And it continues
Shorter Charles Krauthammer: It is more humane to lock crazy people away forever than to prevent them from buying semiautomatic weapons.
You know, I’m mostly against gun control. I think that, as a general rule, people should be allowed to carry weapons for their own self-defense.
That said, I think we can make exceptions for people who have a history of stalking and mental illness. Why didn’t the fact that this guy was committed to a mental hospital show up on his goddamn background check? Does anybody know how this process works?
UPDATE: Here’s some more information on Cho’s history in the legal system:
Federal gun regulations suggest that a judge’s ruling on the mental health of the Virginia Tech gunman should have barred the man from buying the handguns used in the massacre.
Cho Seung-Hui’s two gun purchases were subject to federal and state background checks, which turned up no problems. That happened even though a judge ruled in December 2005 that Cho “presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness.” The judge ordered outpatient treatment.
Federal regulations bar the sale of guns to individuals who have been judged “mentally defective,” including people who pose a danger to themselves.
But Virginia’s standard is slightly different. State police say the sales would have been barred under state law only if the judge had committed Cho to a psychiatric hospital.
Time to change that, guys. People who “present an imminent danger to themselves as a result of mental illness” should simply not be allowed to buy semiautomatic weapons.
About like every other process in our legal and medical “systems.”
Oh dear God. I couldn’t possibly believe the shorter… so I clicked and GAAAAAAAAAH!
Why is a background check before handing over a gun the evil all encroaching power of teh government, but locking people up forever based on the notion that “they’re crazy” not? Fuck. Sorry, but fuck. Jesus fucking shit. I’ll be that Krauthammer has never, ever, ever met one mental patient in his entire life. Does he even care that such a system he is proposing would be just rife with abuse.
Hmmm. Let’s compare. “Hi, I’m His Grace, I’d like to buy a gun.”
“Well sir, your background check indicates that you are undergoing treatment for schizophrenia but you have been stable for five years and have no history of violent behaviour. Here you go sir.”
vs.
“Well, your Grace, you are a paranoid schizophrenic. Now, you haven’t had a history of violence, nor does your psychiatrist think that you are a threat to society. But you did have that outburst last week. The government thinks that it is best to keep you under observation until such time as they deem you safe.”
“Uh, how long is that going to be?”
“For as long as necessary.”
“And is there some sort of appeals process?”
“No. Not really. “
You know, I’m mostly against gun control. I think that, as a general rule, people should be allowed to carry weapons for their own self-defense.
While folks living in the USA might think this sounds, you know, sane and rational, those of us Americans living outside the USA can see it from the point of view of the citizens of the non-gun crazy countries where we live…
Just stop and think about a society where almost everyone carries weapons for their own self-protection.
Then think about a society where almost no-one carries weapons for their own self-protection.
Which society do you think offers more protection against being killed by other people’s weapons?
The results of this experiment are already in… is the US a safer place for gun violence than the UK, Australia or Canada?
Sadly, no!
But also sadly, since US Democrats have now swallowed the bitter pill that they will never elect a dog catcher as long as they propose changing the gun laws (for which I really can’t blame them), this situation is likely to continue for many more bloodbaths before either major party addresses the insanity.
Just stop and think about a society where almost everyone carries weapons for their own self-protection.
Then think about a society where almost no-one carries weapons for their own self-protection.
Which society do you think offers more protection against being killed by other people’s weapons?
The results of this experiment are already in… is the US a safer place for gun violence than the UK, Australia or Canada?
Lotsa people own guns in Canada, dude.
I think what the Founders actually intended in the second amendment was a well regulated militia consisting entirely of mental patients.
hunting can be done with quite large and hard to conceal rifles. and in order to make it sport rather than slaughter, those rifles should need to be reloaded after each shot. as well, they should be stored in hunting lodges and signed out only via thumbprint match. so that’s hunting taken care of as bullshit asshole excuse for being against gun control. bullshit excuse two pretends (as does the first) that there is this thing called a “Gun” and it is monolithic and it has never changed. if people feel the need for a handgun for self-defense, then we are all well within our rights to extremely carefully proscribe just what kind of “gun” constitutes something that will most likely be used in self-defense. semi-automatic or automatic machine pistols do not fall into that category. they are quite specifically designed as maximal offensive weapons. they are loathesmome. outside of war they should be 1000 percent illegal.
even i’m equivocating here–no civilian needs a handgun. a well regulated militia should have guns at their armory for use should the government call for them. otherwise, handguns are a very good way for spouses to shoot each other, children to mistakenly shoot themselves, or idiots to pull them in self-defense and (based on statisical likelihood) get themselves killed. oh, and they are good for gang killings and the concomitant innocent bystander deaths. i find those are best when they are children as well.
there is so much pussy-footing about guns on the left and it is just as bullshit and ineffective as our iraq stance was. for all the “being pro-gun saved the dems” rhetoric having a clear and coherent message that shows that you have some convictions and courage would go a much longer way.
Lotsa people own guns in Canada, dude.
Regrettably true… though handguns are all supposed to be registered, they are smuggled in from the US in increasing numbers.
Only thing is, if you get caught with an unregistered weapon in Canada, you can be looking at some jail time.
Though the rightwingers have tried to whip up public sentiment against the gun registry, police associations in Canada overwhelmingly support it.
It’s kinda nice to know when you are answering a call for a routine domestic incident whether the dude on the other side of that door you’re knockin on has an arsenal.
there is so much pussy-footing about guns on the left and it is just as bullshit and ineffective as our iraq stance was. for all the “being pro-gun saved the dems� rhetoric having a clear and coherent message that shows that you have some convictions and courage would go a much longer way.
This isn’t pussyfooting. I actually think, on principle, that the average person should have the right to town a gun. And think about the implications of this:
outside of war they should be 1000 percent illegal.
In other words, the people in power would have a monopoly on violence.
It’s kinda nice to know when you are answering a call for a routine domestic incident whether the dude on the other side of that door you’re knockin on has an arsenal.
Yeah, that’s a fair point. And I got no problem with having people take gun safety courses before being allowed to pack heat. If Brad Ruled teh World, he’d treat guns like cars- perfectly legal to own as many as you want, but you’d need to pass a training course and get a license.
http://www.stategunlaws.org/viewstate.php?choose_state=Go&st=VA
I guess it depends on the type of gun sale and where he bought it, some sales require background checks and others don’t. It’s also interesting that VA doesn’t have a waiting period for buying guns. Even if they did do a background check, his stalking didn’t bring any charges so it probably wouldn’t red flag the sale. The details of his going to a mental hospital are probably protected under his medical records so that may not red flag a sale either. I don’t know for sure though, just speculating.
I guess it depends on the type of gun sale and where he bought it, some sales require background checks and others don’t. It’s also interesting that VA doesn’t have a waiting period for buying guns. Even if they did do a background check, his stalking didn’t bring any charges so it probably wouldn’t red flag the sale. The details of his going to a mental hospital are probably protected under his medical records so that may not red flag a sale either. I don’t know for sure though, just speculating.
Hm, well something’s gotta change. This kid had about a billion red flags around him. There’s no way in hell he shoulda been allowed to buy a gun.
I have a fairly simple view on guns: That if you want to protect yourself, that’s fine, go ahead. But I agree with Brad in that they should be licensed and that while that license should be no harder nor expensive to obtain than one for a car, it can be revoked the same. But then, I’m big on personal responsibility.
Well, I only have two handguns. I use them for target practice, even though their large calibers and especially short barrels don’t help. If I really wanted a gun for plinking, I’d get a cheap Ruger .22.
I know that guns are deadly weapons, but many gun collectors and shooters treat shooting as a bonding experience, like people who get together to talk about cars or sports. Some of them try a little too hard to deny the inherent violence associated with guns, which is a little weird.
In the off-chance that I come face-to-face with a gun nut, at least I’ll have a gun to fight back. It’s a cycle of paranoia and violence that I do not like, but I’m not going to work to change that aspect of American culture.
Isn’t Krauthammer a psychiatrist? Yowza.
Regarding background checks, I’m pretty sure that VA (like most places that do bg checks) only looks for a criminal history, so the fact that he was ‘committed’ for a suicide hold probably wasn’t part of the equation.
There are no easy answers. Do we really want to give law enforcement and regulatory agencies greater access to people’s medical histories? How do we safeguard people’s privacy? Every shitty thing you can say about our health care system goes double for our mental health care3system. Where does the money and political will to fix that come from?
In other words, the people in power would have a monopoly on violence.
You think they don’t already?
If I owned a gun, and heaven forefend found myself in a situation like VTech, and actually shot the guy going around killing people…
I’m going to court for shooting someone. I have to show that I had to defend myself to a jury of my peers, and hopefully getting a not guilty pronouncement.
In contrast, guy in the military, or guy on the police force shoots a suspect. Who’re they answering to?
But hey, what do I know, I also advocate for disarming the cops and dismantling the military and putting all that cash into diplomacy.
Does anybody know how this process works?
Among other pertinent queries, Virginia’s application includes a question about whether the purchaser has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. Since there is no waiting period, the law apparently relies on the purchaser to answer honestly before handing a weapon over to him.
“People who ‘present an imminent danger to themselves as a result of mental illness’ should simply not be allowed to buy semiautomatic weapons.
I agree. And that definitely means Krauthammer should never be allowed to buy weapons of any kind, including nail clippers.
Time to change that, guys. People who “present an imminent danger to themselves as a result of mental illness� should simply not be allowed to buy semiautomatic weapons.
I can definitely agree to that.
One thing that bothers me is when certain gun nuts criticize the most mundane gun laws (you can’t bring a gun to school, you can’t be psychotic). Or they say “criminals don’t have to follow these laws”. Well, duh. But you don’t want to be a criminal, so don’t aim for that standard. Kind of like saying if the terrorists do it, we should be able to torture and detain and murder anyone we want (even non-terrorists). WTF?
Modern so-called conservatives are more interested in offense than defense. They don’t want to use the military to defend the United States. They want to use it to attack others.
I’m getting off-track, here. This was supposed to be about crazy old hypocritical Krauthammer.
I think that, as a general rule, people should be allowed to carry weapons for their own self-defense.
Carry them where?
Seriously, do you think people should be carrying weapons into bars, shopping malls, and movie theaters?
I don’t think (sane, law-abiding) people should be prohibiting from owning guns, or hunting, btw.
But I’d rather not be surrounded by people carrying guns all over town . . .
The whole issue of gun control is just a huge red herring covering the tracks of the social issues that are the real source of violence in America. Banning guns in any society will not cause a huge crime wave and conversly allowing everybody to own machine guns won’t automatically cause civil war. In the abysmal dungeon that is America people will find ways to kill and maim eachother even if guns are banned, it’s just not isssue here.
For instance the class mates of Cho thought it was okay to scream at him for speaking with an accent and tell him to go back to China and the teacher somehow thought it was okay not to put a stop to this. In retrospect it’s no surprise Cho snapped; treat someone like dirt and they will act like dirt, one way or the other. I the people who bullied him feel like shit right now because they basically created the killer, they smelled weakness and attacked in accordance with the twisted authoritarian philosophy that is at the heart of America.
As for the state and it’s monopoly on violence, the idea that it is a good thing for citizens to be able to stockpile weapons for use against the state is a recipe for disaster. So, the KKK stockpiles rocket rifles and machine guns for use against the state, and so do the Black nationalists and so does the JDL, and so do the Islamic groups and so does the Communist Youth Brigades and the Libertarians, each secure in the knowledge that when the day comes they will wipe out their enemies with rightoues force. A hotspur with a revolver provided the pretext for the Kristallnacht, and the Nazis were partly brought to power because of the fear of armed Communists fighting in the streets. The idea that guns = heroic resistance is not unproblematic.
Also, handguns are pretty crappy for self-defense: http://www.vpc.org/studies/unincont.htm
Way OT, but here’s your I-Word Update: Vt. Senate calls for Bush, Cheney impeachment http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18229765/
I know, and agree that you have to take some steps, even small, incremental and partially ineffective steps. Like I said last night, this shit’s gotta stop.
That said, you have to factor in reality somewhere. I have – er – some guns. I have felony convictions. I have a record of mental illness. I did not even attempt to acquire my weapons through “traditional” channels. It’s very easy to buy anything you want, and if you have any interest in the gun as something to be improved and modified, just as some people have an interest in their cars, you can make them quite effective. The world is awash in weaponry, and until you figure out how to manage that, you aren’t going to “keep guns out of” anybody’s hands.
Also, handguns are pretty crappy for self-defense:
That’s a load of crap, and if you believe it you don’t have any empirical data. If you are comparing them to a shotgun or a grenade launcher, ok, sure, but otherwise you can do quite a credible job of self defense with a decent caliber handgun with which you have trained and practiced and loaded with effective ammunition. Gonna have to trust me on this…
mikey
You know, I’m mostly against gun control. I think that, as a general rule, people should be allowed to carry weapons for their own self-defense.
Who walks around thinking about self-defense? And needing guns for…
This is nuts.
I guess my Canadian is showing.
I like the idea of treating gun licences like driver’s licences:
–you have to prove to an officer of the law that you can use one safely
–you have to carry a certificate showing that it is in good working order
–you have to show financial responsibility for any accidents that might occur
–different types of weapons require different training and licenses
–if you abuse the privilege of ownership, your license can be taken away
But I would add a “responsible ownership” rule:
–If your gun is lost or stolen, you have to report that to the authorities. Once you do that, that gun is no longer associated with you and you are no longer responsible for it.
–Depending on the circumstances of the theft, you might get in trouble for “irresponsible care of a deadly weapon”. (e.g., if you lose guns in separate instances, if the police find your gun before you notice it’s missing, etc.)
–If your weapon is used in a crime or involved in an accident before you’ve reported it missing, then you can held responsible.
It’s not a toy or a hobby or a magic anti-crime shield. It’s a weapon. If you want to own weapons, you have to treat them like weapons. If you can’t do that, then you don’t get to own them. Full stop.
The self defense idea always comes up; I’m sure Mikey is right saying handguns can be effective, but how often is it true? This country has thousands upon thousands of gun crimes annually, and approximately eight and one-half bazillion guns in the hands of fine upstanding non-criminal citizens (including those whose guns are used by their kids to shoot themselves and their little friends, but that’s a different story). Yet the NRA scrapes to come up with a handful of heroic armed citizen stories; it’s just not that likely. Without even thinking about training, effective response in emergency, etc., how many non-criminals are packin’ 24/7? It sure as hell seems like, if widespread gun ownership was going to make a dent in crime, we’d seem some significant results by now. And given our world leading violent crime and incarceration rates, don’t give me “think how bad it would be if…”
His Grace – I am guessing you haven’t read Pundits of Gor?
this is Virginia, we’re lucky they don’t sell guns in the ABC store and at the 7-11/.
What Lesley said…
I think that, as a general rule, people should be allowed to carry weapons for their own self-defense.
how is carrying a gun going to provide any civilian with self defense?
seriously.
Actually, further to what Lesley said:
Brad, in Canada, lots of people DON’T own guns, not in the way that you mean. Having guns for anything other than shooting animals is generally considered aberrent.
And while I may be an effete urban-dweller (go ahead, dismiss me), my job puts me among gummint-hatin’ local folks out in the backwoods regions of our most redneckiest provinces.
That ‘most’ in my last sentence is either an intensifier or redundant. You pick.
I like Dorothy’s ideas.
Expanding on that, why can’t we make insurance as mandatory for gun ownership as it is for cars (at least in my state)?
Having said that, I have no idea what kind of insurance one would need. Collision? Accidental death?
Also, I should point out that it has long been my opinion that Insurance companies=Organized Crime.
Further, I agree with Chris rock, when he said that we should make bullets cost $100 apiece. You’d think twice about squeezing one off.
I have a real problem with people saying they have a right to have the capacity to kill me. Especially when about 98% of them are alcoholic racist rednecks with IQs lower than dolphins. (Yes, I vastly overgeneralized. Shoot me.)
The Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to own firearms. A series of Supreme Court decisions, every bit as overturnable as Roe v Wade, does.
The government has the capacity to do us violence no matter what, Bradrocket. Being armed just means you can take out a few foot soldiers with you, at best. If they come for you, they’ll be better armed than you, unless you want to join a militia and/or stockpile explosives, which is kinda…. fuckin crazy.
A small side angle to this shooter story is that many, at times most, of the weapons illegally on the streets of nyc come from Virginia with their non-existent gun laws. One dealer whose merchandise repeatedly turned up in the hands of thugs up here even started a series of Bloomberg Sales after the mayor made a fuss about it. From what I recall, a handgun from Virginia was used in the shooting that happened 50 feet from me, when a teenage mugger killed a 20something gal for talking back during the crime.
Gun laws matter. Virginia’s weak laws contributed to this tragedy, and many, many other deaths.
I’m rambling and I don’t know what to say in a sum it all up kinda way, but, I dunno. Maybe part of the process of getting a gun license should be sitting in on group grief therapy sessions for a week, to understand the costs of gun violence.
You know who really need to be better licensed, tho? Gun dealers.
(Yes, I vastly overgeneralized. Shoot me.)
O, cruel irony, how thou dost mock me!
See, adb, there’s certainly nothing wrong about anything you said. As a general statement about a desirable society, I wholly agree. But I can’t get past two problems.
One, I don’t want to see ANYBODY tinkering with the constitution, even if the initial outcome is “Good”. That just opens it up for the next bunch, and they might not want something as benign. And say what you will, the constitution directly addresses firearms ownership, just as it does speech, search and seizure and the press.
Secondly, I’d LOVE to live in an unarmed, non-violent society. I’ve seen enough violence to last me til I’m done. Gun violence and casual killing are WAY outta hand, and we ARE going to have to do something. But I have to live in the world I live in. I live in a world awash with guns, where crazies and thugs and addicts and the just plain mean and stupid are armed. Whatever you believe my guns contribute to my personal well being, I’m not prepared to unilaterally disarm in this world…
mikey
I believe strongly in the doctrine of “original intent.” Mr. Cho should have been allowed to buy as many flintlock firearms as his heart desired.
Yer first point is a good one, mikey, and part of why I don’t call for an outright ban on personal ownership of firearms. (Also because I recognize the necessity of hunting in places, and I don’t want to criminalize otherwise law abiding people or cause tons of shootouts as weapons are rounded up.) Personally, I’d like a nationwide ban on new handgun permits, and major incentives for people to give up their pre-existing licenses and weapons. But I ain’t holding my breath.
My answer is to fuck with the gun dealers and manufacturers. They’re the ones responsible, they’re the ones who should really bear the costs of adjustment.
As for your second point, what works for you works for you. But here, in nyc, there was a time when everyone was packing, and it didn’t make things any safer. Most people don’t have your familiarity or training with weapons, mikey.
To echo Duros62 quoting Chris Rock, I think prohibitively expensive bullets should be a genuine reality, no joke. Ammo is way too cheap.
“Isn’t Krauthammer a psychiatrist?”
Hannibal Lector is alive and well, although he has to use a wheelchair.
“Also, handguns are pretty crappy for self-defense: http://www.vpc.org/studies/unincont.htm”
Sorry, the VPC have proven themselves to be rather biased, iow they suck ass.
A curious thing that I’ve noticed is that most of the people Iv’e met who own guns – are absolutely convinced that they need ’em for personal protection.
Yet, they are more frightened of crime than the people I know who aren’t packing.
Now, did they decide to carry guns after they were crime victims? That’s one possible explanation.
One guy got mugged, and guess what, the mugger stole the gun he was carrying. The thing is, in order for a gun to protect you from someone with a gun, you have to draw first. So, what do you do, walk around, ready to draw at a moment’s notice? That doesn’t sound like a good way to live to me.
I think prohibitively expensive bullets should be a genuine reality, no joke. Ammo is way too cheap.
My sister and Bro in law have a funny riff on this. They insist that after things go to hell in a bucket and society has collapsed, they are gonna set up a little trading post in a bunker. They’re only going to sell two products. Ammunition and cigarettes. They figure these will be the high demand consumables in a post apocalyptic america.
Like so much, it’s funny ’cause there’s hard truth in it…
mikey
Can i say nigger ?
just checking …
I think the central theme in this is missed when the question becomes “Why should I let you carry a gun? I should just trust you?”
Yep. I’m a citizen, and a taxpayer, and not a violent felon. That means, by my notes, that you get to say zip squat about the items I purchase and use. Now, if I am diagnosed with a mental illness, well, that means my personal judgment may be flawed. While I shouldn’t be arbitrarily locked away, I shouldn’t have access to weapons. Same for a violent felon. Having proven I lack the discipline to carry a weapon, I should lose the privilege.
It’s the difference between assuming that someone who wants a gun is dangerous and likely to go berserk, and assuming that I’m a law abiding, responsible citizen. A difference that informs far too much of our legal system these days.
re the update, I don’ t know about the US but conservative Canuckistanian governments privatized mental health care, i.e. closed down many psychiatric hospitals and shoved mentally ill people onto the streets to fend for themselves.
Thankfully, Canada is (relatively) gun-free, gun-controlled, gun-sane. There are few gun incidents and most of them are the criminal element (gangs, mafia) shooting each other. Go for it, goodfellas.
Even though Vancouver has the highest property crime rates in the country (because the drug addicts are out of control), nobody thinks of running out and buying a gun. Besides, you can’t just shoot someone (who breaks in), claim self-defense and get away with it.
Lesley, our government in Australia did essentially the same thing. Welcome to the compassionless society.
I think that, as a general rule, people should be allowed to carry weapons for their own self-defense.
Defense from what, exactly? From people with guns?
In Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore compared Windsor, Ontario with Detroit, Michigan – the two cities may be a stone’s throw from each other, but they are world’s apart when it comes to guns and homicides.
Keeping in mind that Windsor’s population is around 200,000 and Detroit’s is 1.5 million (not counting the suburbs)….
In 1999, Detroit had 337 homicides committed with firearms vs. 1 in Windsor. According to the Windsor police dept, Windsor had 4 homicides in 1999, 7 in 2000, 3 in 2001, 5 in 2002, 7 in 2003, 4 in 2005, 5 in 2005, and 3 in 2006. Beyond 1999, there’s no indication how many of these were caused by guns.
Gun deaths in Canada have declined, according to Statistics Canada, and are far fewer per capita than in the US.
oops forgot the tag. sorry.
To beat the dead horse a little longer, here’s more:
In the New York Times today, at the end of their story, we find this:
Representative Carolyn McCarthy, Democrat of New York, has been pushing a bill to require states to automate their criminal history records so computer databases used to conduct background checks on gun buyers are more complete.
The bill would also require states to submit their mental health records to their background check systems and give them money to allow them to do so.
According to gun control advocates, the mental health information currently submitted to the national check system is often spotty and incomplete, something Ms. McCarthy’s bill is designed to address.
Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan and a former member of the National Rifle Association’s board of directors, is co-sponsoring the bill, which has twice passed the House only to stall in the Senate. Congressional aides say Mr. Dingell is negotiating with pro-gun groups to come up with language acceptable to them.
“The N.R.A. doesn’t have objections,� Mr. Dingell said in an interview. “There are other gun organizations on this that are problems.�
So here’s our assignment: WHO are these organizations? Are they willing to justify their opinions in public after the week’s events? And should the Senate be listening to them?
[…] the recent round of appalling commentary on the VT shootings demonstrates, our big media outlets are in dire need of […]