Thursday AM Gun Discussion
While Harry Reid urges people not to "rush to judgment" on the legislative future of firearms, the rest of the world is baffled by America's lax regulations and acceptance of our culture of guns.
No one wants to look at the role firearms played in Virginia Tech's tragedy. They want only to discuss how disturbed this guy was, or wonder if this Asian kid was a "Paki" terrorist, and while they may be relevant topics for discussion (or just ignorant fear-mongering from a moronic airhead), I have yet to see many asking where he obtained the weapons.
No, we would rather soak up the horror of the videos he sent to NBC. Or, if we grow weary of that tragedy, amuse ourselves with Sanjaya's dismissal (I have never watched that damn show and yet I know all about that tone-deaf anti-star), or Anna Nicole's baby daddy.
There ARE people discussing the gun issue. Props to Gun Guys, .50 Caliber Terror, and Freedom States Alliance for doing their part to educate people about the effects of our gun culture, and a big Jersey Represent! shout-out for going after a .50 caliber ban, but MORE people need to be discussing this. Politicians need to stop fearing the NRA. People need to stop acting like the government will control them unless they have their .44s handy (news break: the government will ALWAYS out-gun you, so siddown and STFU).
Discuss, and pass it on.
As always: Gorilla's Guides.
No one wants to look at the role firearms played in Virginia Tech's tragedy. They want only to discuss how disturbed this guy was, or wonder if this Asian kid was a "Paki" terrorist, and while they may be relevant topics for discussion (or just ignorant fear-mongering from a moronic airhead), I have yet to see many asking where he obtained the weapons.
No, we would rather soak up the horror of the videos he sent to NBC. Or, if we grow weary of that tragedy, amuse ourselves with Sanjaya's dismissal (I have never watched that damn show and yet I know all about that tone-deaf anti-star), or Anna Nicole's baby daddy.
There ARE people discussing the gun issue. Props to Gun Guys, .50 Caliber Terror, and Freedom States Alliance for doing their part to educate people about the effects of our gun culture, and a big Jersey Represent! shout-out for going after a .50 caliber ban, but MORE people need to be discussing this. Politicians need to stop fearing the NRA. People need to stop acting like the government will control them unless they have their .44s handy (news break: the government will ALWAYS out-gun you, so siddown and STFU).
Discuss, and pass it on.
As always: Gorilla's Guides.
Labels: Gorillas Guides, guns, Harry Reid, Virigina Tech
by MG at 6:24 AM
5 Comments:
From what I understand he bought the guns from two gun shops in Virginia, and not having any felonies on his record there were no legal impediments to him buying them. Also, since he waited a month between purchases he didn't run afoul of Virginia's "one handgun a month" law. I am unaware if having gone to a hospital for psychological problems would disqualify someone from a handgun purchase (though it should) and I don't really know if that is something that is checked for in the mandatory background check, or if it is strictly checking someone's police record. At least with what information we have to go on at this point, other than banning handguns outright, which is a non-starter, I really don't know how much more could have been done to legally prevent him from buying handguns.
Actually, I can say a little something on this... I know of someone who had been on anti-depressants as a teenager who was required to get their former psychiatrist to sign off on the firearm application attesting to their current mental health. The psychiatrist decided to err on the side of caution and did not sign off, and this person was not allowed to get a permit. Of course, this was in New Jersey almost 10 years ago, and we all know registration and background checks vary by state.
According to this article:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3052278&page=1
this guy had dealings with the police at least 18 months ago, so depending on where and when he obtained the weapons, a big ol' red flag should have gone up somewhere. So far I haven't read anything that states where and when he got the stuff.
Just found this article, which says that the state laws SHOULD have prohibited him from purchasing weapons.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting_weapons;_ylt=Apq6JlQ41oUxOiELK_.6VfSs0NUE
The problem in this case is not that gun laws aren't strict enough. It was that existing law was not followed. Passing new laws won't prevent a repeat unless the underlying cause (i.e., making sure the law is followed) is addressed & corrected.
Personally, I think it equally important to address the issue of media coverage over such events. After the 1987 Stockton, CA shooting at an elementary school (which lead to CA's assault weapons ban, background check on ALL firearms purchases, etc) many people questioned whether it was wise of the media to inundate the public with coverage of the tragedy. There were numerous instances of people threatening similar acts & even attempted copy-cats. But the media denied any possible responsibility & instead tried very hard to blame role playing games & movies. After Columbine, people again questioned how wise it was for the media to "glorify" it the way they did. Again, there were numerous threats, hoaxes & attempts at repeats. And again, the media denied there was any possible connection between their coverage & those follow-up incidents, instead trying to blame movies (specifically, "Matrix") and music (Marilyn Manson). Now here we have a nutcase who goes on a shooting rampage, and in his "manifesto" he specifically cites Columbine, holding those two murderers up as "martyrs". And we've already had several threats & attempts at copy-cats. Now considering the fact that just about all (if not ALL) of these massacres are committed by mentally unstable individuals who are lashing out because they feel it's the only way to get attention to their "cause" or "situation", is it not irresponsible of the media to inundate the public night and day with coverage when these incidents happen? Is it not logical that similarly unhinged individuals will see this level of coverage and say "Gee, maybe THAT'S how I can get the attention I crave!"?
I'm not suggesting a media blackout on these tragedies. Not at all. But for at least 2 full days afterwards, every time I turned on the TV, tuned in the radio, or logged on to the 'net, all I saw was more coverage of the massacre. Do we really need that level of coverage? Do we, the public, really need to see this psychopath's "manifesto"? The media needs to get back to reporting the NEWS, rather than sensationalism, hype & ratings chasing.
Yep, you are right MG, he SHOULD have not been legally able to have bought the guns. From what I understand they cannot sell to someone who has been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital, which makes sense. Now the media is saying he WASN'T "involuntarily" committed, so that's the loophole through which his gun purchases were able to pass. So we are to assume he committed HIMSELF after getting complaints from the college about him supposedly harassing or "stalking" a couple female students on the computer? I don't buy it. The college had him taken in for psychological evaluation and it was deemed therein that he was a danger to himself, correct? That's what the media said initially, then stopped giving specifics once the ass-covering started and instead kept mentioning the loophole of being able to sell to someone who wasn't involuntarily committed, yet didn't bother to try to explain the discrepancy with their earlier assertions that the school had him sent there. That is one of many things about this massacre that just don't add up or where the story has changed several times. These discrepancies are being discussed, among other places, at the blog Wot Is It Good 4.
Post a Comment
<< Home