I'm aware of the very strong gun lobby, especially in Virginia, but it's irresponsible not to mention it at least as one significant contributing factor. Yes, there were other factors that led to this critical mass of tragedy, lack of proper communication, problems in the mental health support system, but to ignore the smoking gun, both proverbially and literally?
It's baffling that it's easier to buy a gun in certain states than get one's driver's license. In driving a car, you have to undergo extensive testing, both on paper and on the road to prevent fatal accidents. In owning a gun, which is designed to maim or kill, one doesn't have to meet such standards.How could Gov. Tim Kaine neglect to mention the issue of gun control re Virginia Tech massacre?
Besides gun control being a contentious issue, which I am not going to get into right now, any of gun control laws being mentioned or existing would not have stopped Cho, the shooter, from getting the guns. He has no prior criminal records. Other than the fact that background check does not go through his psychological history, Cho has not been in a mental treatment facility long enough to warrant a warnning.
Cho's case simply falls through the cracks. To prevent someone like Cho with laws and enforcements would mean a police state much strident than the one in China. Not a good option. Had Virginia Tech counsellers picked up on him, the tragedy might have been prevented.
For Gov. Kaine to talk about gun control as to prevent similiar case like Cho will be political suicide and completely inappropriate.
XRHow could Gov. Tim Kaine neglect to mention the issue of gun control re Virginia Tech massacre?
Gun Control Laws are ';Feel Good'; rules that seem reasonable but have been proved again and again to actually raise violent crime rate and not lower them.
The real issue the coward Kaine failed to mention was that the administration had declared the campus a ';Gun Free Zone'; and that legal gun owners were prohibited from carrying their personal defense weapons on the school grounds.
Again, seems reasonable, right? Problem is the only people who actually voluntarily follow these stupid rules are people that respect the law, not rapist, not muggers, not criminals and as we have seen here, not mass murderers.
Recent studies have shown that in the US, legally owned firearms are used to interfere in the commission of crimes FIVE TIMES more often than criminals successfully use guns to commit crimes.
One nationwide survey asked criminals who had committed murder, rape, assault or burglary which one they feared most during the commission of their crimes: police, alarms, dogs or an armed victim. Guess which choice was picked by 87% of these convicts?
I think mental health agencies need a way to identify the people who may be a danger to others. The reason that there isn't a lot of official talk of going after people with mental illnesses, and the commitment issue, is that most people who have been committed are TOTALLY non violent, and just can't take care of themselves (too depressed to eat or go to the doc) or feel so sad they want to die. However, there are certainly people who act out against others and unfortunately, they are housed in mental hospitals right along with the other folks who never hurt a fly. The latter population is a population that is very frequently victimized by others.
The VA Tech shootings really upset me. I used to be a TA at UCLA until I got bipolar disorder (well, I always had it, but did not know it). I felt so awful for those who died. The truth is, those students of mine were my kids and I might have been another who would have died to save them. But nobody would have heard how a mentally ill woman saved her students from a mentally ill man. The media do not report it when a person has a mental illness unless they do something bad. I have a hunting rifle and a .22. I do not want people banning me from having guns (which is some states, I would be banned just for having bipolar. Such as Texas). Abe Lincoln and Winston Churchill were mentally ill.
To get back to your point, in my state, you have to take a hunting safety class if you want to hunt. There is a class for concealed carry. Otherwise, nothing. I don't think that some kind of class would be such a bad idea, but it shouldn't be burdensome. I really think in the US, there is a cultural problem, and the guns really aren't the problem. Maybe our cutthroat capitalistic system is really the problem. Most mass shootings are related to layoffs, seems like to me.
Look at it this way.
Guns were banned at that school. Thus - GUN CONTROL LAWS DONT WORK. The only person with a gun that day was the killer thanks to banning guns at that school. Banning guns will only leave them in the hands of nuts who dont give a damn and who are out to kill the rest of us.
Had they not been banned at that school, maybe - just maybe one of the teachers or a responsible student would have had a gun on them and been able to take that nutjob out before he killed 30 people.
Thats your gun control for you.
The reason was that it would make the state look very bad for screwing up and letting Cho buy the guns in the first place.
IF ONE STATE AGENCY HAD TOLD ANOTHER THAT CHO WAS UNSTABLE IN THE FIRST PLACE IT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.
Also if there gun carry laws had been like Utah's some one might have had a carry permit and stopped him before he shot so many people.
Students at collages in utah can carry handguns if they have a carry permit.
In some other states even off duty cops can not carry at collages. stupid.
Why not enforce the gun laws that are ON the books, look the nut was a nut, thata it. If just 1 student had be armed, this might be a different conversation, but no, you people yak and yak about gun control until no one has any except the butchers, you know in a way, ';gun control caused this'; hope that makes you feel better.
I think the problem here was that due to the failures with how his mental commitment was handled, he was able to get the gun when he shouldn't have. If we had not gone hog wild with keeping everyone's right to privacy first and foremost, then the store owner would have known Cho was help for a psych eval and he wouldn't have been able to get the gun. The real issue with this has been and continues to be the fact that his family and high school counselors and teachers proped this kid up so that he could seem ok on paper to the VT admissions board. Who in that high school wrote his letter of recomindation and signed off on that application to Tech knowing he had such a social anxeity disorder that he was given a private tutor in high school?!?!?! Tech officials had no way to see this coming and his family turned him lose on the campus. Where he got a gun is not the point. The point is how did a kid with such huge mental issues keep getting coddled and passed along the system until he got to VT where he had no buisness being. His family is just as guilty as him.
No comments:
Post a Comment