2008.01.24
Don't we have a duty to close gun loopholes?
Virginians do love their guns.
Roanoke-area gun rights advocate Bobby Woolwine copied me on an e-mail he sent this week to one of my colleagues. Among the things that had Woolwine a little steamed under the collar was that friends and kin of Virginia Tech shooting victims sought to close a loophole in the state's gun laws that allows unlicensed sellers at gun shows to skip background checks on buyers.
Even with Wednesday's defeat of a state Senate bill on the issue, we haven't heard the last in the long-running debate on gun shows.
Like any decent person, Woolwine offered his deepest sympathy for the April 16 tragedy -- though he thought the efforts of the grief-stricken and their supporters were misdirected.
"Don't the people doing the protesting realize that the gunman did not buy his guns at a gun show and that gun show purchases represent less than 1% of the firearms used to commit crimes?" Woolwine wrote.
Woolwine is right -- about one thing. Seung-Hui Cho, the mentally ill Tech gunman, didn't buy his tools of mass killing at a gun show. There is no question that, had the gun show loophole been closed, it would not have prevented Cho's deadly actions.
But does that mean Virginia has no responsibility to close loopholes that could allow gun sales to people who shouldn't have them?
If it was important for Gov. Tim Kaine to close a loophole that permitted Cho to buy guns from licensed firearms dealers, why isn't it also important to make sure Cho couldn't also have bought weapons from an unlicensed gun seller at a gun show?
And another thing, Woolwine added, "Had Virginia Tech not took it upon themselves to disarm all students perhaps the tragedy could have been held to a minimum."
I don't know, but the idea of more people on campus packing heat doesn't leave me with a warm and fuzzy feeling.
By the same stretch of logic, the world would be safer if more countries possessed nuclear weapons. Does anyone believe that?
About two weeks after the April 16 shooting, Kaine signed an executive order that would forbid licensed gun dealers from selling firearms to people who have been ordered into mental treatment.
Lawmakers also will address that issue during the session. But this week's defeat of the gun show bills makes me wonder if they'll pass even that kind of modest gun-control legislation.
April 16 was a cataclysmic event that forced Virginia to look at its policies and procedures in a number of areas. Gun laws should not be exempt from that scrutiny.
Why is the ability of an unlicensed dealer to sell a firearm without conducting a background check now considered a "loophole" in the law? Yes, the incident on April 16th at Virginia Tech is a tragedy. However, gun show firearm sales have nothing to do with this tragedy.
Not one of the firearms purchased by the Seung-Hui Cho were purchased at a gun show. It seems the problem here is not where the guns were purchased, but the fact someone who had been ordered to receive mental treatment, and had not received treatment, was able to purchase a firearm. Don't you think maybe this is the part needing to be taken care of?
Motor vehicles take many more lives than an unregistered firearm purchased at a gun show. A high percentage motor vecicle deaths are due to drinking and driving. Do we now ban an individual from conducting a private sale of a vehicle to prevent drunk driving? Do we ban stores from selling you alcohol if you drive to the store? It just seems the shooting at Tech is being used to promote another agenda.
Comment by Barry Moran — January 24, 2008 @ 11:42 am
The rational that Cho did not buy a gun at a gun show is not the point. Mental illness was not a part of a background check and now it is. Of course it is too late for the 32 innocent victims of April 16th. Closing the barn door after the horses have left. This is the same for the gun show loophole. Let us for a change be proactive rather than reactive and close this loophole. I'm certain no one would take pleasure in an "I told you so" scenario in the future.
Comment by Valerie — January 24, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
Before we start an incorrect rumor, let's be correct on what was and was not.
"Mental illness was not a part of a background check and now it is." -- Incorrect
Among the disqualifiers in Virginia: "Have you ever been adjudicated legally incompetent, mentally incapacitated, or been involuntarily committed to a mental institution?" (note, this has been around for years...LONG before last April) Mental health *was* a part of the background check. (source: http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_PurchaseEligibility.shtm)
There is no "loophole", and this issue has nothing to do with gun shows. The fact that private property exchanges are not restricted does not make a loophole any more than cooking dinner for the family makes your kitchen an unregulated restaurant (a loophole in eatery inspection requirements?).
Shanna, I believe you made an apples-to-oranges comparison, "I don't know, but the idea of more people on campus packing heat doesn't leave me with a warm and fuzzy feeling.
By the same stretch of logic, the world would be safer if more countries possessed nuclear weapons. Does anyone believe that?"
I don't think the comparison is similar enough. Closer, but still not the same, would be every country having its own defense force. How does having a defense force threaten the other countries...other than the ones that have plans to attack others without reason?
The ability of self-defense does not turn towns into the mythical "wild west" that naysayers would have you believe. Nothing is going to change by crossing the political college campus boundary lines from the town. I'm not sure why so many people "feel safe" on campus, when there is no physical barrier between that patch of land and greater Blacksburg.
But then, Blacksburg isn't what I'd call Thunderdome. I remember the worst part being the uncertainty of weather.
Comment by Ed S. — January 24, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
So you are saying someone with mental illness who wants to get a gun and do damage would answer that question honestly? Are you serious? Those who keep saying the VT tragedy was not because of the gun show loophole but it was because Cho was mentally ill. Therefore we should not strive to prevent the breach of another loophole until someone dies. Watch these legislators scramble and blame somebody else then. Is this a gender thing, Shanna? I wonder how this would fall along gender lines.
Comment by Valerie — January 24, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
Valerie:
You raise a most interesting point. Other than you, the e-mails, blog posts and voicemails have been exclusively from men, all gun-rights advocates. Well, I don't know the gender of SandH.
What IS the sentiment of women out there on this legislation or gun rights in general?
Seems the guys are quick to throw around the "E" word (emotion). By my way of thinking, being pro-active rather than reactive is logic...not emotion, fellaz.
And while I'm on the subject, this kid-gal doesn't want to take away anybody's right to hunt or defend one's self. If you're a law-abiding gun owner, what are you scared of? That slippery slope argument doesn't cut it. A show of hands of those who have lost a gun because of gun legislation?
s
Comment by Shanna — January 24, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
"Woolwine is right -- about one thing. Seung-Hui Cho, the mentally ill Tech gunman, didn't buy his tools of mass killing at a gun show. There is no question that, had the gun show loophole been closed, it would not have prevented Cho's deadly actions. But does that mean Virginia has no responsibility to close loopholes that could allow gun sales to people who shouldn't have them?"
So the premise of your emotional appeal is completely without merit, but you'll make it anyway? By your way of thinking we should close the "car show loophole" that allows evil drunks to buy a car and drive around smashing into innocent people. We should close the "free speech loophole" that allows the KKK to spread hate speech that inspires violence. We should close the "press loophole" that allows newspapers to print stories that could result in wars without triple checking their facts?
Of course not, because the abuse of a freedom should not result in a call to curb freedom - particularly when that freedom is tied to the natural right to self-defense.
Comment by SandH — January 24, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
To drive a car, you need a license. Before you get it, you have to pass a course, written & performance test, show proof of insurance. If you are a teenager & not in school, in many states you cannot receive one. Drive stupidly, you get tickets. Drive stupidly enough, you lose your license.
What do we expect from gun owners? Not even a tenth this much. Most of us are fed up with the death, injuries and potential risk to others. Gun owners need to be screened for suitability before purchasing weapons. Weed out the ones with alochol, drug, domestic violence histories, those who haven't finished school, and those who have not taken out insurance (for when they shoot their neighbor in the foot or when their kid takes the gun to school.) Everyday there is another stupid or horrible gun incident.
We have as much to fear from gun owners as we have from criminals. Their need to pack a pistol is affecting our freedom. It's time for the cowboys to "pack 'em away" before they blow away half the planet in their vigilante induced stupor. Unfortunately as long as our legislators continue to receive contributions from gun support groups, they will lean in that direction. Until they are voted out that is. Virginia lawmakers carry the blood of those students on their hands.
Comment by kraziquban — January 24, 2008 @ 9:29 pm
"So you are saying someone with mental illness who wants to get a gun and do damage would answer that question honestly? Are you serious?"
Yes, I'm serious, but you jumped to an incorrect conclusion. I was just pointing out that your statement "Mental illness was not a part of a background check and now it is." is incorrect. Perhaps I wasn't clear in my response. Mental illness *was* a part of the background check. However, *the state* did not report Cho because he was not *involuntarily committed*. Refer to the RT's own article on this: http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/breaking/wb/113294
I know many women that are recreational and competitive shooters. Having been active for many years, I've met *many* interesting people. This isn't a gender issue. Nor is it a racial issue, religious issue, etc.
Comment by Ed S. — January 24, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
Trust me, I know there are avid women gun-rights advocates out there.
I just want to hear their thoughts along with women who are not as engaged in the activities.
Comment by Shanna — January 24, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
kraziquban - "To drive a car, you need a license. Before you get it, you have to pass a course, written & performance test, show proof of insurance. If you are a teenager & not in school, in many states you cannot receive one. Drive stupidly, you get tickets. Drive stupidly enough, you lose your license."
To get a CHP, you have to pass a test (most I have seen are written and performance), apply to the court, undergo a background check, and finally receive sign-off by a judge. If you are under 21 you cannot receive one. If you have a history of violence or drugs you cannot receive one. Many other factors that make you ineligible. Carry stupidly, and you not only lose your permit, you may lose your right to own a gun, may go to jail, may be put to death.
"Weed out the ones with alcohol, drug, domestic violence histories,"
Already done as part of the purchase (every purchase). Done a second time if the person applies for a CHP.
"those who haven't finished school,"
Why? Someone who never finished school is less deserving of protecting their family than me? My grandfather made it through 8th grade, was a Brethren minister, farmed his entire life, and a very beloved community member (the funeral home said he had one of the largest turnouts they had seen in years). It is insulting to his memory that you feel he was any less of a person because of your elitist view of his intelligence and compassionate nature simply because he did not "finish school".
You post under, phonetically, "crazy Cuban", and spew wild, unsupported views of cowboys and vigilantes. Maybe you should actually get to know some of these people and understand their side. I can respectfully disagree with someone who has considered my side (and truly understands "we" are not "vigilante cowboys", or whatever fantasy you want to impose). Come to the table with statements that are wildly sensationalized, all you bring is extraneous noise.
Comment by Ed S. — January 25, 2008 @ 8:24 am
Kraziquban has lived up to his/her name. Finishing school as a criteria for gun ownership? There have been several wars fought by great men who didn't have the opportunity to finish school, including the Revolutionary War. If not for these men, the United States wouldn't exist. There is only one person with blood on their hands in this instance, and he is now dead. He had no regard whatsoever for the law, so it wouldn't matter how many laws existed.The only thing that could have stopped him was a bullet, so if anyone shares the guilt it would be the people who made sure that his bullets were the only ones there that day.
Comment by Barry — January 25, 2008 @ 8:29 am
It would be really interesting to see how people who have such an affinity for the 2nd Amendment would react if their inner city child was laying in a coffin from the senseless violence that guns have played a very active role.
Our discussion need not center the reactionary, as Valerie pointed out, response of the VT tragedy, but from the vantage point as to why these guns are getting into the poorest neighborhoods. We're talking AK-47's, Uzi's, etc. These are not inexpensive weapons, so where do they come from.
The gun show background check shouldn't alarm any law-abiding citizen who wants to patronize these types of events. What's the problem with having your background checked? You have to have it done for so many other things.
I find it interesting that the opponents to this law are the same people who are more than likely saying that "if you have nothing to hide and are not a terrorist, why is the Patriot Act illegal in your mind?"
We have a moral duty to make the law universal. If you want to own a gun, the law states you have to have your background checked. This should apply to any manner in which they are for sale. Fair enough, if you ask me.
In countries where guns are not as prevalent as they are here, their crime rates are a very small fraction of what it is here, so the defense argument goes right down the drain.
The main point is that the lobbying business controls too much of what goes on in this country, and the NRA has too much power over such a dangerous position.
Comment by Henry Hale — January 25, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
"In countries where guns are not as prevalent as they are here, their crime rates are a very small fraction of what it is here,"
Henry, please post your sources for this, as I would like to compare. I would also like to understand the normalizing methods that are used to make it an apples-to-apples comparison.
And while I don't speak for everyone, I personally am not keen on the Patriot Act. My vigilance for freedom transcends the right to keep and bear arms.
"It would be really interesting to see how people who have such an affinity for the 2nd Amendment would react if their inner city child was laying in a coffin from the senseless violence that guns have played a very active role."
I would react the same. Until someone catches evidence (like a video) of a gun sprouting legs and running amok, killing willy nilly, *I* will continue to go after the *root cause* - the criminal. The person. The gun has *not* "played a very active role" in anything. It is a very passive device and can only be acted upon.
Regardless, I wouldn't feel any better if a child were stabbed, beaten, raped, drowned, poisoned, electrocuted, or harmed in any other manner. Is the horror the fact that a child was shot, or the fact that an evil mind has brought great harm, or death, upon the child? I am more upset with the latter, rather than the mode of injury.
In my end-game, where the evil-doers are pursued to extinction, there is no need to worry about the gun, because the root cause (evil person) is not causing harm any more.
In the end-game of "blame the gun", what has changed? Is it better that the evil person has switched from a gun to a knife or crowbar?
Comment by Ed S. — January 25, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
Hi Shanna! Here's your female gun nut.
I cannot help but wonder how many of these people have actually BEEN to a gun show. But I digress.
First Shanna, the people "packing heat" on campus could have (not saying they would have) preventing Cho from killing that many. To get a conceal carry permit in Virginia, you MUST have firearms training, pass a background check and get approval by a judge (who checks your criminal record, etc.).
"So you are saying someone with mental illness who wants to get a gun and do damage would answer that question honestly? Are you serious?"
Yes. But you know, on background checks they don't ask you, "Hey do you plan on killing people for no reason?" Please. Also there are people with mental illness who are not psycho. Case in point, I VOLUNTARILY put myself in a psych hospital because I was severely depressed following an ectopic pregnancy.
As for the car scenario, when you sell a car to someone third party, do you have to do a background check on them? No. Do you have to make sure they have a license? No. Do you check their DMV record? No. All you do is sell it and give them the title. That is pretty scary considering that accidents with cars kill more people than people with guns. (Oops, sorry Barry, I just read what you wrote).
"Weed out the ones... those who haven't finished school, "
For real? Cho finished high school. You are assuming that because someone didn't finish school that they are not responsible. My father dropped out in 10th grade and has more common sense and I would trust him with a gun more than I would some PhDs I know.
"It would be really interesting to see how people who have such an affinity for the 2nd Amendment would react if their inner city child was laying in a coffin from the senseless violence that guns have played a very active role."
Most inner city violence are in cities where guns are banned or heavily regulated so the average citizen cannot get them.
"In countries where guns are not as prevalent as they are here, their crime rates are a very small fraction of what it is here, so the defense argument goes right down the drain."
These countries also limit free choice in a lot of issues like health care, and such. So why would I want to make the US like other countries?
The problem with women and guns, as a side point, is that it IS about emotion for many. I remember watching a lady at a local festival set up an anti-gun booth. She had her young child with her while she was setting up. While she was busy setting up her anti-gun stand I saw her child play with a plastic bag, go pet a stray dog, and then wander off. And she was worried about guns?
Shanna, I would like to recommend the book "Armed and Female." I am sorry I cannot remember the writer's name. It is an interesting take on guns from a female point of view.
Also Shanna, I love your blog and your cool head.
Comment by Lisa — January 25, 2008 @ 4:57 pm