Friday February 17, 2012

Guns still easy to get one year after Virginia Tech massacre

WASHINGTON —

One year after the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history, guns are as easy to find here as ever and Americans seem to like it that way.

Gun control advocates say the failure of lawmakers to pass tough legislation in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre is a sign of the American gun lobby’s power in shaping laws and public opinion.

But gun rights groups say their actions simply mirror public sentiment that tighter gun laws do not prevent mass shootings like last April’s, when mentally disturbed student Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people at the university before turning his gun on himself.

In fact, a Gallup poll in October 2007 found that 38% favor new gun control laws, the lowest level since 2002.

“I think people understand in real life that no matter how many gun control laws you pass, somebody is going to break the new law anyway,” said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens’ Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms lobby group.

“There is no such thing as a good gun or a bad gun. There is such a thing as a good person or a bad person who has a gun in hand,” said Gottlieb, who is also one of the estimated four million members of the National Rifle Association (NRA).

Some states, including Virginia, have tightened background check restrictions to close loopholes such as the one that allowed Cho to purchase firearms even though he been ordered to seek psychiatric treatment.

But others, such as Florida, have gone the opposite way. Lawmakers in the southern state this week passed a “take-your-gun-to-work” measure that would allow employees to stash guns in their cars on company property, except at prisons, schools, and nuclear power plants.

“At the same time that we are trying to move forward, the gun lobby is still very strongly pushing their guns-everywhere-and-anywhere campaign,” said Daniel Vice, senior attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

“Guns at school, work and in public—that easy access threatens to further increase gun crime.”

One piece of federal gun legislation was enacted this year, the first nationwide gun control law to pass in 14 years. It united longtime foes the NRA and the Brady Center, who each supported the initiative.

The law aims to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the main way gun purchases are monitored in America, by authorizing federal funding to states so they can improve their databases.

But critics said the attempt to win a political victory ended up falling short of its initial aim because it also included a series of elements aimed at restoring gun-owners’ rights.

“The NRA saw it as an opportunity to hijack it and load it with pro-gun provisions and we believe it reached a tipping point where it would do more harm than good,” said Kristen Rand, legislative director at the Violence Policy Institute.

“The problem is that there is this tendency after a major shooting to focus on the specifics of that shooting,” said Rand. “For the most part the bigger picture gets lost while most people want to try to change a little detail that is never going to reoccur.”

Indeed, an MSN-Zogby poll taken days after the Virginia Tech shooting found that 69% of respondents viewed the massacre as “the actions of a deranged man determined to inflict mayhem and could not have been prevented.”

Fifty-nine percent did not believe stricter guns laws would help prevent future shootings.

“In the vast majority of states, you walk into a gun store, you submit to the background check which takes five minutes—and there is no background check for the magazines—and you can buy as many as you want,” said Rand.

AFP

  • 0

    Badsey

    VT really wasn't about guns, but about a young man that had issues. Hopefully VT and its' students have changed somewhat and are taking mental issues more seriously.

    Teachers and his peers should have done more instead of turning their backs = this incident really reflects badly on the school.

    Guns/violence at schools seems to be only getting worse though.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    I think people understand in real life that no matter how many gun control laws you pass, somebody is going to break the new law anyway.

    And I think people understand in real life that no matter how many laws you pass criminalizing rape and murder, somebody is going to break the law anyway. That somebody is going to break a law is no reason not to make it.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    People here know where I stand on guns, and they also know where I stand on putting editorials in as news stories...

  • 0

    frontandcentre

    Badsey - I'd prefer to have seen this pathetic loser try and kill 32 people with his bare hands rather than with assault weapons, which are unnecessary in any civilised society

  • 0

    SezWho2

    SuperLib,

    If you are saying that this is an editorial, could you bottom-line the editor's opinion for us?

  • 0

    Hughgarse

    tighter gun laws do not prevent mass shootings

    the kind of nonsense these pro-gun people speak is mind-blowing.

  • 0

    frontandcentre

    Superlib - please learn what an editorial is. As a start it is NOT the same thing as a news story the facts of which you would prefer others not to read. The news item above seems to cover 2 fairly opposing points of view with a reasonable balance. And over all, do you dispute that it's perfectly reasonable to address the availability of firearms after legally-acquired weapons were used for one of the worst acts of mass murder in America's history? If you do, then you prefer lethal weapons over the lives of 32 innocent people - which makes you little different from Cho, in my book

  • 0

    skipthesong

    the kind of nonsense these pro-gun people speak is mind-blowing." You call it nonsense, but I think it is more ridiculous to take away people's form of protection while doing nothing about the reasons people even take up arms. In the past 16 years since my dad was killed, and he was very anti-gun, I have seen politicians racing to do away with a death penalty - that doesn't help crime, I have seen the government place more education in schools and setting up no drugs policies - again has done nothing for crime, I have seen jail sentences reduced for young killers/gang members because they are young and NEED a second chance again nothing for crime.

    So, for those of you who are so adamant about getting rid of guns, why don't you first put the same amount of energy into reducing crime and then get rid of guns.. and before any of you come back and say "guns are the problem" please do a stat run on countries such a England, Spain, Brazil, and Mexico who have very strict gun control but yet have just as high a rate as does the US (considering).

  • 0

    jambon

    Fifty-nine percent did not believe stricter guns laws would help prevent future shootings.

    Statistically, shooters absolutely love a "gun free zone" like on a campus, a shopping mall, etc. The VT incident probably either would have not happened or would not have been as deadly with some students authorized concealed carry.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    "NOT the same thing as a news story the facts of which you would prefer others not to read. "

    I'm extremely anti-gun.

    What I don't like are "news stories" printing half-truths and people such as yourself rushing in to eat it up.

    From the article:

    "guns are as easy to find here as ever"

    No support for this claim whatsoever. In fact, they mention one law that went on the books to make gun access more difficult as a DIRECT RESULT of the shooting. Then they list an increase in the accuracy of the database which would fall under the category of strengthening existing laws.

    The writer counters this by saying, "But others, such as Florida, have gone the opposite way." The law he's talking about it one that allows gun owners to carry their guns in their cars which obviously has nothing at all to do with people's ability to purchase said weapon on the first place.

    It's a classic AFP mix & match.

    Other information: The Gallup Poll. The writer takes one slice of information from a comprehensive study and prints it:

    "In fact, a Gallup poll in October 2007 found that 38% favor new gun control laws, the lowest level since 2002."

    What the writer doesn't tell you is that the actual question had two choices, one which asks if you'd rather see current laws more strictly enforced, and another which asks if you feel new laws are needed. Here's how the numbers played out in the two most recent polls:

    2007:

    Pass new laws, 38% Enforce current laws more strictly: 58%

    2006:

    Pass new laws, 43% Enforce current laws more strictly: 53%

    I suppose you'd be OK with an article ONLY mentioning that Americans have increased their desire to see current laws enforced more strictly? Gee, guns must be facing their most difficult challenge ever, eh? Let's write a "news story" with that message!

    front are you still going to sit there and tell me, "The news item above seems to cover 2 fairly opposing points of view with a reasonable balance. "

    That AFP has a history of doing this. They take a hot topic, give select statistics, throw in some quotes from people to match the biased statistics that they just printed, then put a nice cheery on top. Today's cherry is telling us that guns are easier to get now more than ever and that's the way Americans want it.

    It's gutter journalism at best. I'll withdraw my claim of editorialism and switch it to just plain bias and misrepresentation. Enjoy your free dinner.

  • 0

    frontandcentre

    Today's cherry is telling us that guns are easier to get now more than ever and that's the way Americans want it.

    That's the conclusion I would draw from your commentary as well, funnily enough. Plus, if the poll was a straight choice, it would seem rather unfair not to be able to answer 'both', and a wish for respondents to see new laws passed could just as easily be a wish for laws further liberalising gun ownership rather than making firearms harder to acquire.

    Still, the selective use of facts seems to be a method employed to argue both sides of this. The fact remains that Cho acquired guns and murdered 32 people. No editorial writer made THAT up, unfortunately. It seems perfectly illogical to support laws that make such events more likely in the name of some misunderstood, outmoded and thoroughly abused constitution 'freedom' that has no relevance today.

    Ban ammunition sales, perhaps?

  • 0

    jambon

    “We need safer bullets” - Jocelyn Elders

  • 0

    rtrhead1

    He wouldn't have had the guns if someone was doing there job. Didn't he have some well documented mental problems that were labelled as possibly violent? He was a nut, no one care, look what happened. I myself would like to own a gun. I enjoy going to the range and shooting. It is very relaxing to go to a range, put a paper (or can, or bottle, or other in animate object) and just shoot it. I would like having one in the house knowing that if someone were to break into my house (which happens every country, every day) I would have the means to protect my family with something other than my bare hands. So you know what? Those of you who are anti-gun for whatever reason, I hope no one is counting on you to defend them should the need arise, because they will be sorely disappointed.

  • 0

    skipthesong

    Didn't he have some well documented mental problems that were labelled as possibly violent?" Saying that and preventing him from studying there would be considered discrimination.

    To the people who think guns are easier to find, I can say this, when I first moved to NYC, guns were easy to get provided if you had no criminal record . Now, you can't buy a gun in NY. Several other states too have had guns prohibited.

    Lastly, if any of you think had this guy not purchased a gun legally, what is your proof he wouldn't have gotten one illegally? YOu can do that in Japan.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    front I am all for a 100% complete ban on all guns in the United States. I always have and I always will. I think I've stated the same on just about every shooting or gun related thread that JT can find and print.

    It's a very serious topic, so I take exception to a French organization distorting the facts to create a "sexier" mental masturbation piece for anti-Americans to salivate over. It's just so obvious that this is for-profit journalism.

  • 0

    skipthesong

    super lib: I am on the same page as you. I could careless if guns were banned tomorrow as long as I seen much more effort at reducing crime than I do now.

  • 0

    Betzee

    It's just so obvious that this is for-profit journalism.

    You would prefer state-censored a la Pravda?

    As for the contention that Americans want existing laws better enforced simply demonsrates how little respondents thought things through. (Plus the question is poorly phrased, like who's going to answer "I don't want existing laws better enforced"? It's what is known as a "leading question.")

    Bottom line: you can't arrest people for crimes they might commit. Cho made two legal gun purchases and the police were supposed to know this individual they'd had no prior contact with was going to commit a massacre?

    I'm not surprised the American public has backed away from gun control. There have been so many shootings the news of another one simply elicits weary resignation rather than outrage. This was not the case as recently as the 1980s.

  • 0

    rtrhead1

    I'm not saying that he shouldn't have studied there. What I am saying is that he had a history of mental problems that BY LAW PRECLUDED HIM FROM OWNING A GUN! The ones who sold them to him didn't care to do their jobs and enforce the law. I don't care where he studies. That's his right.

    As for those who want a complete ban, go live somewhere else. Don't you dare tell me what I can, and cannot do. You want to have a gun free society, go live in Japan (assuming you're not already here), or most any other Asian country that outlaws firearms. If you don't like that America allows people to LEGALLY own guns, stay out of my country. Just don't push YOUR beliefs on the rest of us law abiding folk.

  • 0

    Betzee

    rtrhead1, Some have identified the problem as being "The Americans with Disabilities Act" which makes it difficult for public universities to expel students suffering from obvious mental illness. Far from being indifferent, several faculty did go far beyond the call of duty in trying to help this very troubled young man. But he was far beyond the point where "tea and sympathy" would change his highly conspiratorial view of the world.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    SuperLib,

    In your response to frontandcentre I don't see your version of a bottom-line statement characteristic of an editorial. That should be fairly easy to do. It would start like this: the news editors are saying that (insert comment here) and that (insert agent here) should (insert action here). That would be an editorial as I understand them. Your comments tend more to point to sloppy reporting than to editorializing.

    But let's look at your comments. It is true that the statement that guns are as easily available here as ever was offered without support. For that there are some possible explanations which do not involve ulterior motives. For example:

    (a) people who live wherever "here" is accept that statement to be true. When we comment that Americans like apple pie, we do not tend to give supporting data; or

    (b) the data actually show that in some places, possibly even in the DC area, there is a diminution of availability presumably due to a tightening of controls. (As always, however, we have to remember that a tightening of controls does not in itself guarantee results.) However that diminution may be so slight that it cannot be judged to be statistically significant and that it is even insignificant when those places are considered in aggregate with other places. This also touches on your comment about mixing and matching.

    As for the Gallup poll results, statistics always have to be interpreted. It doesn't strike me as particularly telling that more people favored stricter enforcement in 2007 than in 2006. Even when you add that in to the mix, the result still seems to support the power of the pro-gun lobby and the NRA, which I think was the point. It seems to me that the pro-gun lobby is resistant to new legislation and is busy selling the notion that what is needed is more guns but with stricter control.

    The article may be sloppy and badly written but I don't see it as being unfair and it is certainly not an editorial.

  • 0

    Badsey

    NYC: you can own a handgun if you get the permit, but the permit is almost impossible for the average person to get. = only politicians or celebrities get handguns in NYC.

    This guy passed the background check.

  • 0

    redacted

    "...statistics always have to be interpreted."

    Statistics on gun violence in America are never interpreted, the Left has seen to that. To do so is to be denounced as "racist."

  • 0

    SezWho2

    redacted,

    Statistics on gun violence are frequently interpreted. Interpretation of statistics may change according to whether one is on the "left" or on the "right"--whatever those terms may mean. But there is scant, if any, connection between racism and the interpretation of gun violence statistics.

    You seem to be more interested in taking gratuitous swipes at your mythical bogeyman, "the Left", than you are in saying anything of value.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    "The article may be sloppy and badly written"

    Agreed.

    "I don't see it as being unfair"

    I do, and I'm not too concerned if you don't agree.

    "it is certainly not an editorial."

    I said that I withdrew my claim of it being an editorial in a previous post.

  • 0

    SezWho2

    SuperLib,

    Attaboy. And I'm not too concerned if you're not too concerned. I think this rather nicely frees us up to blather our individual opinions without being very concerned about analysis.

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

More in World

View all

View all