Gun Control/Mental Illness Discussion re VA Tech shootings

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[Note: I split this off from the main thread on the shootings, which has now been moved to Tol Eressëa - VtF]

Just imagine it happening in a class of 5 and 6 year olds. That incident in Scotland proved the turning point for the British and we banned the ownership of handguns after that.

It would be good is something like that come of this, but I don't expect it. I hate to politicize something like this, but I was really disappointed that the first thing that the White House felt it needed to do in response to this tragedy was to reaffirm the president's support of the "right to bear arms".

[nerdanel]

Where did you hear that, V? This is the statement I read that President Bush had made.

BUSH: Our nation is shocked and saddened by the news of the shootings at Virginia Tech today. The exact toll has not yet been confirmed, but it appears that more than 30 people were killed and many more were wounded.

I have spoken with Governor Tim Kaine and Virginia Tech President Charles Steger. I told them that Laura and I and many across our nation are praying for the victims and their families and all the members of the university community who have been devastated by this terrible tragedy.

I told them that my administration would do everything possible to assist with the investigation and that I pledged that we would stand ready to help local law enforcement and the local community in any way we can during this time of sorrow.

Schools should be places of safety and sanctuary and learning. When that sanctuary is violated, the impact is felt in every American classroom and every American community.

Today our nation grieves with those who have lost loved ones at Virginia Tech. We hold the victims in our hearts, we lift them up in our prayers, and we ask a loving god to comfort those who are suffering today.

Thank you.

See here.

ETA I read that a spokeswoman had indeed stated that the President believes that people have a right to bear arms, so long as they comply with all laws. I can't tell whether that was in response to a question whether the President would support changes to gun laws as a result of this incident (though I've seen some news sources that seem to indicate that it was.) I don't think that the remark was so wholly out of line as you do, nor do I think that that was the emphasis of what comments the White House released today.

[Faramond]

Dana Perino, a White House spokesperson, apparently said, "The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed."

I don't think Bush said anything like that, but obviously his administration said it. Now I don't know in what context Perino said this.

[Jnyusa]

Yes, that was the first quote from the White House that I heard as well; then I saw the President's speech rebroadcast just a few moments ago.

I too am wondering what would prompt such a comment from a White House spokesman.

Jn

[Primula Baggins]

It was at the press conference where the official statement was issued.

Official White house transcript

Here are the relevant questions:

Q Dana, going back to Virginia Tech, what more does this White House think needs to be done as it relates to gun issues? The President says current laws need to be strengthened, anything beyond that -- you had a conference on school violence with guns -- what more needs to be done?

MS. PERINO: I would point you back to the fact that President, along with Secretary Spellings, hosted last October -- October 10, 2006 -- a conference on school gun violence after the Amish school shooting and the other shootings that had happened, because the tragedies are the ones that just collectively break America's heart and are ones that we deeply feel, because all of us can imagine what it would be like to have been at your own school, your own college, and to have something happen. And those of us who are parents, or brothers or sisters of people at the schools have to take that into consideration.

As far as policy, the President believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed. And certainly bringing a gun into a school dormitory and shooting -- I don't want to say numbers because I know that they're still trying to figure out many people were wounded and possibly killed, but obviously that would be against the law and something that someone should be held accountable for.

Q Columbine, Amish school shooting, now this, and a whole host of other gun issues brought into schools -- that's not including guns on the streets and in many urban areas and rural areas. Does there need to be some more restrictions? Does there need to be gun control in this country?

MS. PERINO: The President -- as I said, April, if there are changes to the President's policy we will let you know. But we've had a consistent policy of ensuring that the Justice Department is enforcing all of the gun laws that we have on the books and making sure that they're prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Q Lastly, in Texas, if I'm correct, he passed legislation, no age restriction on possession of weapons, if I'm correct. Should there be some kind of federal age limit, as far as the President is concerned, raising the age for gun possession in this country?

MS. PERINO: Unfortunately, I'm going to have to go back and look at what the record was in Texas. Maybe Ken Herman could tell us. We'll go to Ken next.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thanks Prim. That makes more sense, that it was in a press conference in response to a question. It really is annoying that things are packaged in the media as soundbites. The way it was reported, it made it sound like the portion that Faramond quoted was some kind of official statement put out by the White House.

[Faramond]

The whole thing is unimaginable.

I think it's inevitable that talk turns to gun control; people are upset, and looking for something that can be done, rather than just be horrified, or rather than even pray. What can be done to prevent these sorts of things, people ask, and it's natural to want to answer this with a statement of what could be done. And then others will say that this is using a tragedy to advance a political position. I saw this happen at a baseball site I frequently read.

I think the question the Marshalls have here is if there should be a separate thread for the probable gun control debate, to leave this one for ... horror and news and prayer, I guess. There are arguments both ways. It may be wrong to let a thread devoted to this tragedy turn into a debate, but then it may be wrong to pretend the debate has nothing to do with this tragedy. I think the gun control debate, if it happens, can be split off without pretending that, though. And maybe no one will be interested in such a debate, anyway.

[Jnyusa]

Yes, I think that if the conversation turns to discussion or debate over gun control, that should be split off. The tragedy itself is a bit too fresh to be adding to it layers of political implication at this point.

Voronwë has been doing all the heavy lifting recently, as I'm often not able to get online when I wish, so I'll leave it to him or one of the other marshals to do the split if people want to discuss the gun control issue as well.

Jn

[Cerin]

It may be wrong to let a thread devoted to this tragedy turn into a debate, but then it may be wrong to pretend the debate has nothing to do with this tragedy.

It seems to me that especially people affected by such tragedies strongly believe that the (necessarily) political debate has everything to do with the consequences that become part of their lives. I'm thinking of Mr. Brady, who was shot in the assassination attempt against Reagan and became a gun control activist, and about Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who have often lost children to people driving under the influence. If I ever lost someone to this mindless gun violence that seems to be a particularly American phenomenon, I think I would be raging mad about our attitude toward guns. The way to be angry effectively is to organize and do something about it, and the thing to do is change laws, and the way to do that is through politics.

So no, I don't think a discussion about our attitude towards guns and gun law in this country should be separated from a conversation about these deaths, as if talking about our attitude about guns and the laws that govern their use is somehow offensive to the memory of these people who were killed, or to their families.

eta: It seems the post I was replying to is no longer here.

[nerdanel]

I think it would be wrong to pretend that a debate on gun control and perceived rights has nothing to do with a tragedy that occurred because "Guns don't kill people, but people kill people (with guns.)" To suggest that the tragedy and the political position favoring stricter control (or absolute control --> ban) on guns are not linked (which no one here has done, to be sure) would be simply disingenuous...and of course convenient for those who espouse the opposing political position. So, I think it is legitimate to create a new thread for such discussion, but not to suggest that this tragedy cannot be linked to the political debate on gun control. It would be futile to discuss the merits of stricter gun control without addressing the actual, non-theoretical consequences that guns have had on our society - today, on the lives of more than thirty individuals.

ETA Posted during split...I think?

[kams]

A columnist suggested watching Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine to get an idea of what drives gun ownership in America. [admission: I've not seen it myself.] She said that whether you are turned off by Michael-Moore-the-celebrity or not, the movie itself is nuanced and shows both sides. Gun ownership in America is partly the result of great marketing and a culture of fear. Add into the mix the strong desire we Americans have for independence and control over our own surroundings and it makes more sense why gun ownership is high.

The shootings, however, will never make sense.

[truehobbit]

I would define a well-ordered civilised country as one where no one feels the need to own firearms.

I may be wrong, but I think in Britain not even the police carry firearms. (Don't know about my own country, I must admit. I seem to remember reading that about Britain on the BBC website sometime.)

I don't mean to sound all patronising, but this is something where countries like Britain or Germany (probably other European countries, too, I'm just not so familiar with them) are the most progressive in the world. (My definition of 'progressive' being a society that advances to rational and peaceful behaviour.)
I know some people here who have been scared by media coverage about crime into wishing for some kinds of self-defense weapons, but for the most part, everybody I know is horrified by the idea that ordinary people would run around with firearms or possess them at home, because the idea is that the society we live in should make something like that unnecessary, and that if it were felt to be necessary, then something basic would be wrong with our social order.


There are indeed occasional reports about students going to school armed with all sorts of illegal weapons, which regularly gives rise to discussion about a new youth 'culture' in which jungle-law rules apply, with the experts wondering where that comes from and what to do against it.
Just adding this to point out that there is by no means the perfect state of peace and insight over here - the struggle against inclinations to violence is an ongoing and never-ending one.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

A columnist suggested watching Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine to get an idea of what drives gun ownership in America. [admission: I've not seen it myself.] She said that whether you are turned off by Michael-Moore-the-celebrity or not, the movie itself is nuanced and shows both sides.

Kams, I think Michael Moore does powerful work, but to say that it is nuance and shows both sides simply is not true. He is a propagandist, pure and simple. A very effective one, to be sure, but certainly not fair and balanced.

[Griffon64]

truehobbit comes closest to my viewpoint.

Generally speaking, the moment you have to control something by law, you already lost. Drugs, weapons, sex, speech, money ... doesn't matter what. The only way to "win" is to have a society where people prefer to act out in ways that promote their own wellbeing through the wellbeing of the whole society. Don't ask me how you do something like that, though It requires a general growing up of everybody, where the "Me! Me!" gets replaced by something like "Do onto others ...".

I am not pro- or anti- gun control. I think guns are dangerous things when placed into dangerous hands. And I think until the dangerous hands goes away trying to control the guns is none too likely to solve the problem.

[baby tuckoo]

IAWVtF.

[vison]

I agree with Griffon64 here. Guns are dangerous things.

The so-called gun culture in America will not be eliminated by outlawing the private ownership of guns. It is violence that is the problem. I believe the old truism that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Rightly or wrongly, I see America as a violent place. While this appalling crime today is fresh in my mind, I remember that every day in the US that many or even more people are murdered.

The dreadful murders in Dun Blaine, where the children were shot, was so out of character for a British crime that it stunned the British nation into banning handguns: but handgun crime was never a particular problem in Britain. Gun crime is not as common Europe as it is in the USA, yet many, many Europeans own sporting guns.

It is difficult, without knowing more, to comment on today's murders. But such crimes are not unknown in the USA, they seem, to an outsider, to be far too common. Why?

It seems so utterly pointless to me to immediately shout out for the banning of guns, as if that would solve something. True enough that guns are too easily obtained, and I am certainly in favour of strict gun control: we have it in Canada, after all. I don't think banning guns is an answer, though.

Next week or next month, the horror will have faded and while the victims and their families will never forget and never cease sorrowing, what will be done to prevent such crimes in the future? What kind of society creates such killers? What kind of society allows deadly weapons to be sold like chewing gum? What kind of society makes heroes out of gangsters and thugs, and allows a whole youth culture to be overtaken by street values?

It is so inexpressibly sad and heartbreaking. There are just no words to say how awful it is.

[truehobbit]

A columnist suggested watching Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine to get an idea of what drives gun ownership in America. [admission: I've not seen it myself.] She said that whether you are turned off by Michael-Moore-the-celebrity or not, the movie itself is nuanced and shows both sides.

Kams, I think Michael Moore does powerful work, but to say that it is nuance and shows both sides simply is not true. He is a propagandist, pure and simple. A very effective one, to be sure, but certainly not fair and balanced.

Not so much in Bowling for Colombine, I think. The one about 9/11, yes, but on Bowling for Colombine I agree with kams that he really tried to explain the high rate of gun-crime in the US. (Although, of course, if facts were falsified, I wouldn't know.)

He denounced gun-ownership and a culture that considers owning warlike weapons a normal thing for people, but where it got really interesting is where he pointed out that in other countries gun-ownership might also be widespread, and yet gun-crime was not.
He put this down, as kams said, to a culture of fear, and gave some good arguments for it. I thought this was convincing, not just because of his arguments (like you said, Voronwë, there is the possible propaganda element), but also because, as I said above, the only people I know who wish to have weapons for self-defense at home are worried about what appears like high crime rates, and the people I know who would not dream of having a gun at home also don't expect the next person they see in the street to attack them.

So, I agree with griff's further points, too: I'm all for strict gun-control, as vison says, but the main thing is for people to learn to feel they don't need a gun. Not sure how you are going to achieve that, though. It's a bit of a vicious circle and it's hard to say what should come first: to make people feel safe you need to take away the guns, but if they don't have a gun they won't feel safe...do you expect them to feel safe first and then relinquish the guns or do you take away the guns and then hope they'll feel safe?

[melianndoriath]

I don't know what the answer is . I do know that when more folks own and use guns, more folks will be injured/killed by them-it's a matter of probability. people that commit crimes will find ways to use guns, gun-control laws or not. Do guns really keep us safe?

Last week a woman drove her child to school and returned to find a man leaving her house. She asked him what he was doing there and he said that he lived there. It was her home and she knew that he did in fact NOT love there, so she pulled out her gun and held him at bay, calling the police with her cell phone. I think this type of incident encourages people to have and USE their guns for things other than hunting (which I abhor).

Meli

[Primula Baggins]

I feel, and almost certainly am, much safer with no gun. It would much more likely be stolen, or used against my family, than actually help anyone. Mr. Prim knows how to use them, but he won't have one in the house.

We both knew children who were killed accidentally by their parents' guns, and knew of one teenager who killed himself with his dad's gun. A school shooting in our town a few years back killed four people and wounded more than twenty kids; one of the weapons was bought by the shooter's father and kept, he thought, under lock and key, just for target practice to control his son's gun obsession. (Both parents were killed.)

Neither one of us knows anyone outside of active military service in wartime whose life was saved by a gun.

[Nin]

if private guns are difficult to obtain in Switzerland, all adult men have their army rifle at home as long as they are in military service (which under the Swiss system means until the age of 40). The question of risk and necessity is often asked - especially as they also have the bullits at home.

Accidents happen from time to time, but deliberate use of those arms is rare - although it does happen too, even if people ready to use their army rifle usually own at least one other weapon.

I think the fact that despite the fact that so many persons have weapons at home, as they are not private and light and easy to use, there is no reason to use them.

And Switzerland really has no war culture, even if the army is very present. It's very different from Germany... a soldier in Switzerland does nor make me think of war but of avalanches...

I think that guns should be stricly controlled - but that the most important thing is to controle the general attitude towards violence and to give your life a value.

Oh, and in "Bowling for Columbine" Micheal Moore did an excellent job.

And I would refuse to stay in a house where is a gun.