadelphia--where the violence is overwhelming and oppressive. One hand gun a month is something I support. But, it would not have stopped yesterday's incident.
Can anyone give me one
Can anyone give me one reason why an Arab who's not planning a terrorist attack should refuse to be searched by any law enforcement officer at any time?
Can anyone give me one reason why those other than heretics and violent anarchists would require legal protection for their verbal expression?
Can anyone give me a reason why anyone not planning a violent crime should expect that their telephone conversations would not be monitored by the government?
Please refrain from hair-thin, the Constitution-says-I-can reasons.
PS: Collecting, varied hunting quarry, target shooting vs. hunting.
PPS: I have held and fired a gun maybe a dozen times in my life. For the most part, they terrify me and I hate them. But living in a free country has some inherent dangers.
Either we go for a Constitutional amendment and an outright ban, or we accept that there will be some gun violence even under most restrictive-but-short-of-a-comprehensive-ban laws.
that stupid constitution
You want to do illegal things, and then ask that people not cite legal rationale for preventing you from doing that:
You are kidding me right?
Umm, yes, I was kidding, or
Umm, yes, I was kidding, or rather, using sarcasm. AJ asked people to justify a Constitutionally protected right, owning multiple handguns, but asked them to do it without resorting to claiming that Constitutionally protected right.
I responded by facetiously questioning a few other Constitutional rights and parroting AJ's request to respond without claiming Constitutional protection.
The PSes were serious, though.
well,
boy do i have egg on my face!
disturbing
I unfortunately don't have time right now to reply to that Arab comment; but I hope to when I get home tonight if someone else doesn't beat me to it.
"I shouldn't, but heck, why not?"
But I'm going to anyway:
Two semi-automatic handguns of relatively small caliber is not "heavily armed". Anyway, he likely could have killed just as many people with just one of them.
Well, on second thought:
Based on what I've read thus far, nothing short of a comprehensive ban on all firearms could have even hoped to prevent this tragedy, in terms of laws.
Arguing?
Handguns are used for protection and to some extent hunting. Oh and they're used to kill about 20-30K people a year.
I just want to know why anyone would need more than one at a time?
Gaetano, you immediately went from handgun to shotgun in your answer. I understand people like to hunt and need a variety of weapons to do so. I just haven't heard anyone explain why multiple handguns, which have much less of a connection to hunting, are needed? As for your argument about what gun laws could have done, I completely disagree. We live in a culture where the gun is not viewed with the kind of negative connotations it should carry. When lunatics go on killing sprees and people rightly question lax gun laws that fly in the face of overwhelming public support(unfortunately they don't do this as much when one or two people a day are being killed, but that's another story). And every time something like this happens, people say, "you can't stop crazed shooters etc, you can't stop criminals from shooting people, you can't stop this or that with more restrictive gun laws. Keeping criminals from having more than one gun a month won't solve anything." To me, that line of thinking is nonsense. If guns are put in their proper place by much-more-restrictive laws and better enforcement, society will view guns and the violence attributed to them differently.
Who loses? The people who need more than 12 handguns a year? Boo-mf-hoo.
As for the Constitution part of my request that tomast slapped me with, those instances are a lot different than a defense of a need to own multiple weapons. I understand that people have a right to own these guns, but you're saying that we have to live with that under "most restrictive but short of a comprehensive ban laws." Would anyone characterize our gun laws as "most restrictive?"
www.whatever-it-takes.net
You second question: "I'm
You second question:
"I'm not saying that it's impossible to defend or even easily answer, but why does anyone need multiple weapons? Please refrain from hair-thin, the constitution-says-I-can reasons."
You went from handguns to weapons, generally. Not me.
When the Alien and Sedition
When the Alien and Sedition Acts became law, I wonder if people had the same attitude to the words "Congress shall make no law . . ."
Look, AJ, I understand the frustration. And, I do not know why people need more than 12 handguns a year. But, it is not me you have to convince--and if it were, you wouldn't be doing it.
And, no one said that one gun a month wouldn't solve anything. I said, very clearly, it wouldn't have prevented yesterday's crime at Virginia Tech.
What are you afraid of?
Right now, we're nowhere in terms of really regulating guns. Can you acknowledge that?
I'm sure we'd love to put forth more restrictive laws than one-gun-a-month, but we can't even get the pro-gun crowd to agree with that one. God forbid their rights to get 13 guns a year are infringed upon in the name of possibly making less guns available.
Of course, no one-gun-a-month legislation would have stopped yesterday's massacre, just like regulating gun shows and other attempts to restrict straw-purchasing won't do anything to stop murders and criminals from having guns.
We've heard this tired line of thinking from the pro-gun people each time. But, think every time someone gets killed with a gun, that crew is on the side saying, "Regulating gun purchases wouldn't have stopped this. Don't even try it." That's a tough road to haul, but they do it quite effectively.
Also, Gaetano, you point out that I don't have to convince you. True, the convincing is done. A majority of people want more-restrictive gun laws. That's a fact. A well-organized minority group keeps the majority from getting what it wants. It's a tired old tale in our nation.
The media frenzy and debate over gun control will dissipate, unfortunately, and the pro-gun people will have won another victory over the rest of us, and common sense in my opinion, but they'll still be wrong.
You can stand on the side of the gun and the need to keep your well-regulated militia or you can stand with those who want to see less guns.
We've tried the no gun laws route. Is it time to try something different?
www.whatever-it-takes.net
AJ and his either/or.
What a wonderful world--you are with me or against me. Fortunately, I can stand on my own legs, thank you very much.
Yes, people want more regulation. And there is no reason why there shouldn't be more.
The problem isn't the principle, but the questions you asked. If you want better answers, ask better questions. Otherwise, you are going to have to take what you get.
My question about guns
I asked the question because I thought that the answers would form the essence of the argument against gun-control legislation. I just haven't heard a compelling one from anyone and was asking people on this site that may be in favor of the current state of regulation, many of whose opinions I respect, to give me an answer.
I don't know the answer to the question: why would you need more than one handgun? I asked gun enthusiasts to answer it for me. You didn't. You just said that regulating guns wouldn't have stopped this Va Tech guy, which is the typical reason pro-gun people give when asked to defend their stance against any regulation.
Also, Didn't Dan originally call me "you are either with me or against me?" Did that get erased? Don't care, but I'm trying to figure out who to respond to.
www.whatever-it-takes.net
I don't think anyone is
I don't think anyone is supporting the current state of regulation. I think you asked why do people need more than one weapon. Two different questions.
I gave you a reason for your questions re weapons, you just didn't like it.
Cause its your right!
You can't find a simpler answer than that. Its like who said you can only have one home or one car. Its your right, i know its like comparing apples to oranges but hey.
Junior Williams
juniorwililams007@earthlink.net
http://mycityscapephily.eponym.com/blog
Also, Didn't Dan originally
No, I didn't.
Sorry Dan
I apologize, though I still am "you're with me or against me" on this issue, regardless of who said it.
www.whatever-it-takes.net
Well, now that you asked, AJ...
Well, now that you asked:
Here are my brief thoughts: First, in terms of constitutional questions... There is no question that we can regulate guns to a much greater extent than we are today. This might get real boring, so, anyone, feel free to just skip this. First of all, the text of the Amendment:
That is much different language than most people who advocate for no limits on guns would like you to believe.
The reality is that when the bill of rights was passed, they were not particularly protections for people against the Government generally, they were for protections of the State against the Federal Government. The point of the amendment was that the big, scary, national government was going to take away the rights of people to own guns, so, to protect the States, we needed them (States) to have the right to have armed militias.
And, for the first hundred years or so of our Country, the bill of rights did not apply to the States. In other words, pre-Civil War, your State could do a lot of things to you that the feds could not. Ie, Pennsylvania could restrict your right to free speech if they felt like it. They also did not have to give a jury trial if they didn't want to.
After the Civil War, however, the 14th Amendment was passed. Over the next 100 years, especially from about 1930-1972, many of the bill of rights were incorporated, meaning that they applied to the States too. So, all of a sudden, States had to respect freedom of speech, the right to counsel, etc.
However, not every right was incorporated. Some of things that were not, and still are not incorporated are the grand jury, and... the Second Amendment. So, no matter what you think about that text, until the Supreme Court rules differently, it does not even apply to States, any way.
So, within that context, is there a lot of leeway of how we can regulate guns? No question. (And, there is the possibility that a test case still could incorporate the 2nd amendment.) But, is the biggest obstacle the Constitution? No, not even close.
The issue is the NRA. Period. We all know it. It is not about convincing a majority of the people, because, that is long done. It is about taking on the NRA. I don't even know how to begin thinking about it... But, again, that is the whole ball game.
So, AJ, when you talk derisively about the hair thin constitutional rationale, my half-informed opinion is that... you are actually dead on. This is a political question, not a constitutional one.
ok well
That is sort of only a half answer.
The PA constitution has
So, that is the framework. But, again, basically this is a political question.
Its Simple Math!!!
Talking about regulating gun laws in a crisis like this??????
1)9mm + 1).22 cal = Massacre
It doesn't take many guns to kill.......
Junior Williams
juniorwililams007@earthlink.net
http://mycityscapephily.eponym.com/blog
Perhaps
I think in this respect, there is no grey area.
Are we at an equilibrium between common-sense, and desired, gun regulation and the rights of people to own guns? I don't think that we are. If we were, than I would not feel the "you are with me or against me" way. Unfortunately, we aren't there yet (maybe we are and I'm crazy). Until we are, yes, you're with me and the vast majority of people, especially in Philadelphia, or you're with the rest.
Now follow me right off the cliff....
www.whatever-it-takes.net
?????@#$%^% &^^#@!@?????
I don't get it , you guys going back and forth. I just made a long post about what I think is the issue we keep skipping over. No regulation could have stopped what happened yesterday. Not the guns on the street , not how many guns can a person have , what about the mentality of the person pulling the trigger. A gun didn't kill those people, a 23 year old kid frustrated at life killed those people. Why don't we talk about why would a young college man , so full of life to live, kill so many people one day instead of talking about how many guns a person should have.
These parents don't care if their child was killed with a AK-47 or a pea shooter, their child is DEAD! That's the whole point ! He could have one gun or 100 guns, what about the mind of a killer??
These guns aren't killing in Philly or VA Tech or anywhere else. The people behind the guns are at blame, don't let this kid off the hook to talk about how many guns a person should have. A gun is a gun is a gun is a gun. You have to pull that trigger , thats the point I'm making. Maybe its just me....
Junior Williams
juniorwililams007@earthlink.net
http://mycityscapephily.eponym.com/blog