Ten Years After Columbine, It's Easier to Bear Arms

[villager]

<snip>

The carnage in Littleton, Colorado — 12 classmates and a teacher before the killers offed themselves — and the ease with which the teenagers acquired their weapons (two sawed-off shotguns, a 9-mm semiautomatic carbine and a TEC-9 handgun) seemed to usher in a new era of, well if not gun control, then at least gun awareness. (See pictures of Columbine 10 years later.)

In the decade since, massacres perpetrated by deranged gunmen have continued — including the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre in which Cho Seung-Hui killed 32 people and wounded many others. But something odd has occurred. Whatever momentum the Columbine killings gave to gun control has long since petered out.

This spring, for example, Texas lawmakers are mulling a new law that would allow college students to carry firearms to campus (Utah already makes this legal). "I think people weren't concerned about it first," says University of Texas graduate student John Woods, who has emerged as a spokesman for campus efforts to defeat the bill. "They thought, 'It's a terrible idea. Why would the government consider something like this?'" But as the debate on campus has heated up, that complacency has vanished, Woods explains to TIME. Students opposed to the bill plan a big rally on Thursday at the Capitol, he says. (See pictures of America's gun culture.)

But efforts like Woods' are up against powerful headwinds — and not just because of the powerful gun lobby that often strangles gun-control laws. Americans in general have cooled significantly to the idea of restricting gun rights. A poll released last week by CNN showed that support for stricter gun laws was at an all-time low, with just 39% of respondents in favor. Eight years ago that number was 54%.

Woods concedes that getting help to the psychotic, would-be killers of the world would probably be an even better fix. But he has a personal reason to take the issues seriously. Two years ago, he was in his apartment in Blacksburg, Virginia, listening to sirens sounding across the campus outside his window. A half-dozen friends of his were in the classroom where Cho Seung-Hui opened fire, and the names of some of the dead belong to people he knew. "The idealist in me is shocked and angry," Woods says, that restrictions on guns have eased rather than tightened in the wake of tragedies like the one at Virginia Tech.

<snip>

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1891416,00.html?iid=tsmodule

[rateyes]

1. And, to arm bears:

Seriously, though. The assault weapons ban ought to be re-instated.

[naaman fletcher]

2. Good. eom.

[villager]

3. Hopefully, you and yours won't be anywhere near the next massacre

and you can keep zinging your one-liners around after that one, too...

[naaman fletcher]

5. Hopefully...

My loved ones won't be the target of a lunatic influenced by a strange and bizarre book, as well.

[villager]

6. and hopefully that lunatic won't be able to arm himself to the gills...

...as easily as the Columbine guys did...

Though interesting you hold a book more responsible for the event than the actual weapons that killed the actual people.

[paulsby]

4. what a bunch of crap

lets start with...

"In the decade since, massacres perpetrated by deranged gunmen have continued — including the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre in which Cho Seung-Hui killed 32 people and wounded many others. But something odd has occurred. Whatever momentum the Columbine killings gave to gun control has long since petered out."

and let's not forget (the article conveniently doesn't mention) that "in the decade since" crime rates, to include violent/gun crime has GONE DOWN.

"This spring, for example, Texas lawmakers are mulling a new law that would allow college students to carry firearms to campus (Utah already makes this legal). "

so does WA (it's legal here too).

"and not just because of the powerful gun lobby that often strangles gun-control laws. "

yea. also because of the power of ordinary citizens that actually care about civil rights ... ALL of them, to include the 2nd amendment

"Woods concedes that getting help to the psychotic, would-be killers of the world would probably be an even better fix. But he has a personal reason to take the issues seriously. Two years ago, he was in his apartment in Blacksburg, Virginia, listening to sirens sounding across the campus outside his window. A half-dozen friends of his were in the classroom where Cho Seung-Hui opened fire, and the names of some of the dead belong to people he knew. "The idealist in me is shocked and angry," Woods says, that restrictions on guns have eased rather than tightened in the wake of tragedies like the one at Virginia Tech. "

and those people were MADE into helpless victims, because no LAW ABIDING student could legally carry in virginia, an inconvenient fact that is lost on woods

[villager]

7. Because weapons have become harder to get since then?

:shrug:

[paulsby]

8. i am referring to the numerous

implicit assumptions/questions begged, the lack of statistics (like the fact that crime has gone DOWN since columbine) etc.

[villager]

9. some crimes have thankfully gone down -- recurring massacres have not,

alas...

[paulsby]

10. recurring massacres

are so rare that there is not enough "n" to state whether they have changed in any statistically significant matter.

assuming they HAVEn'T gone down.

the reality is this.

murders? down

robberies? down

rape? down

aggravated assault? down.

so, in this age of "more permissive" gun laws, violent crime has gone down.

which the article fails to mention. conveniently so

[villager]

11. so in your sociological estimate, guns are the sole reason crimes have (for now)

gone down?

And the occasional massacre, then, is just something we need to live with?

I'm actually asking, not snarking, btw...

[paulsby]

12. no, that's your strawman

correlation =/= causation

but the article bemoans columbine

and bemoans the fact that gun laws haven't gotten stricter

two facts are undeniably true
expost colubmine
1) gun laws have expanded to recognize greater civil rights vis a vis guns (iow have expanded not restricted rights)
2) violent crimes of many types have gone down significantly.

to bemoan (1) without acknowledging (2) is intellectually dishonest or ignorant. take your pick.

and you know as well as i that if 1 was true, AND 2 was NOT true (iow violent crimes, specifically gun crimes had gone up), he'd be belaboring this point ad nauseum.

but the existence of 1 and 2 certainly puts the burden on the OP to say WHY gun laws should be stricter, apart from his "feelings" about how gun rights are so icky

and the OP never does this.

the OP apparently thinks its perfectly ok to deny civil rights based on a tragedy or two without acknowledging that crime rates have gone down AND without offering evidence that denying these civil rights would do ANYTHING to reduce these mass slaughters

[villager]

13. reducing access to military-style firearms won't help head off future massacres?

Speaking of strawmen...

[paulsby]

14. how?

and that's not a strawman. look up the definition.

how would these laws restrict access? the columbine killers already broke TONS of laws.

[villager]

17. The article refers to the ease with which the Columbine killers obtained their arms...

...what would you have done -- if anything -- to make it harder for them to get those guns?

If the answer is "nothing," then you accept the "collateral damage," yes?

[Doctor_J]

15. But the 2nd amendment has not helped keep the others in place

No one fired a shot when the elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004 were stolen. No shots were fired to keep people from getting sent to "zones" to exercise their 1st amendment rights whenever the idiot Resident was giving a speech for the last 8 years. No shots have been fired in defense of the 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments, which have been practically revoked during this decade. Why not? Because the 2nd amendment is the only one that is important to the right wingers, their lobbyists, and their media whores. And why is that? Because it's something that they can use to inflame the ignorant masses.

[villager]

16. Precisely. the NRA and its puppets could give less of a damn about the rest of the Bill of Rights

...nor did Americans being armed to the teeth -- including, evidently, the armchair revolutionaries in DU's own gungeon -- keep our government from being stolen right before our eyes.

[Doctor_J]

20. That's my point. The proliferation cult says that the 2nd keeps them safe

from government tyranny. Well, guess what - it didn't. Unlike 8 years ago, the federal government can now

1. Put me in a cage to lodge a peaceful protest
2. Listen to any phone call I make, without informing anyone
3. Read any of my e-mails, without informing anyone
4. Lock me in jail, without charging me
5. Lock me in jail, without telling anyone
6. Lock me in jail, without letting me speak to a lawyer
7. Designate me a terrorist, and take away my civil rights as such
8. Revoke my right to vote without cause

And yet the loosest gun laws in the world did not to stop this fascist coup.

To be fair to the DU proliferationists, many of them think that "obama's going to take their guns". This tells me that they are hate radio/Fox "news" addicts, and so are deeply brainwashed, completely fact-free.

[Daveparts]

18. Smok em if you got them shoot them if you feel like it

I think that many are missing the point, in many countries the citizens have access to assault weapons. One that comes to mind was Iraq, no massacres and Saddam was safe and warm in his palace until the US showed up. In Switzerland men of military age all have an assault rifle in the closet.

Or as Michael Moore pointed out in “Bowling for Columbine” Canadians also own firearms but don’t kill each other.

It’s not the guns; it’s the society. A society where parents don’t know that their son is celebrating Adolf Hitler’s birthday. A society where the dignity of the poor is taken from them so through a gun in their belt they try to retrieve it. A fear based society, a racist society.

A macho shoot first ask questions later, a society steeped in social injustice and bereft of any social safety net. This government has repeatedly voted down placing mental health care on a par with physical healthcare.

That point is paramount, the government doesn’t give a crap about you or your problems, and there is no help for the ill or mercy for the sane. You can’t lock people out of society and not expect them to step on somebody’s sand castle before long.

Check out the rates of the most common victims of gun violence, the self inflicted!

[Daveparts]

19. Smoke em if you got em

I think that many are missing the point, in many countries the citizens have access to assault weapons. One that comes to mind was Iraq, no massacres and Saddam was safe and warm in his palace until the US showed up. In Switzerland men of military age all have an assault rifle in the closet.

Or as Michael Moore pointed out in “Bowling for Columbine” Canadians also own firearms but don’t kill each other.

It’s not the guns; it’s the society. A society where parents don’t know that their son is celebrating Adolf Hitler’s birthday. A society where the dignity of the poor is taken from them so through a gun in their belt they try to retrieve it. A fear based society, a racist society.

A macho shoot first ask questions later, a society steeped in social injustice and bereft of any social safety net. This government has repeatedly voted down placing mental health care on a par with physical healthcare.

That point is paramount, the government doesn’t give a crap about you or your problems, and there is no help for the ill or mercy for the sane. You can’t lock people out of society and not expect them to step on somebody’s sand castle before long.

Check out the rates of the most common victims of gun violence, the self inflicted!