Practically speaking, handguns are not the answer
Glenn Reynolds, the distinguished professor from Tennessee writing in favor of more guns, has overlooked the obvious (“Which is safer? More guns or fewer?/Armed college students mean fewer victims,” April 21).
Does he really believe a student seated at a desk would have a chance to retrieve a firearm from a backpack or pocket in time to get a shot off first?
Do the likes of those who hold a Glock 19 capable of rapidly firing many rounds give their victims a chance? They sure don’t say, “One, two, three ... get your guns.”
Handguns are the problem. Not the answer.
Geri Stutheit, Fort Collins
why are guns the problem? what did the gun do? the gun is only a piece of metal that can do nothing without some person making it do it. The real problem is that these wack jobs know that they will get all the attention they ever wanted if they do something stupid. why do they get a gun and go after sitting ducks, because they know there wont be anyone to fight back.
Posted by on May 2, 2007 05:17 AMOnce again in a perfect world guns wouldn't be needed and the progressive utopia would be in effect. Obviously Geri has had no trainning what so ever in the use of fire arms.
GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!
Its time to punish criminals and go back to the standard of holding people responsible for thier actions and stop all this namby pamby touchy feely good crap.
Posted by Joe on May 2, 2007 05:18 AMGeri,
You missed the point. If some of the students had guns, fewer would have died.
The statistic show that laws permitting concealed weapons reduce the number of firearms deaths.
Your point sounds good but it doesn't work that way in practice.
Posted by Yaakov Watkins on May 2, 2007 06:01 AMEnforcement of existing laws is enough. I see that they've closed the loophole that allowed the VT killer to purchase one despite being ajudicated mentally ill.
So problem solved right?
I don't own a gun nor will I anytime soon, but I understand they're a tool like anything else.
I think people should strive to own fewer guns and be continually trained in their safe use, but the laws as they exist are pretty nuanced and the result of many decades refinement.
When we find obvious problems, like they did in Virginia, then we should fix things, but there should be no major overhaul of existing laws in my opinion.
Posted by Charles B on May 2, 2007 07:33 AMYaakov Watkins cited the following without reference:
"The statistic show that laws permitting concealed weapons reduce the number of firearms deaths."
Please provide you source for this statistic.
Posted by Charles B on May 2, 2007 07:34 AM"GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!"
Such nonsense. Should we also say that poisons do not kill people, that car wrecks do not kill people, that bombs do not kill people. I'm reminded of the story about the gun who fell a few thousand feet out of an airplane. The fall didn't hurt him a bit. But the landing squashed him. So it's ok to fall a few thousand feet?
Posted by Truth on May 2, 2007 07:54 AMThere's a great Bad Reporter cartoon that takes the letter-writers idea to the obvious next level:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/04/20/DDASMUSSENBR.DTL
Posted by Charles B on May 2, 2007 08:02 AMTruth,
In context, the slogan itself is correct. Sometimes overused - even strained to the limit - but illustrative of the reality that the TOOL is not the cause, in and of itself alone.
Dealing with a complex problem by way of the simplistic approach: "Take away the tool(s)", hasn't solved anything yet, throughout history. And of course, conversely, adding to, or building upon, "newer and more dangerous tools" as "deterent" hasn't worked any better either.
Except perhaps, for the world today with respect to nuclear arms. So far anyway! There, it would appear that "survival of the species" comes into play, albeit on a mostly unconscious level.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 2, 2007 08:19 AMGeri, if a madman were to walk into a classroom and begin shooting, it's very unlikely that the people before him would be able to react in time. But someone in the back of the room might. Or in the next room. Or down the hall. It's not about getting "a shot off first". It's about having a fighting chance to survive and possibly to end further carnage. Google " Joel Myrick". The 1997 shootings at Pearl high school might have been even more horrific if he hadn't run to his car to retrieve a pistol and stop the shooter. More lives might have been saved if that pistol had been on his person.
These mass-killings always seem to take place where resistance is less likely to be found - malls, classrooms, religious centers, daycare facilities. I find it difficult to believe this is a coincidence.
Posted by Keith C on May 2, 2007 08:31 AMGeri and Truth are good reasons to join the NRA today.1-877-NRA-2000.If you do not fight these anti-gunners will turn you into criminals.
Posted by Ron on May 2, 2007 08:45 AMI liken a gun to a fire extinguisher-
When you need one the only thing worse then not having one-is not knowing how top use it.
Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people. It takes both.
Posted by shaupeen on May 2, 2007 11:11 AMGuns don't kill people, bullets do.
Guns don't kill people, they just empower madmen and let them magnify their ability to kill people.
Let's extend the logic to its conclusion - why not let individuals possess inanimate chemical, biological, or nuclear WMD - after all, the devices are incapable of causing harm - it is the problem person who causes the harm right? Let's sell shoulder-fired missiles on eBay, and we will prosecute those who misuse them. After all, the 2nd amendment talks about "arms" - who is anyone else to tell me what arms are not included in that???
Liam"Guns don't kill people, they just empower madmen and let them magnify their ability to kill people."
So we should outlaw all guns and let them resort to blowing up propane tanks instead? Or any number of bombs you can create with items from the store?
The only problem with your logic Liam is that outlawing something doesn't make it go away, it only makes it go underground.
KW,
Talk about logic - do you think the mayhem would've happened at VT if the killed had to lug a propane tank around?
Posted by Drew on May 2, 2007 01:31 PMDraw - They took tanks into Columbine didn't they? The helpless students there were extremely lucky those yahoos couldn't detonate them.
Lets try something smaller like several 1 foot long, 4'" wide pipe bombs. Will that get you to admit there are thousands of things people can use to kill high number of people when the government disarms them and leaves them helpless?
A .357 in the right hand can save countless lives.
Posted by KW on May 2, 2007 01:58 PMKW-
Or, in the left hand.
Posted by Mike on May 2, 2007 02:04 PMToasters have been known to kill people. Knives are used much more often then guns to injure, maim , and kill people. Pipes, chains, even the frying pan in the kitchen has been used a time or two to injure. So lets ban all these items as well as the gun, this way if Geri, or Truth are ever in a situation where a madman who has obtained a firearm ilegally may shoot at them. Then we can listen to them complain that if only they had had a way to defend themselves maybe they could have prevented more from being killed and injured.
The point being that the tool is not to blame, but the person wielding the tool is the one responsible for thier actions.
it is time we as a society quit blamming the other person or the easiest target but blame and hold responsible the one who commites the act/crime.
Although I find the theories here intriguing, I wonder whether anyone considers the experiment conducted in Australia. Since the 1996 restrictions, there have been no mass shootings. However, the overall homicide rate has more or less remained constant. This suggests that although guns alone don't kill people, they sure do help:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/study-no-excuse-to-shoot-down-the-law/2006/10/25/1161749188302.html
That study also strongly suggests that the suicide rate strongly decreases with handgun restrictions.
And, perhaps most importantly, it finds that illegal handguns are still used in crimes, suggesting that there are good reasons for handguns as protection.
More guns in college? Seems likely to increase the suicide rate. Radical enforcement against illegal handguns? Seems like a good idea.
Posted by moron on May 2, 2007 02:40 PMI'm overwhelmed by all the stories of toasters, knives, pipes & frying pans used to perpetrate multiple killings, Joe. Yes blame those responsible - but they always seem to be wielding a gun, not a toaster. I'm sure the next attack will be someone with a George Foreman grill - they're used much more often in killings than guns, you know..
Posted by Drew on May 2, 2007 02:41 PMIf you have already joined the NRA pass the number on to pro gun friends and family.This is the best way to fight.Remember, Bill Clinton said he lost the House and Senate in 1994 because of the NRA.It was because he pushed the Brady Bill and Assault Weapon Ban.The NRA was rated the most powerful lobby in Fortune 500 a few year ago.It only costs $35 dollars a year.Number 1-877-NRA-2000.
Posted by Ron on May 2, 2007 02:46 PMAnd you get a couple of cool stickers to put on your car or home so folks know, "you just might be packin' and no to mess with you.
Posted by on May 2, 2007 02:52 PM"However, the overall homicide rate has more or less remained constant. This suggests that although guns alone don't kill people, they sure do help:"
No, it doesn't. By restricting gun ownership more, the homicide rate should have gone down; not remain constant.
It shows that those intent on killing others, will always find a way. By restricting guns, you are only lessening the ability of the rest of us to defend ourselves.
Posted by Mike on May 2, 2007 03:09 PM"Or, in the left hand."
Mike - I was going to say .357 in the right handS but thought hand was more accurate.
Did you like the way I addressed Drew as Draw? Also fitting for those who fear guns.
Posted by KW on May 2, 2007 03:21 PM"Draw" - I get it KW- and I thought you guys didn't have a sense of humor!
Posted by Drew on May 2, 2007 03:23 PMKW-
I did like that name. You could also call him "Quickdrew".
Posted by Mike on May 2, 2007 03:25 PMMy father is an avid skeet shooter. I grew up in a house with a bunch of guns in it and I do think people have a right to own guns.
That said, I wish there was a better middle ground on this issue. It seems like it is all or nothing, either join the NRA which opposes any gun control, or ban all guns if you are on the other side of the argument. There are many issues that are essentially black and white, but this is not one of them.
In the case of Virginia Tech, banning guns would not have stopped the madman. He was bent on killing and would have found a way to do so even if guns were non-existent. Yet gun control rhetoric is dialed up on both sides because of this madman. There are cries of “ban all hand guns” which is unconstitutional, and “arm all the students” which is impractical and risks an increase in accidental and intentional gun injuries. Virginia Tech is not a good argument for or against gun control.
However, there are many cases where some gun regulation would help. If all guns were properly locked and stored (because the law mandated it and provided stiff consequences for breaking the law), there would be many fewer cases of small children accidentally harming themselves or others upon stumbling onto them.
If gun ownership required a license with mandated training that had to be renewed periodically, there would be fewer accidental gun injuries and deaths from mishandling and it would be easier to revoke privileges from violent criminal offenders.
I don't understand the mentality of lets ban all guns, but I also don't understand the steadfast resistance to common sense protective measures for law abiding gun owners. I would never want to endanger my family because I didn’t maintain, use and store a weapon properly, and I would no more resent having to prove that to the government than I resent having to prove I am capable and lawfully entitled to drive a car.
"If all guns were properly locked and stored"
So, I'll just tell the burglar/rapist/murderer to wait while I unlock my gun, load it, and then shoot him.
Posted by Mike on May 2, 2007 03:31 PMMike - I used the same retort to someone saying we should outlaw anything other than singleshot weapons. The criminal will still obtain a now illegal semi-auto weapon but I'll have to hope he waits for me to reload because I'm a law abiding citizen.
Posted by KW on May 2, 2007 03:41 PMMike and KW,
Surely you are aware that there are quick release gun safes, and let’s face it. You are dead asleep and groggy, the intruder is awake, alert and came in with a plan, you are always going to be at a disadvantage, heck why not sleep with your finger on the trigger of a loaded weapon if you are that worried.
Exactly. Any restriction only restricts those who abide by the law. There are millions of guns in the country. The knowledge of how to make them is available to anyone who wants it. Criminals are, by definition, people who commit crimes. You can pass all the gun laws you want, criminals can still get their hands on any kind of gun they want.
Posted by Mike on May 2, 2007 03:52 PM"you are always going to be at a disadvantage"
Oh, okay. Since I'm already at a disadvantage, I'll be unarmed as well.
"heck why not sleep with your finger on the trigger of a loaded weapon if you are that worried."
What a ridiculous overstatement. If I want to have a gun handy, then I am paranoid and should sleep with my finger on the trigger? How about having a gun that I can get to in a reasonable amount of time? Say, in a dresser or nightstand drawer?
Unbelievable.
Posted by Mike on May 2, 2007 03:57 PMI disagree Keri. A home invasion is rarely planned out. Usually its drug users in a strange area. They don't know my floor plan, what room I'm in or where I keep my guns (I don't keep them all together).
I can be armed and ready before they even know I'm there. As long as I don't have to fumble with unlocking a gun that is.
Posted by KW on May 2, 2007 04:19 PMKW,
You can be so stealthy they wont detect you, but cant operate a simple quick release safe? Really? Cause I sure can. It takes very little practice, less practice than reliably hitting a target does.
Posted by Keri on May 2, 2007 04:50 PM"You can be so stealthy they wont detect you, but cant operate a simple quick release safe? "
He's stealthy but stupid. And chronically flatulent, based on these forums.
Posted by B. Drunk on May 2, 2007 05:04 PMkeri: "ban all guns if you are on the other side of the argument"
No one is advocating that all guns be banned.
Posted by Truth on May 2, 2007 05:23 PMIn his book More Guns Less Crime, Yale law professor John Lott ran the numbers every which way possible. He set out to write a book about guns being bad, and found that every gun law ever enacted in this country has resulted in more violent crime. Lott was on TV recently, debating a gun control advocate. Lott cited numbers and anecdotes. His opponent, in essence, said "but guns kill." There is just no way you can convince some anti-gun people.
Klebolt and Harris obviously did not purchase their guns legally. Killers will get their guns one way or another. Responsibly armed people can stop them given the chance just like Vice Principal Joel Myrick did. google Joel Myrick.
Posted by BiteThe Bullet on May 2, 2007 05:45 PMNo matter what side of the gun debate you're on, I think you might find this story amusing. From this week's National Review magazine:
"Miss America 1944 was Venus Ramey of Kentucky, the first
redhead to win the title. Now aged 82, Ramey lives on a farm
in her native state. The other day, Ramey, alerted by her dog,
found an intruder in the act of stealing scrap metal from one of
her storage buildings. The embarrassed but unrepentant thief
said that if Ramey would get out of his way, he would leave.
“Oh no you won’t,” declared the retired beauty queen. She
thereupon pulled out a snub-nosed .38 and shot out a tire on the
intruder’s car, balancing on her walker for a steady aim. The
thief was subsequently arrested. “I’m trying to live a quiet,
peaceful life and stay out of trouble, and all it is, is one thing
after another,” complained Ramey. We know the feeling,
ma’am; but thanks for reminding us that on those inevitable
occasions when trouble comes looking for you, a snub-nosed
.38 can be very handy."
Truth,
RE: No one is advocating that all guns be banned.
You may not be, but many do. May I refer you to the editorial from today entitled "No Guns, Few Worries". I'll grant you the authors point is muddled, but the title indicates that there are those who would like to ban all guns.
Again I say, sensible gun control measures protect us (somewhat) just like sensible vehicle laws protect us (somewhat). But people hell bent on mass destruction will find a way to do so, and I can't avidly and passionately defend free speech and at the same time not defend the right to bear arms.
Keri claims that the NRA is against gun control but there are already 20,000 gun laws on the books.How many more does she want?Join the NRA and fight against ignorant people like Keri.1-877-NRA-2000.If you are a member sign you family up.
Posted by Ron on May 3, 2007 01:43 PMRon,
You should always check your facts. I would like you to provide documentation for your claim that there are 20,000 gun laws on the book. This is a claim that has been bandied about for years. The first time it was known to have been used, was in 1965 by Rep. John Dingell –R-MI (for source see MI public records), but he did not cite a study or source for his claim. It has been touted by the NRA and others for years since then. In 1999 Johns Hopkins created a database to track national and state gun related laws. There were 300 at that time. A far cry from the 20,000 you claim. Also, please remember that most of those laws are state laws. Governing at the state level requires duplication from state to state. For example, all 50 states have multiple laws concerning theft, there are national laws on that topic as well, so in total there are hundreds of theft laws nationwide. Gun laws work the same way. I have know idea how many laws relating to cars there are on the books nationwide, but that number must be in the thousands, and I have never heard someone ague against a new law with stiffer penalties for DUIs argue that we have too many car laws on the books.
I also take issue with the claim that laws only apply to those who are behaving in a lawful manner, often laws apply only to someone who breaks the law, as in the case of creating a LAW to increase penalties for a crime.
Your arguments are polemic and lack substance. You can proclaim the NRA phone number over and over again, but most people are rational and thinking and require a good argument, not just a phone number to convince them of something.