What to Do about Mass Shootings
by Richardson ~ April 17th, 2007. Filed under: America, Koreans in America. Update: John Edwards, who enriched himself by “channeling” dead babies, again demonstrated why he is an opportunistic and pandering scum:
But this unremarkable purchase by Mr. Cho is drawing attention to Virginia’s gun laws, which some gun-control advocates described as lax. The purchase has prompted calls from several Democrats and at least one leading presidential candidate, John Edwards, for measures to restrict gun sales, even as they proclaimed their support for the Second Amendment.
The original entry:
Much hay is being made on Korea-centric blogs that the alleged shooter was an ethnic Korean and perhaps even a Korean citizen. Frankly, it is irrelevant to me who or what the shooter was. Most likely he was a deranged individual, a kid with serious social or mental problems.
The media have been breathless in their reporting as usual. Two handguns (one a 9mm Parabellum and the other a 22 Long Rifle caliber) equal “heavily armed”?
Furthermore, there will be, no doubt, more calls for gun-control shortly. So instead of reinventing the wheel, let me re-post my article about gun-control that appeared in the Seattle Times last year, in the aftermath of a Seattle-area shooting (note: I don’t believe in silly terms like “gun violence” — violence is violence, plain and simple; the editorial board of the Times picked the title):
We can limit gun violence by empowering responsible citizens to defend themselves
By James J. NaSpecial to The Times
As Seattleites emerge from their state of shock over the July 28 shooting spree at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, there no doubt will be discussions on how to prevent a repeat of this kind of monstrous evil, whether perpetrated as a form of decentralized terrorism inspired by anti-Semitism, or as an act of a deranged individual.
Predictably, there will be cries to restrict the instruments of Naveed Afzal Haq’s actions — firearms — as a means to control violence of this sort in the future. Coming on the heels of another shooting spree in March of this year on Capitol Hill, there will be much political temptation to be seen to be “doing something.”
And legislating more restrictions on the right to keep and bear firearms is often viewed as an emotionally satisfying and politically convenient way to meet that psychological need to do something — anything — in the aftermath of a tragedy like this.
But that inclination is misguided on two points, one based on principle and the other on practicality. First, as a matter of principle, a free, open society like ours does not, and ought not, preemptively restrict freedom of the general population out of fear that a small criminal minority would misuse that freedom.
Just as the fact that a few pedophiles use the Internet to trade child porn should not move the society to restrict access to the Internet for the public at large, neither should the right of the vast majority of responsible, law-abiding citizens to own and carry guns be sacrificed in the false hope that criminals would then be constrained.
Second, as a matter of practicality, such a restriction on guns does nothing to curb violence. Even if legal firearm ownership were completely banned today, no serious person would argue that we could eradicate the availability of firearms on the black market. Those who intend to harm others will still be able to get guns — illegally.
Those who are unable to do so, but still harbor criminal intents, will use other means to inflict harm. In England, for example, a man went on a slashing spree with a sword at a church in 1999; and early this year, a recent University of North Carolina graduate, a native of Iran, plowed into a crowd with a sport utility vehicle “to avenge Muslim deaths.”
Guns, knives and any other conceivable arms are obviously banned in our prison system, but despite the most strenuous control measures, people are still assaulted and murdered at prisons, often with improvised weapons. It is a fact of life that there will always be those few, for whatever reasons, who seek to inflict physical harm upon others even in the most benign of utopias.
Then what are we to do as a society?
What we ought to do is precisely the opposite — to encourage a responsible, armed citizenry. Of course, I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not encourage vigilantism. I am not suggesting that people arm themselves and go looking for trouble. You leave that to the professionals who get paid to take the risk.
Nor am I suggesting that an armed citizen could have entirely prevented the Jewish Federation attack. But an armed citizen defending his school, church, synagogue or home could mitigate the extent of the casualty level should such a calamity strike again (as happened in Pearl, Miss., in 1997, when an assistant principal interrupted a school shooting by retrieving his gun from his car — ironically it was illegal for him to bring a gun to school — and holding the suspect at bay until the police arrived).
Despite what some politicians and groups say, there is no magic solution for curbing murderous violence. We cannot ban mechanical objects and expect twisted human beings to cleanse evil from their souls suddenly. Furthermore, in a free, open society like ours, where we all live with some degree of mutual trust and a social contract to not do harm to each other, there is no reliable way of preemptively stopping someone intent on harming others.
The only thing we can do is to try to limit the damage by continuing to empower the majority of law-biding, decent individuals with the freedom to defend themselves.
April 17th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
We could be talking about the need to get tougher on domestic violence, or about how to better identify mental illnesses that could result in the injury or death of innocent people. We could be talking about a general alarm system that could be implemented campus-wide to immediately alert the staff and student body in such emergencies so that the people being directly affected would know to either hunker down and bar themselves in or evacuate the campus. We could be talking about making such large and public institutions prepare a link to any video/audio monitoring equipement so that police can immediately see or hear who, what, where and as a result be better able to respond to intruders exhibiting deadly intent.
Blaming guns will not prevent this type of crime from happening again. Just as blaming the car would not prevent a drunk driver from getting behind the wheel again. We need to have a honest look at practical measures that will allow for rapid alert and effective response on all school campuses in our country.
April 17th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I think that is true, and chronicle it here only for the obvious connection to Korea and apparent reader interest. I also think it will be interesting to see how different societies react to violence perpetuated by “outsiders.”
That would be the same principle that turns homes in the country into “compounds.”
Unfortunately, yes. The irony is that a bill allowing concealed carry (by permit) on campus failed last year.
April 17th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
“First, as a matter of principle, a free, open society like ours does not, and ought not, preemptively restrict freedom of the general population out of fear that a small criminal minority would misuse that freedom.”
Well said.
I think consideration should be given to the fact society can not easily tell which citizens are responsible enough to use certain freedoms responsibly, and that the control of high-risk technology should be continued. Empowering some freedom is just too risky. E.G. Access to chemicals to make nerve gas. Guns are a low enough risk, I think.
those that misuse those freedoms. Cho would likely have been stopped much sooner had even one responsible person been armed. Empowerment of the people instead of government control over the people is the best solution in the long-run.
How much freedom does the citizenry lose to accommodate the so very few that misuse freedom? Way too much! An armed citizenry would, over time, “weed out”
April 17th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
That’s a crucial point. I don’t claim that those with legally carried concealed pistols would have prevented entirely a mass shooting like this, but I do think it would have reduced the carnage by allowing some of the victims to shoot back, interrupt or even end the rampage.
April 17th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
[…] more good postings on this make sure to check out DPRK Studies posting on what to do about mass shootings and One Free Korea who has a good posting going on as […]
April 17th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
I suppose there is a possibility that the shooter will mistake a CCW holder for a plainclothes police officer (assuming he survives the encounter). He may then think that the police have entered the building, so he commits suicide to avoid being captured.
April 17th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
I guess I live on a massively fortified compound then.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:44 am
Yeah. This shooting proves the lax nature of the gun laws, Edwards. Can you imagine! Selling a gun to guy who had a speeding ticket on his record!! The nerve!!
(as far as I read yesterday that was the only thing on his police record)
April 19th, 2007 at 11:50 am
And Congressman Tom Davis (D-VA) joined the scum list of “who can exploit the tragedy first to push their gun-control agenda.”
April 20th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
From Don Kirk’s Asia Times article:
They’ve never really thought about it, I’d say.
April 20th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
James,
Your Seattle Times piece is a vague defense of the Second Amendment. Please be specific about what kind of laws you wish to see in this country.
1. There is the Second Amendment and there is also the provision in the Constitution that all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government are left to the states. Do you believe that state and local governments have the Constitutional right to restrict or permit handgun ownership and possession as they see fit?
2. Would you like to see no restrictions on carrying concealed weapons by people legally empowered to own one? Does this include K-12 schools, universities, churches, and business establishments?
3. Who should NOT be allowed to own or possess a gun?
4. How would the law distinguish between private and public property? Walmart, for example, is privately owned. Its store and parking lot are private property. Doesn’t Walmart have the right to ban weapons on the premises? Do you envision an America that looks like the Philippines - signs posted at entrances to businesses asking customers to check their weapons at the door? I’m not being facetious.
April 20th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Stephen King speaks on the issue.
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20036014,00.html
April 21st, 2007 at 8:45 am
USinKorea wrote:
“Yeah. This shooting proves the lax nature of the gun laws, Edwards. Can you imagine! Selling a gun to guy who had a speeding ticket on his record!! The nerve!!
(as far as I read yesterday that was the only thing on his police record)”
Well, actually, US, the NYT reported this today:
“WASHINGTON, April 20 — Under federal law, the Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho should have been prohibited from buying a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment, a state official and several legal experts said Friday.
Federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from buying a gun.
The special justice’s order in late 2005 that directed Mr. Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, said Richard J. Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginia’s Commission on Mental Health Law Reform.
A spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives also said that if Mr. Cho had been found mentally defective by a court, he should have been denied the right to purchase a gun.”
Read the rest here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/us/21guns.html?th&emc=th
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:19 am
Do you expect a lengthy policy paper in an 800-word column? I think I covered the principles adequately.
1. 2nd & 10th Amendments are not mutually exclusive, just as 1st and 10th Amendments are not (or should not be, in any case) mutually exclusive.
Although far from ideal, Vermont-style gun law comes closest to what I like.
2. Yes.
3. All enfranchised citizens who have not been abjudicated to be mentally insane should be entitled to their 2nd Amendment right, period, no if’s or but’s.
4. Private property right trumps the Constitution as the latter is a guarantee of rights against government intervention. If I don’t want you to carry a gun in my home, you either drop it or you don’t come. It’s as simple as that.
I often open-carry at restaurants that serve alcohol in VA, and I have never been denied service, including several Korean restaurants. No one ever looked concerned, except once — a “white” customer at a Korean restaurant looked pretty freaked out when he saw me carry. Everyone else was normal and calm.
April 24th, 2007 at 6:19 am
“No one ever looked concerned, except once — a “white” customer at a Korean restaurant looked pretty freaked out when he saw me carry. “
It’s interesting that despite the fact that we have been a multiracial country since our very beginnings, we still struggle with nomenclature. Not sure why you put “white” in quotations, but I prefer the term “European-American” when there is a need to distinguish my ethnicity. The hyphenated term seems to be increasing in use.
April 24th, 2007 at 8:48 am
I don’t care for hyphenations, so I often use the term Americans of European ancestry. Hence my use of quotation marks bracketing “white,” as in, that is the term others use generally.
April 27th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
I prefer the term American American!!! I prefer this term because there is no aspect of my heritage that I am more proud of than my Identity as an American citizen. The sacrifices made by my fellow Americans throughout the history of our country defy any desire to put any familial heritage before the one I have embraced and that has likewise embraced me, protected me and so consistently promoted the peace and security of peoples of all nations!