Guns, the NRA, the constitution and senseless shootings

"The National Rifle Association joins the entire country in expressing our deepest condolences to the families of Virginia Tech University and everyone else affected by this horrible tragedy.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the families.

We will not have any further comment until all the facts are known." - nra.org

 

I've read most of the posts here and would simply like to make a practical (somewhat long) application of the issue at hand.

I'm sure some of you remember Aum Shinrikyo. It was a Japanese yoga cult that, over the course about 15 years, got designs on bringing about the end of the world. Aum was a pretty fascinating unit, to be honest - it attracted some of the best minds in that country from elite universities with advanced degrees. It was set up like a government - a minister for this, a minister for that - all geared toward one common goal: Mass destruction.

Their weapon of choice? Chemicals.

Aum went all out. Traveled to Africa to research the Ebola virus. Tried to track most of Tesla's original work. Courted donors. Experimented with anthrax, mustard, cyanide. These were brilliant men and women. Bent on killing.

So, in 1995 they planned a major attack on the Tokyo subway system with cannisters of saran gas. The idea was to plant them on subways all intersecting at a major Tokyo stop where 5 million people rode daily. The idea was for mass panic and death. They spent two years planning this attacks, thousands of man hours, with men and women with Phds in physics, engineering, medicine, chemicals. The saran gas cannisters were wrapped in newspapers and punctured. The Aum then waited for the genocide.

The stench of the gas was so strong that it could be smelled above ground. Well, that, and the blood and vomit of those who inhaled the gas, bled or threw up, or passed out. More than 2,500 fell ill as a result of the attack.

But you know how many died? 12.

And that's notnotnot to diminish what Aum tried to do or did before and after that attack. Other smaller attacks killed other Japanese citizens. A police chief was assassinated. After the 1995 Tokyo subway attack, they tried a hydrochloric acid attack that fortunately killed no one. I mean, yes, they held a country hostage in fear. That counts for something. It changed Japan forever. That counts for something, too. A lot, actually. Of anyone here, I'm aware of the full impact Aum had and could again have.

But lives count, too. And after all the hours, the expertise, the training, the execution, and people involved, despite the evil, heinous nature of the plot...12 people died.

Nearly three times that died in two hours, at the hand of one person, with two guns, with minimal planning and undetermined expertise - but certainly nothing compared to the Aum scientists.

Doesn't that tell us something? Anything?

People kill people. No argument. No question. But people with guns kill a lot <i> more </i> people than even people with chemical weapons. They simply do. As a personal delivery system of death, nothing beats them except bombs, which are entirely and completely illegal. Knives won't. Blowdarts won't. Poison won't.

Dahmer killed half as many over 14 years. Bundy confessed to 30. This kid killed 32. In a blink.

It's hardly only a moral issue. It's simple common sense: Nothing kills more people faster than a gun. Period. If there weren't guns, it may not be impossible to kill one or two people, but killing 32 people in the span of four hours becomes immeasurably harder without a bomb, which generally doesn't correlate with crimes of passion or depression.

Isn't this the central issue? Isn't this why cigarettes, dangerous and awful as they are, are legal, and meth isn't? Isn't this why we can live with North Korea having tanks and relentlessly marching soldiers, but a nuclear weapon is out of the question? Isn't this why we can 70 on the Interstate, but not 155? Isn't this why it's not OK for teachers to fool around with their students? Hell, isn't this why we don't allow people coming back from France to have French fuckin cheese? I mean, don't we hedge our bets each day? Don't we make conscious choices to be a little smarter, a little safer? Isn't this why we all come together and make some rules, because experience has taught us a few lessons that are easier to avoid than constantly deal with? Is it really hypocrisy to draw some lines here and there?

Gun deaths keep throwing this in our face again and again and again. It's not a gun's fault that it's efficient, but it is, and since we can't seem to keep a lid on our emotions - and since we all agree evil is out there - doesn't it make sense to limit the reach of evil as much as possible? Oh, I know the story...if we don't arm ourselves, and the criminals do...well, that story's bullshit, and it always has been. You think this kid was afraid of criminals? Does anyone really think that criminals - because they've been so successful in life - are holding out for the day the Second Amendment is repealed so they can unleash carnage upon a defenseless populace? Is that really what's holding us back - the idea that there will be more gun deaths if we get rid of guns.

Unsuprisingly, as moronic as it seems and as completely, unbelievably contradictory that is to the statistics from the rest of the world, yes, people believe that. And because of it, we simply have to resign ourselves to one of these every couple years.

 

Wonderfully well said.

 

because it's not an SportsJournalists.com thread without song lyrics:

Well, handguns are made for killing
They ain't no good for nothing else
And if you like to drink your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself

So why don't we dump 'em, people
To the bottom of the sea
Before some ol' fool come around here
Want to shoot either you or me?

From Ronnie Van Zant and Lynyrd Skynyrd, whose constituency isn't exactly Northeastern liberals.

 

Alma, that was pretty damn solid

 

Posted this on another thread. But CNN got the gun shop owner from who the shooter purchased the gun. He said the guy had three forms of legit ID and passed the background check (no criminal record). Investigation so far shows that the gun shop owner did everything right, and the sale was legal. The gun shop owner has no way of knowing the guy has stalked women and was referred to counseling by Virginia Tech. So let's quit assigning blame to gun laws.

 

Man, I was going to post that and forgot. Good work.

 

Some feedback from myself a gun owner and other gun owners including a former police officer.

For one person to kill 32 people with a 9mm and a 22cal pistol is amazing. Mutliple gunshots would be needed for each vicim and the unofficial feedback I am getting is this is what happened. The lack of resistance is confusing, I mean throw a chair, gang tackle the MF.

The NRA is irrational in that their policies have resulted in easy access to guns by criminals. For the rest of us law abiding minority citizens we need guns to defend ourselves from these criminals. I live in a ungated urban community. I need to take personal responsibility for the safety of myself and my family.

 

And Cho Seung-Hui had no criminal record. He was, at least in the eyes of the U.S. Legal System, a "law abiding minority citizen." So, how exactly do you propose to allow guns to be sold legally in the U.S. as they are now, only without allowing the next Cho Seung-Hui to buy one?

 

Good question.

We need to do a more extensive background check on people who want to buy guns. If someone had investigated they might have found out that his teacher had gone to the University authorities and expressed concerns.

What is problematic is that we currently have a corrupt government that might decide only Christians that contribute to Rebulican causes have a right to own guns.

 

And I'm so madly in love with you I've ditched my partner.

No blame, baby.

But most of the guns that kill people in Canada come from the U.S.

Just a fact.

 

Sooo, let's say that whenever you were in college, you wrote something in a fit of late-night, caffeinated, my-girlfriend-just-dumped-me rage, and handed it in because you had to get some sort of grade. Teacher gets concerned, goes to the administration, expresses her concerns about it. Five days later, it's all been cleared up, everyone gets it, no biggie. But that ended up getting noted on your record, because that's the policy. Now you can't get a gun, because they looked into your school records and found that a teacher got concerned about you once.

My point is not actually to nitpick your argument until you find the perfect answer. My point is that there ISN'T a perfect way to get guns in the hands of citizens who want them. Alma pointed out the big issue here, which is that guns are, in terms of a danger to society, static things. They are dangerous, they have no purpose beyond destruction. And when they get into the hands of someone who wants to do something drastic and violent, the combination is usually fatal. Now, you can't legislate against rage. But you CAN legislate against certain tools of rage, particularly ones whose only purpose is violence.