«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

World Wonders: When Will the U.S. Learn that Guns Kill More, Better, Faster?

In the U.S. media, coverage of the massacre at Virginia Tech has analyzed almost every aspect of the shootings in far more detail than the issue of gun control. Newsweek has an entire package up, with stories warning against demonizing "boy's play" (I'm dead serious), the role of a South Korean action flic in Cho's behavior, a careful timeline of Monday's events, and stories about survivors and victims. Only one piece addresses the gun issue at all.

In the international press, the response was universal: When will the United States stop giving its citizens the tools to kill each other?

OK, so we're not going to ban handguns as England has done anytime soon.

Side note: In some of the comments to my previous posts focused on gun control, I was repeatedly pointed to the high crime rate in Britain. Not so. New York City, whose population is a mere seventh of that of Britain and Wales, had 10 times as many firearm-related homicides last year. Britain's rate was its lowest since the late '80s. (Overall crime rates in the UK are down by almost half since the mid-1990's [PDF].)

But here's what we could do. One, close the loophole allowing people to buy guns at gun shows with no background check. That's just insane! Two, make weapons designed to kill large numbers of humans illegal: Reinstate the federal assault weapons ban.

The international press also referred repeatedly to America's gun culture. Even the Australian PM John Howard, who has strongly aligned himself with Bush, blamed gun culture. What does "gun culture" mean? One of our editors remarked that Cho looked, in his video, for all the world like the cover of Guns & Ammo (ammo vest, holster, shooting gloves—fingerless on trigger hand). She ventured that the NRA had groaned a bit when they saw that. But the question isn't why a mass murderer looks like the cover of a magazine—(a) delusions of grandeur, (b) consumer magazines work by making you want to look like the cover—the question is why do we have magazine covers that look like mass murderers? Why do we make movies where the heroes look like—and, um, are—mass murderers?

The one Newsweek story that does address the gun issue also raises another fairly obvious point. Gun sales should be limited to people who don't have a history of violent mental illness. Newsweek suggests that the law already technically calls for that, but enforcement amounts to a question on the paperwork the buyer fills out: "Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective or … committed to a mental institution?" Cho answered (falsely) "no," and then bought a semiautomatic weapon. I mean, they don't even take your word for it at the DMV that you don't need glasses.

The BBC observed that from the Democrats, nary a peep. Shame on them.

Comments

The PM in the UK said that the problem is with the African culture, not the English culture that is responsible for the crime.

Posted by: Percy on 04/20/07 at 3:27 PM Respond

"New York, whose population is a mere seventh of that of Britain and Wales, had 10 times as many firearm-related homicides last year."

Are you talking about New York State or New York City? Either way, the majority of firearm-related homicides in NYS occur in NYC. And since firearms are virtually completely banned in NYC, I'm not sure that pointing out NY's high gun murder rate is the best argument for gun control.

"Overall crime rates in the UK are down by almost half since the mid-1990's"

And the overall crime rates in the US have been steadily declining for almost two decades: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html

By the way, also on that UK site you linked to, you'll find that "the number of overall offences involving firearms has been increasing each year since 1997/98." Just sayin'.

"Two, make weapons designed to kill large numbers of humans illegal: Reinstate the federal assault weapons ban."

Sounds like you've fallen victim to the Brady Camnpaigns purposeful misleading about what was and was not banned by the 1994 AWB. Every single weapon banned under the AWB shot one single bullet per trigger pull, just like every ordinary hunting rifle and every revolver. Machine guns were NOT banned under that legislation because machine guns have been essentially illegal since 1934, and the "AK-47s and Uzis" the brady campaign loves to talk about have been completely banned since 1989. The sunset of the AWB did not change that ONE BIT, they're still illegal.

PLEASE take the time to educate yourself.

Posted by: Guav on 04/20/07 at 6:41 PM Respond

Reinstating the "assault weapons ban" is not going to make "weapons designed to kill large numbers of humans" illegal, because they already are. Why are you confused on this point? Because you've been lied to:

"The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

That's Josh Sugarman of the Violence Policy Center stating in 1988 his strategy for mass dissemination of misinformation and for infiltrating the media with false and confusing information.

The 1994 AWB banned a select group of semi-automatic rifles possessing certain features that made them LOOK menacing, that allowed gun-ban organizations to confuse the publtic into the thinking that the rifles were fully automatic machine guns—despite the fact that he import and manufacture of machine guns for civilian use was already illegal, and remains illegal to this day.

Posted by: Guav on 04/20/07 at 6:55 PM Respond

Guav,

Firstly, NYC is the safest large city in the U.S. I'm not sure how it compares to the rest of the state, but probably quite favorably on a comparison of violent crimes per N people.

Secondly, NYC does not live in a vacuum. NYC has many illegal guns. It is very easy to buy guns in someplace with very relaxed gun laws and drive them up to NYC. Virginia is actually the source of more of NYC's guns than any other state.

So, if one state in the U.S. has lax gun laws, everyplace has lax gun laws. We don't have border patrol at the borders between states. Less so at the borders to NYC.

If we decide that it is every citizen's right to own guns, fine. But, let's at least limit it to the ones that are not expressly designed for killing human beings. Handguns have no other purpose, unless it is target practice to get better at killing human beings. The assault style semi-automatic rifles are also highly unlikely to be used for hunting any other species.

So, I think I have to go with Cameron Scott on this one.

Posted by: Misanthropic Scott on 04/21/07 at 2:39 PM Respond

Why is America somehow supposed to be like the rest of the world? America is the greatest country in existance today, and also since the world began. The rest of the world should adopt some of our ways. Allowing law-abiding citizens the choice of owning or carrying a gun is part of the foundation to our freedoms. To prevent that is wrong.

For stats that support the fact that where there is less gun restrictions there is less crime, see "Guns, Gun Ownership, & RTC at All-Time Highs, Less "Gun Control," and Violent Crime at 30-Year Low" http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=126

The article is posted on the NRA's website but the sources for the stats are from external entities (ie. government). For those that may be tempted to think that since the data is on the NRA's web site that it must be wrong, keep in mind that if the NRA posts even the slightest inaccuracy our US liberal news media (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS) would report it over and over every half hour for two weeks. The data is accurate.

Respectfully.

Posted by: anonymous on 04/21/07 at 4:29 PM Respond

Amonia Sulfate fertilizer kills big time way, re Oklahoma. and that was not even a suicide bomb. Bombs kill a lot of people at once. Guns are for small time killings. Look at what goes on in Bagdad every day. We all need to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ that can change the evil heart.

Posted by: Mary Lou on 04/21/07 at 6:43 PM Respond

anonymous,

I question your assertion that "America is the greatest country in existance today, and also since the world began. The rest of the world should adopt some of our ways."

Upon what are you basing this? On most measures of what makes for a comfortable life we lag behind the rest of the industrialized world; health care, education, personal safety. We have the highest crime rate, and nearly the lowest level of education; the highest disparity in wealth distribution. Just which of our ways should the rest of the world adopt?

Posted by: DaveD on 04/23/07 at 5:17 AM Respond

I think this one's a "no-brainer" but NYC is NOT a safe city. It's violent period.

After the Patriot and Homeland Security acts and the Tsarist Occupational Government, I think what guranteed freedoms did exist in America have been annihilated.

It is clearly now up to people to free themselves. Something they're clearly not ready for because a great many in America value guns more than each other.

Posted by: achhh!! on 04/23/07 at 11:32 AM Respond

There is a good post on another MotherJones.com article from "sean" from yesterday.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/04/4190_virginia_home_t.html

It's amazing to me (IMHO) that in the year 2007 some people still think that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to citizens.

Posted by: anonymous on 05/01/07 at 8:25 AM Respond

Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self Defense
http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1960

"What would you do if armed terrorists broke into your church and starting attacking your friends with automatic weapons in the middle of a worship service?

There is one man in the world who can address these questions with first-hand experience.

His name is Charl van Wyck – a South African who was faced with just such a shocking scenario. "

Caution, the article does mention the "C" word (Christian) gasp!

Posted by: myturn on 05/03/07 at 4:31 PM Respond

Anti-gun State Representative (Democrat) has changed his viewpoint - and future votes - on the right of law abiding Ohioans to carry a gun.

Summary: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3047

Source: http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/phillip_morris/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1179218274175560.xml&coll=2

Posted by: anonymous on 05/28/07 at 4:14 PM Respond