Democrats are characterized by the statements of a Canadian blogger, a German TV network, and a Yale administrator?

As a liberal that solidly supports the Second Amendment, I can proudly say that gun control is dead as a significant issue in American politics. Gun control is simply unpopular among Democrats. For a much more reliable characterization of Democrats' position on gun control, just look at the positions of all the Democrats elected last fall (as this blog loves to do).

Gar Wood

Guns were already illegal at VT. If a judge had not let Cho off the hook, his name would have been in the "no buy" registry. The law already covered this.

A liberal court decision and the ignoring of the existing law brought those guns on campus.

Now just last year, a legal Concealed Carry permit holder was disciplined for having a pistol on campus. Imagine how much better it would have been if one or two students could have shot Cho before he did the bulk of the damage. Gun laws do not stop violence. In fact, they increase it.

U.S. and Mexican law enforcement officials estimate that as much as 95 percent of the illegal guns in Mexico can be traced back to the United States.

As a supporter of the 2nd amendment, and a member of the NRA, I obviously do not believe in a gun ban. Even if there was a push to ban guns, I seriously doubt it could actually be enforced, there are too many guns already out in circulation, and there are too many passionante people out there that would oppose such a ban. I am not a crazy right-winger that believes everyone should be armed to the teeth. I actually think that there needs to be a compromise with this issue. Some people just aren't responsible enough to handle guns. We all know that. I dont like the idea of gun laws being different from state-to-state either. I believe in a set of regulations that will help make it harder for criminals to legally obtain weapons.

Cho was labelled a threat to himself and others by a judge, and was able to legally buy guns. He then used those guns to kill a bunch of people.

Yeah, I don't see how there's any need for change there. The problem is obviously that there weren't enough guns in the equation, not that a nut had guns. I blame liberalism, violent tv, hip hop, lack of school prayer and the ACLU. Maybe the individual, but mostly other stuff.

This blog has surpassed jesus general as the best satire out there.

The voters of Virginia authorized Cho to legally purchase a handgun, and I'm sure no liberal/lefty will change many minds in Virginia, so relax.

Guns are here to stay in America, sadly. Why "sadly"? Because many innocent people get killed by them. If there were far fewer guns in the U.S., far fewer people would be killed by them. (If we think it is so easy to sneak guns across the border, let's look at the border situation. I don't think we can blame the gun situation on illegal immigrants, convenient as that would be.

The notion that guns don't cause violence -- guns actually prevent violence, because a lawful gun-owner will save the day -- is a preposterous and childish video game fantasy. Who hasn't fantasized about whipping out a piece and blowing away the Va. Tech sicko before he could end all those innocent lives? But in practical terms it usually doesn't work that way. Proper use of handguns in pressure situations, to protect and wound or kill selectively, not to kill everyone in the room, requires a great deal of training, not just three hundred dollars, no felony convictions, and a box of ammo.

Another brief note on why guns are here to stay and are a part of the American way: Say I have a gun. That makes me feel better and feel more safe, but it should make everyone else feel less safe. Why? Because you don't know me, and I have a gun. I might get drunk, or whatever, I may be untrustworthy though I have no criminal record.

But the US is about maximizing individual rights, which is what a lot of us love about it, and this means I can have a gun. Europe or more socialistic societies are more concerned with maximizing the rights of the populace as a whole, which means I can't have a gun. Therefore the US will always have hundreds of millions of guns as we do now, and might not abridging that right lead to other abridgements of individual liberties?

You're right, thats why certain states require class's on proper handling and reloading of weapons. "The notion that guns don't cause violence -- guns actually prevent violence, because a lawful gun-owner will save the day -- is a preposterous and childish video game fantasy."
-I have to disagree with this statement, there are many documented cases of where such events have taken place, and many times the criminal was stopped after his first shot; some instances, before. Are these documented cases prepstorous and childish video game fantasy?

-Are you a gun owner? If so, why. If not, why not?
-You guys still using the "People dont kill people, guns kill people mentality?"

"Since as many as 400,000 people a year use guns in situations where the defenders claim that they "almost certainly" saved a life by doing so, this result cannot be dismissed as trivial. If even one-tenth of these people are accurate in their stated perceptions, the number of lives saved by victim use of guns would still exceed the total number of lives taken with guns."

--Northwestern University School of Law, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995

Here's a little something else to think about. A democratic majority in congress produces a law that helps law enforcement and a republican led one helps a psychopath:
"Law enforcement scored a minor victory in the firepower contest with the 1994 law restricting assault weapons. Among other provisions, it prohibited the sale to civilians of newly manufactured high-capacity magazine clips, those holding more than 10 rounds. (It didn't actually ban using them, just buying new ones.) This was meant to give police officers, who were not covered by the ban, "a tactical edge over potential assailants," according to John Shanks, a former cop now with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. But Congress evened things up by allowing the law to expire in 2004. Cho reportedly purchased several 15-round clips for his Glock."

While I agree that the gun itself does not "cause" the violence, guns do propel the severity of the violence committed. While not having guns wouldn't necessarily reduce the amount of general violence committed, it would reduce the number of lives lost and reduce medical costs involving gun related injuries. It takes quite a bit more effort to kill someone, say just with one's fists, rather than going to your local gun shop, buying a pistol and shooting someone.

Morris: I can quote statistics too.

"American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States."

"American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined."

Both quotes from the Centers for Disease Control (cdc.gov) 1997.

Zachster: If you disagree with my statement, then you think more guns equals less gun violence? Sure, there are documented cases of lawful gun owners preventing crime. But would you honestly feel safer if everyone on the street, everyone in the neighborhood bar, was carrying a concealed loaded weapon? I understand that carrying a gun can make someone feel safer personally. But it is also true that this should make everyone else feel less safe, especially as screening processes are only human.

Are you asking if I am a gun owner? I am an ex-gun owner. I bought a Glock in new Mexico in 1999. It took about 45 minutes and a phone call, and the guy took me out back to let me shoot at some bottles to get a feel for it.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. (Technically it's the bullet that kills, not the gun or the person.) But how about people with guns kill people. For some reason we Americans think we're still living in the Wild West. It does make us tough but it is my opinion that this Wild West attitude exposes our children (who are, by even the most "gun-friendly" laws, required to be unarmed) to needless death and violence. or do we want to arm our children too?

"Morris: I can quote statistics too."

Yes, but can you analyze them? You throw out the most blatantly emotionally driven statistic, then don't think about it. For instance, how did it happen that you simply looked only for the worst case statistics, when after 1994 deaths from guns have decreased significantly (both from your CDC source):

"Firearm deaths for children and teens dropped significantly between 1997 and 1998 according to a new mortality report released today by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The report shows 3,792 children and adolescents under age 20 died in 1998 from firearms, down 10 percent from 4,223 in 1997, and down 35 percent from the high of 5,833 in 1994."

"A total of 28,663 people died from firearms in 2000. Among those aged 19 and under, the number of firearm deaths decreased by more than 10 percent compared with 1999."

Further, I think it's quite unlike a multi culty liberal to ignore the way culture plays into this (also from your CDC source):
"Among leading causes of death, the largest race differential was for homicide, which was nearly 6 times higher for African Americans than for the white population."

That is, the statistics you mention happened during a specific time in which on the heels of the emergence of NWA and other gangsta rap music, black youths responded to the message of that music. "Life ain't nothin' but bitches and money." Gangs and violence were glamourized, and MTV and others portrayed this hard knock life as more relevant than the white man's world of getting an education or going to church to worship the master's God. If you want to look at the causes for the increase in gun crimes among children, look at what liberalism has done.

"I understand that carrying a gun can make someone feel safer personally. But it is also true that this should make everyone else feel less safe, especially as screening processes are only human."

Yeno,
Who do you think you are to tell everyone else how they should feel? The fact is, fear is not always a bad thing. That is, if I'm afraid to infringe on my neighbor's rights because he has a gun too, isn't that a good thin? Should nothing be so sacred as to inspire fear? I would think a liberal might like the idea that government would be afraid to trample a person's liberties, even if that fear is motivated by a firearm.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people. (Technically it's the bullet that kills, not the gun or the person.) But how about people with guns kill people. For some reason we Americans think we're still living in the Wild West."

Technically it's loss of blood or disrupted physical systems or sepsis that kills people, but that's just a distraction. I find your ignorance of history quite amazing. There were actually wars before guns existed, many of them. And if we're banning things that kill people, how about banning the mud that killed thousands at Agincourt:

"In the end, almost 6,000 French lay dead, while the English lost only 400. And even though the battle of Agincourt has become the stuff of legend, many historians now agree that it wasn't the longbow, English resolve, or French blunders which brought Henry victory - but simple mud. For more French died from asphyxiation as they sank deep into the mud than from English weapons."

How did Genghis Khan kill millions in China, cutting their population down from 120 million to 60 million in a century? Did it take guns for Chin Shi Wong to bury alive scholars who questioned his decisions? Or was it more mud?

Morris:

We cannot blame culture (i.e. gangster rap) for gun deaths. Video games did not cause Columbine. (Bad parenting, maybe.) What is the point of your first post? That firearms deaths decreased since the time of my quote? Your quote was from before that! What is the reason for the decrease in deaths? Are you trying to say it is increased gun ownership preventing all this violence? If so that is not clear. You are quoting figures and not making any point.

As to your second post, I'm not telling anyone how to feel. I said, I can understand if having a gun makes someone feel safer. But my having a gun makes you less safe. Why? Because now I have the ability to shoot you and before, unarmed, I didn't. Doesn't that make you less safe? I'm not trying to tell anyone how to feel. I have no problem with people feeling fear. But is this a desirable thing for our society? The whole Amber alert thing was designed to make us live in fear. I would prefer there weren't 280 million guns in this country. But guess what, there are, so I live with it. But that fear doesn't make me act any differently (nor does fear of terrorism. But it doesn't mean I have to be happy about guns in the hands of possible sickos or dirty bombs or whatever.)

As for "my ignorance of history" that you find so amazing, as if I had no idea people died violently before guns were invented, try me and see how ignorant I am.

Of course there were wars before guns. There are many creative ways to kill people. Guns just make it easier for people without combat skills to kill large numbers of people with minimal effort. And guess what, there were laws against walking around unrestricted with swords and knives in civilized societies too. So again I don't really see your point, except that you felt like throwing out a name and reciting some names and numbers of long-ago battles that have very little to do with what we're talking about.

Posted by: Kahn at April 23, 2007 09:26 AM

Excellent post, Kahn!

"As to your second post, I'm not telling anyone how to feel....I'm not trying to tell anyone how to feel."

Look, you may not like that you're called out for it, but when you say, "...this should make everyone feel less safe...," you are, in fact, telling them how to feel, that being less safe, that being scared. The trouble is, that isn't very open minded, or as you might say, liberal. To say that one circumstance implies a single, exclusive feeling is reductionist.

For instance, when I was growing up and saw fighters and 52's flying across the sky, I felt fear because it reminded me of the threat from the Soviet Union. Later in my life, I sensed the power and beauty of these planes, the achievement that allows these multi-ton vehicles to rumble and roll across the clouds. Since 9/11, I feel safer when I see a fighter or a 52, because I know the real threat is what they exist to prevent, the real threat is that problem to which they are a solution.

And it's the same thing with guns. Yes, they are a source of power. But I would rather see that power in the hands of people interested in living peacefully with their neighbors than in the hands of those willing to engage in violence to bring others down or to lift themselves up. There really are people who carry guns just to protect themselves and those around them. And there really are people who carry guns to rob, torture, and kill, and who would enjoy every minute of that. The ones interested in hurting others will find a way, look at the typical abusive spouse or abusive parent who inflict great damage and torment often without lifting a hand.

"I have no problem with people feeling fear. But is this a desirable thing for our society? The whole Amber alert thing was designed to make us live in fear."

Yes, but fear is informative. I may not like looking in my rear view mirror every time I'm stopped at a red light to see if the person driving their high rider pays attention to something besides their cell phone call, but I like it more than I like getting hit. I may not enjoy looking around me while walking downtown to see if someone with no interest in working on their own mental health problem is about to become my problem, but it's better than the alternative.

The Amber alerts I would guess remind you that there is the occasional unbalanced person, and if those people didn't exist, neither would the Amber alerts. At some point, isn't the possibility of saving a child worth a little fear? I might remind you that Polly Klaas, Elizabeth Shoaf and Elizabeth Smart were kidnapped with a knife, not a gun, and Samantha Runnion was abducted with no weapon at all.

"We cannot blame culture (i.e. gangster rap) for gun deaths."

Where's your evidence? In 1987, homicide rates for African American teenagers went through the roof. What else was happening around that time (from wiki article on gangsta rap)?

"In 1987, Los Angeles based rapper Ice-T released "6 n the Mornin", which is often regarded as the first gangsta rap song. Ice-T had been MCing since the early '80s; his first song, "The Coldest Rap", was the first hiphop song to use the words ho and nigga, and included references to guns and pimping."

"N.W.A. released their first single in 1986. They were crucial to the foundations of the genre for introducing more violent lyrics over much rougher beats. The first blockbuster gangsta album was N.W.A.'s Straight Outta Compton first released in 1988."

"The Beastie Boys, while never truly credited as gangsta rappers, were actually one of the first groups to identify themselves as "gangsters" on their acclaimed and commercially successful 1986 debut album, Licensed to Ill. They were also one of the first popular rap groups to talk about violence, drug and alcohol use, and themes common in gangsta rap today. According to "Rolling Stone" magazine, 'Licensed to Ill is filled with enough references to guns, drugs, and empty sex (including the pornographic deployment of a Whiffle-ball bat in "Paul Revere") to qualify as a gangsta-rap cornerstone.'"

"Boogie Down Productions released their first single, "Say No Brother (Crack Attack Don't Do It)", in 1986. It was followed by "South-Bronx/P is Free" and "9mm Goes Bang" in the same year. The latter is the most gangsta-themed song of the three; in it KRS-1 describes shooting rival weed-dealers after they try to kill him in his home.[4] The album Criminal Minded followed in 1987. Shortly after the release of the album, BDP's DJ Scott LaRock was shot and killed."

It is not the guns themselves that caused the surge in violence, the sky didn't open and shower down guns in 1987. What did happen was the music to which many fatherless black youths looked to provide them an image of what a man is supposed to be let them down. This cultural imagery fed into their psyches, influencing their willingness to use guns violently, to protect their drug territory or as a way of gaining respect. I think the point on which we both agree is that using a gun is a piss poor way to get that.

In 1987, homicide rates for African American teenagers went through the roof. What else was happening around that time?

The crack epidemic, genius. Think that might've had a little something to do with it? Perhaps moreso than music? Try to use the ol' grey matter once in a while, will you?