• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

When mass killers meet armed resistance.

FascistLibertarian 

You cannot compare country to country, demographics differ too much. How about you compare the violent crime rate in the UK before and after the handgun ban.

From the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm

So even after an outright ban on handguns, handgun crime actually rose and by a considerable percentage. How did the ban help?

Time and time again, the anti-gun lobbyists point to differences between the countries, with no consideration whatsoever for the difference in demographics.

Also, why attack the pro-gun side? More people are killed in car accidents every year in both countries than by handgun shootings, maybe we should ban cars, or at least make it a ridiculously tedious  process to get a driver's licence, like it is to get a firearms licence.
 
Fred, the guy wasn't placed in a mental institution.  He was assessed as having mental problems.  In virginia, if he's been institutionalised he would not have been able to buy the guns he did.

A-Majoor brings up an awsome point about responsibility and self sufficience.  I like that approach.  In Canada that might actually work given the culture.  In the US...I don't know.

The point is that we have to look at this event and the factors that contributed to it.  I think Virginia's lax gun laws, the school administration's inexcusable actions after the first shooting and the will off the shooter himself are all to blame here.

The fact that this guy after being taken into police custody for fear of him commiting suicide couldn't be flagged as a risk, the fact that the school's security and response protocols sucked and the fact that psycho boy had the will and the plan, requires a review of Virginia's gun control laws and the school's policies.  To make a broad sweep of gun control as a whole is like shooting in the dark.  Pin point the problems and deal with them.  Gun control issues in the US are not necessarily the same ones in Canada due to culture, economic factors etc etc.  So to compare them all in one big cauldron isn't going to be very effective.
 
Crantor said:
Fred, the guy wasn't placed in a mental institution.  He was assessed as having mental problems.  In virginia, if he's been institutionalised he would not have been able to buy the guns he did.

The few media I've been paying attention to said he was temporarily placed in an institution and then released as being relatively okay.


The point is that we have to look at this event and the factors that contributed to it.  I think Virginia's lax gun laws, the school administration's inexcusable actions after the first shooting and the will off the shooter himself are all to blame here.

The fact that this guy after being taken into police custody for fear of him commiting suicide couldn't be flagged as a risk, the fact that the school's security and response protocols sucked and the fact that psycho boy had the will and the plan, requires a review of Virginia's gun control laws and the school's policies.

How were the school admin's actions "inexcusable"? Because they didn't close down the school and tell everyone to get away from there after what appeared to be a random murder? Should we close down whole areas in big cities when there's a murder?
 
Fred, Cho received a temporary dentention order by the district court.  He wasn't actually institutionalised.

As for the campus' actions after the first shooting, maybe I'm being a little hasty in my judgement as all the facts are not out.  However were talking about  a school campus not a big city.  And correct me if I'm wrong but when police respond to a 911 call in say a suburban neighbourhood and the shooting just happens, and the shooter is possibly still in the area do the police not cordon off the area, tell residents to stay indoors and conduct their search?  Also given that it was a shooting on a school campus would that not raise alarm bells? (asking, don't know).  Seems that 2hrs is a long time before warning students isn't it?  Again I'm sure an investigation will bring more facts to light.
 
It would almost seem prudent to start approving some well trained male or female students to carry firearms in a Concealed form. I believe the Israelis apply this tactic in numerous areas.

As a side note, why did LEO's not seal off the whole campus initially, are they completely inept?  >:(


 
ronnychoi said:
As a side note, why did LEO's not seal off the whole campus initially, are they completely inept?  >:(

http://www.rushprnews.com/press/archives/123401
Tragedy at Virginia Tech - Timeline of Events

What evidence, in your opinion, do you think this decision should have been based on?  How could they have expected the gunman to attack elsewhere on campus after the first incident?

http://www.vt.edu/about/
#  25,000+ full-time students
# Main campus includes more than 100 buildings, 2,600 acres, and an airport

When a murder happens in a town (or neighbourhood) of 25,000 people, is it normal for the town to be "sealed off"?

Where would the students have gone?  Back to their dorms, where he might have had a captive audience for his second attack anyway?
 
rz350 said:
But not in Canada! Imagine the horror if good, upstanding citizens who took a training course and had though back ground checks could carry a concealed hand gun! It would be mass chaos! </sarcasm>

I think it would be a good idea, and would reduce crime. I even wrote a letter to PM harper saying so. Maybe everyone who agrees should do the same.


A student was disciplined at Virginia Tech for carrying a legally registered concealed gun on campus.

Better they fill the place with bodies than allow a legally registered gun on campus,
::)

http://marginalizedactiondinosaur.net/?p=162

I wonder if any one from CNN will ask admin how they feel about that.  I'm guessing the MSM's don't hurry to interview the admin types about it.  Wonder if they are thinking about it at 3:00 in the morning.

Plus the students should have tried to jump him even withoput weapons better he gets 5 than shoots 50  I wonder how many rounds he fired to do that? 100? 

The hiding in lockdowns mentality doesn't work.
 
ronnychoi said:
As a side note, why did LEO's not seal off the whole campus initially, are they completely inept?  >:(

Tread carefully young man................you weren't there or privy to the thoughts of those who were there at the time.
I grow weary of those who would armchair quarterback the local LEO's without knowing.
 
Arthur and Michael - your patience is commendable.  Just to be clear to the rest - I support right to carry laws, for responsible, trained adults.

Having said that and at the risk of adding fuel to the fire - rather than allowing 18 year olds to carry handguns to class maybe the school could consider shelling out some of the tuition fees on some more armed (and trained) guards.

Even a few more would probably result in reaction times at least equivalent to those where the respondents had to run back to their cars to retrieve their weapons then find the shooters.

As to sealing off the Campus and securing 25,000 people in a 2600 acre area - consider how much planning would go into such an exercise in Afghanistan and the resources necessary and available the armchair quarterbacks might want to reconsider the concept of competence.

 
a_majoor said:
In Switzerland, every able bodied male is required to have an assault rifle and 200 rounds in his home, yet there are very few recorded instances of gun crime in Switzerland.

Not quite exact with that statement.  Though Switzerland does have liberal gun ownership laws and a relatively low violent crime rate, they are not without incident or controversy.  However we are talking about the Swiss, not generally known for being wild and demonstrative.  The most recent random shooting (by an individual using his service rifle) occurred last week and brought back up the debate on gun availability. 

Gun debate sets sights on army ammo
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/detail/Gun_debate_sets_sights_on_army_ammo.html?siteSect=105&sid=7724489&cKey=1176835838000
swissinfo April 17, 2007 - 3:44 PM

A Senate committee has taken a first step towards banning the country's 120,000-strong militia army from storing ammunition at home.

It comes at a time of increased debate in Switzerland over the long-standing tradition of keeping army guns at home, and shock at the killing of more than 30 students in the United States' worst-ever shooting.

It also follows a fatal shooting last week in the northern city of Baden when a 26-year-old Swiss emptied the magazine of his military rifle inside a hotel restaurant, killing one man and injuring four others.

Speaking after Monday's 11-1 vote in favour of an ammunition ban, Hermann Bürgi, president of the Senate committee on security policy, denied that members had been influenced by recent events and media pressure.

The proposal, which will now be examined by the seven-strong cabinet and parliament, would allow for around 2,000 specialist troops, such as those guarding airports and other important installations, to keep ammunition at home. The government would also be able to lift the ban in the event of a security crisis.

Bürgi added that the vote should in no way be seen as a first step towards putting a bullet in the sacred Swiss cow of keeping army rifles and pistols at home. "The decision does not create a precedent," he said.

Willy Pfund, president of the country's gun lobby Pro Tell, said on Tuesday that society rather than the practice of keeping army weapons at home was to blame for gun violence.

He added that storing ammunition and guns in different places made no sense in terms of defending the country.

Nationwide vote

But on Tuesday pacifists and centre-left parties said they would push ahead with plans to force a nationwide vote to scrap the practice of keeping army guns at home.

They are due to decide on whether to launch a people's initiative on May 25. Beni Hirt, an official for the centre-left Social Democratic Party involved in the campaign, said the "ready availability of weapons" was a serious problem.

A Lausanne University study, published in December last year, revealed that army-issue weapons were involved in the deaths of more than 300 people every year.

Hirt said the Senate committee's decision was "a step in the right direction" but would have no influence on his campaign. He said all military weapons should be removed from Swiss homes and a national gun register introduced.

"Everyone knows that it is very easy to obtain ammunition from rifle ranges," he said. "It's just a question of not firing all the cartridges that you get and putting the rest in your pocket."

Tighter gun laws?

All able-bodied Swiss men aged 20-30 are conscripted for about three months and issued with a rifle.

After initial training, they are required to do three or four weeks of army service a year until they have served a total of 260 days or reached the age of 34. Throughout this time they keep their rifles and 50 rounds of ammunition at home.


Five years ago Switzerland was stunned when a gunman shot and killed 14 people in Zug's cantonal parliament with his army rifle, before turning the gun on himself.

Debate on the use of firearms was further fuelled in April last year when the husband of former women's ski champion Corinne Rey-Bellet killed his wife and her brother with his army pistol.

In June 2006 the Senate came out in favour of slightly stricter rules for purchasing and keeping firearms but a significant tightening of the law was not on the table.

At the end of March the House of Representatives rejected by 96 votes to 80 a proposal to tighten the gun law, including having a central arms register.

CONTEXT

In September 2006 the government said family tragedies and suicides were not valid reasons to stop soldiers from keeping their army weapons at home.

Swiss Defence Minister Samuel Schmid, a member of the rightwing Swiss People's Party, argues that Switzerland's militia army needs to be able to mobilise rapidly.

Among those demanding tighter gun laws are Amnesty International, the Swiss Peace Council, the Victims of Violence Forum, the Stop Suicide Association, Ipsilon (the Initiative for the Prevention of Suicide in Switzerland) and the Swiss Society of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy.

KEY FACTS

There are an estimated 1.6 to 2 million firearms in circulation in Switzerland.
About a third of all murder cases involve private guns and army weapons.
Army weapons were used in 68% of suicides, according to a recent study.
 
I cannot vouch for the quality of these statistics, but for what they are worth.  I have added the UK, with its stricter gun control regulations to the shown four stats in each case for comparison.

Murders (per capita) by country

#24 United States
#44 Canada
#46 United Kingdom
#56 Switzerland

Murders with firearms (per capita) by country

#8 United States
#19 Switzerland
#20 Canada
#32 United Kingdom



 
The New York Times

April 19, 2007

The Silence of Politicians
There are myriad questions from the evolving tragedy at Virginia Tech. One is how such a gravely disturbed student as this killer could raise heightened concern among the authorities over a year ago, yet manage to proceed unhindered to take 32 lives. But no less pertinent is the question of how, after detailed tracking of the guns purchased for the ghastly spree, the lethal empowerment of such a troubled individual can somehow be pronounced entirely legal under the laws of a civilized nation.

But it certainly seems legal.

The guns wielded by Cho Seung-Hui were traced through the laissez-faire weapons marts of Virginia and found to be legitimately obtained. So, case closed. At least according to most of the nation’s political leadership, so studiously ducking the morning-after question of whether anything serious can be done, or least proposed, about such an appalling situation. The victims at Virginia Tech represent a mere tenth of 1 percent of the 30,000 gunshot deaths each year.

Yet the implicit, hardly sorrow-free lesson for the nation is that beyond the usual calls for prayers and closure, there’s no sense these days for a politician, particularly one running for president, to get into the risky business of even talking about the runaway gun problem.

No one who tracked the last headline-consuming gun tragedies — the Columbine high school massacre and the Washington, D.C., sniper murders — can be surprised as political leaders slide off their obligation to propose answers, or at least candidly discuss the woeful status quo of gun violence.

After those two sprees, possible remedies were proposed. But none were passed as the gun lobby cracked its whip in Washington. The most that happened were delays in the passage of an egregious proposal, signed a safe time afterward by President Bush, that brazenly denied gunshot victims and plagued cities the right to sue the gun industry for negligence.

Politicians should at least have the guts to tell the nation that retrogression is the state of gun control in America. But Congress’s new Democratic majority is a study in caginess, its leaders obviously mindful of the warning — issued by Terry McAuliffe, the former party chairman who is now a principal in Senator Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign — to avoid the subject as a third-rail loser. The question in the ’08 campaign is whether major candidates will dare to speak of Virginia Tech as anything more than an occasion to express grief.

http://tinyurl.com/23fp5q




 
Michael O'Leary said:
I cannot vouch for the quality of these statistics, but for what they are worth.  I have added the UK, with its stricter gun control regulations to the shown four stats in each case for comparison.

Murders (per capita) by country

#24 United States
#44 Canada
#46 United Kingdom
#56 Switzerland

Murders with firearms (per capita) by country

#8 United States
#19 Switzerland
#20 Canada
#32 United Kingdom

In Canada in the last few years the rate has gone up I contend because of the registry, it let criminals know they had job security.
 
People having guns makes it more likely guns will be used.
Comparing guns to cars makes no sense, sure cars kill (i could be wrong here) 40,000 Americans yearly but they are not murders done with intent (wellk drunk driving should be called murders not "accidents").
If the US banned guns it would take a long time for the crime rate to drop, as they have a gun for almost every American, you would have to make the whole country a gun free zone and clear city blocks by sealing them off and searching while at the same time having many people with guns legally (doesnt really seem like it could work unless the US brought all their troops back and conducted the mother of all counter insurgencies).
The ease with which many people who shoot up the place are able to get guns makes me sick.......
 
Banning hand guns doesn't even work here. How would it work in the States?

The Virginia Tech incident is at the front of the issue now...

It seems to me that if the court he appeared in front of had of had the presence of mind to say "you are a potential menace to yourself and others.. so no guns for you. " things would have been different.

Isn't it often the case that persons convicted of violent crime or who are at risk to commit violence are banned from having weapons in this country? Isn't it almost routine now for magistrates in Canada to make such a ruling?

Why wouldn't the Americans follow suit?

I mean the right to bear arms for a sensible and stable person seems okay. For a time bomb ..mehhh.

The wider (public) debate seems to have devolved into polemic arguments. But hey, it sells newspapers....
 
FascistLibertarian said:
People having guns makes it more likely guns will be used.
Comparing guns to cars makes no sense, sure cars kill (i could be wrong here) 40,000 Americans yearly but they are not murders done with intent (wellk drunk driving should be called murders not "accidents").
If the US banned guns it would take a long time for the crime rate to drop, as they have a gun for almost every American, you would have to make the whole country a gun free zone and clear city blocks by sealing them off and searching while at the same time having many people with guns legally (doesnt really seem like it could work unless the US brought all their troops back and conducted the mother of all counter insurgencies).
The ease with which many people who shoot up the place are able to get guns makes me sick.......

England has very restrictive gun laws.  I could land at Gatwick, get to East London where I was raised, and probably acquire a fairly decent, clean arsenal within 24 hours, and that's including a night of pubbing with about 350 cousins.  Shooters will always find a way to get guns, legal or not.
 
FascistLibertarian

In one of your earlier posts you state that the ownership of firearms is dangerous and you quote various statistics and reports. You have to be careful about quoting statistics without putting them into context, especially when there are different factors that may affect the overall numbers. For instance, your first statement about the high number of homicides committed in the US by firearms, mainly handguns.1  Your statement is true, but here are some factors that throw these figures into a different context.

-First off, population. When quoting statistics like this, most people forget to mention that there are more than 300 million Americans living in the US.  This does not include millions of illegal aliens living there. That’s 10 times the population of Canada! Another example, up until fairly recently, that was more than the total population of the EU!  If you added all the murders in the EU, you would get a horrendous figure, maybe not as high as the US, but pretty high nonetheless.

- Who’s committing the murders? This going to be politically incorrect but young, black, males are the main victims (and offenders) of violent crime in the US 2.  From the report “From 1993 through 2001 blacks accounted for 49% of homicide victims and 54% of victims of firearm homicide but 12% of the U.S. population.” I’ve only had a chance to do a quick browse of the report but one other thing that I gleaned from the report is that most victims of firearm crimes in the US are black, young, male and from low incomes backgrounds. This report doesn’t mention impact the drug trade has on the murder rate, but I have read articles from other commentators (such as Mark Steyn) who states that a majority of young, black, males killed were involved in the drug trade and street gangs. So, for the ordinary US citizen your chances of being a victim of violent crime is low. Unfortunately, Stats Canada doesn’t provide a breakdown of crime stats based on income or ethnic background. However, from someone who reads the papers a lot I get the impression that the murder rate in Canada is spread out across all backgrounds and that he average Canadian has a more likely chance of being a crime victim than in the U.S.

- Actual murder rates. Here is where we get into the actual murder rates between Canada and the US. The murder rate in the US is 6.0 per 100,000, while in the rate in Canada is 2.0.3 So in other words, even though the number of murders in the US is way higher than Canada, the overall murder rate in the US is only three times higher than in Canada. One other thing that may be relevance; the murder rate in the US refers to those offenders that have been charged with a crime, not those who have actually been convicted. In Canada (and possibly other countries) the murder rate refers to those convicted of homicide. If this is the case than the actual murder rate may be lower in the US than actually reported.4

- In your report you mention Arthur Kellerman who wrote an article that states that those who own guns are more likely to be victims of gun violence. Since then, other commentators have taken Kellerman to task for using faulty statistics. For instance, Kellerman included a large number of  blacks as his study subjects. As I’ve stated above, there is higher rate of violence among blacks, which would skew his findings. These two reports5 6dissect Kellerman’s work and point out the some of the faulty logic that invalidates his findings.

- Finally, you make the following statement, “at no time did the crime rates become lower in the US than in countries which heavily restrict gun access.” I would suggest that you read the report produced by Mr Perkins where you will find this little gem: “From 1993 through 2001 the
number of murders declined 36% while the number of murders by firearms dropped 41%.” That's a much greater drop in the murder rate than in Canada!

Well, that all I have for now. Fortunately, I’ve been studying this kind of thing for a few years and while I’m in no way an expert, I know where to find the relevant info. Having said that, as I mentioned above, I’ve only did a quick study on the reports I listed - I just don’t have the time to sit down and read them in detail. The Cross-National Studies for instance is over 300 pages long. However, I think I’ve made my point. Constructive criticism is welcomed.  There are some other comments that I could make, but I have things to do, the sun is shining and there’s a Hefe Weissbier out there calling my name. I must go!

Footnotes:

1.  U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Weapons used the U.S. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm
2.  U.S. Department of Justice - Office of Justice Programs; Special Report. National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993-2001: Weapon Use and Violent Crime, By Craig Perkins. September 2003. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf
3.  U.S. Department of Justice - Office of Justice Programs;  Cross-National Studies in Crime and Justice.  http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cnscj.pdf This report looks at crime statistics between several different countries, including Canada, US, England and Wales and Australia. Note that the last year for the survey was 1999. The rate for the US is on P.82 and Canada on p.151. Numbers rounded off to the next highest for ease of use.
4.  I don’t have a source for this, but is something I remember reading somewhere in my travels around the internet.
5.  When Doctors Call for Gun Seizures, It's Grand Malpractice. Excerpted from STOPPING POWER: The Humanistic Case For Civilian Arms, by J. Neil Schulman (Synapse/Centurion Books, 1994) http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Schulman/doctors.html
6.  Comments on Kellerman -  Guns in the home. Some Methodological Problems in "Gun Ownership and Homicide in the Home - (Kellermann et. al., New England Journal of Medicine. Oct 7, 1993) by H. Taylor Buckner. Associate Professor of Sociology, Concordia University. http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kellerman-buckner.html. Besides these two reports, two other critiques (that I have not read) can be found here:  http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/read5.html
 
FascistLibertarian said:
The killer was a good upstanding citizen before he went on his rampage.
Besides the military/police/some security people no one should need a handgun or assult weapon.
If America disarmed their population their murder rate would go down.

Their murder rate has gone down by roughly 36% if I recall correctly, at the same time gun sales are way up and the states with the most liberal laws for CCW have the lowest rates. So your point is???????
By the way, the most people ever killed by a rampaging killer was 55 done by a policeman….
Fascist libertarian aren’t these term mutual exclusive?
 
The simple fact of the matter is that reflexive responses like "Ban all guns!" will have virtually zero effect on the behavior of criminals and  madmen. If you were motivated to commit mass murder and unable to get a handgun, you could steal a car and drive at high speed into crowded bus shelters on a rainly or snowy day. Like I pointed out, London ON is suffering a dramatic spike in gun crime despite the long standing restrictions on gun ownership in Canada.

We need the cultural tools to make good decisions and to protect ourselves form threats, not reflexive actions which look good but have  no meaningful impact on things. It is long past time when we started to ask "how" and "why" proposals are supposed to work, and monitor the metrics to see if they really are doing what they are supposed to. If not, then "why not?" and change things for projects, proposals and ideas which do.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again, when someone chooses to "run amok" with a firearm, then the first thing that anyone does is get someone else with a firearm to stop that person.  I teach at a community college and the only option presented for defence is duck and cover, that is if you are in your office, close your door, turn off your lights and stay quiet and hope that you are not the target or noticed.  Quite frankly that just isn't enough to stop the problem.  I would much rather be packing something more significant than a 3" blade on a folding knife.



 
Back
Top