R.I.P.

My deepest condolences to the families of the 21 students killed at Virginia Tech.

UPDATE: The most complete updating I’ve seen on this story is at Hot Air. It’s also the most disturbing, insofar as it claims that 32 (!) people are dead, and that the killer, searching for his girlfriend, lined a bunch of people up so that he could kill them execution style.

As for the fact that a gun was used, Hot Air also notes that gun control people have already been speaking out. I have a couple of off-the-top-of-my-head thoughts. First, I’d be surprised if the shooter had the legal right to possess those guns, even if it is in fact legal in America to possess the ones he used. That’s a guess, of course, and I’m perfectly prepared to be proven wrong. Second, if others had guns, he would have been disabled much more quickly. As it was, he had the luxury of shooting fish in a barrel — unimpeded access to unarmed victims. It was only the appearance of policemen with guns that stopped him.

As someone who doesn’t like guns, and who spent her entire life on the gun control side of the spectrum, I can’t avoid an obvious fact, which is that bad guys have always been able to obtain weapons and do bad things with them. And because good guys obey the laws and, often, don’t like guns to begin with, they’re sitting ducks (or barrelled fish).

Gun technology is a Pandora’s box. We have the ability, and therefore do, make weapons of ever greater killing power and all the laws in the world don’t seem effective at keeping them out of the hands of those who want to use them to kill. Short of a Barnhouse effect, they’re not going away.

UPDATE II: Fox News definitely says it’s 32 dead.

UPDATE III: Here’s what happens when law abiding citizens have access to guns when bad guys are shooting. Recall, too, that, during the shootings in Salt Lake City, the matter was ended sooner because an off-duty cop, with gun, coincidentally happened to be present. I’m also trying to hunt down a story about a gunman who attacked NRA headquarters, only to be shot down within seconds of entering the building.

Greg would like a world without guns. So would I. But that’s not happening. The world is what it is, and that’s a world in which bad guys can get guns. (And, as Greg inadvertently demonstrates in his comment, they can get them even if they’re not supposed to under the law, as the Columbine shooters did.) The question then becomes how, in a world with guns, people maximize their own safety. The one thing I do know is that we probably don’t maximize our own safety by rendering ourselves helpless.

I would, of course, be interested in a study showing that there are people who, while they wouldn’t kill if they had to get an illegal gun or work hard to get a gun, would commit mass murder if they had easy access to guns. In that case, the better situation would definitely be the one we have now, where bad guys have to make a huge effort to arm themselves, weeding out all but the most malevolent, and putting a natural cap on the number of inevitable massacres. Because humans seem to have a killing instinct, and in some civilization does not weed out that instinct, we’re always going to have bad stuff happen, especially in our pluralist society. We need to figure out how to minimize the inevitable, recognizing, sadly, that it won’t go away altogether.

And please don’t give me the stuff about Sweden, specifically, or Europe, generally. When those cultures were very homogenous, it was easy to enforce normative behavior regarding guns, and their use. It’s getting harder. England, which has very stringent gun control laws, is having ever increasing amounts of violent crime, especially gun crime in London, where legal gun ownership has been barred. This almost certainly has a lot to do with the de-Anglification of England. It’s not the same people. Likewise, Sweden is becoming an increasingly crime ridden country as it becomes less Swedish. It’s still way behind America crime wise, but the sad fact is that it’s crime rates are increasing, not stagnant. With a wildly (or increasingly) diverse population, you can’t just tell people not to commit crimes, and then make those crimes go away — even in Europe!

UPDATE IV: It will be a while before we can figure out “who” and begin answering “why”: “They [police] also said that the shooter was not carrying identification and his head wounds were so severe that authorities could not immediately identify him.”

UPDATE VCurt, at Flopping Aces, has excellent information, with a lot of posts relaying information from people on the scene.  According to Curt’s data, it sounds as if the killer found his girlfriend in bed with another man, killed both and then started his insane rampage.

59 Responses

  1. Breaking – Gunmen Kill 21 32 In Virginia Tech Campus Shooting

    The first shooting occurred in West Ambler Johnston Hall where there was one killing and multiple injuries. Police and EMS were on the scene when shots rang out in a separate hall.

  2. Bookworm –

    My very first thought when I heard about this today was that if others had been carrying guns on campus, this could have been stopped before it reached horrific proportions – like the recent mall shooting episode.

    This happened in Virginia. For all the sophistication and “progressiveness” in Northern Virginia, plenty of people in the rest of Virginia are well versed in guns and gun safety, and it’s not inconceivable that many of those people attend VA Tech. In addition to thinking about the students and devastated parents, I can’t help but wonder how survivors there will recover from feeling so very helpless.

  3. Instapundit noted that he’d received an e-mail from a fellow lawyer that Virginia Tech is a gun-free zone–except for those who don’t follow the law.

    My reaction to that in my post was pretty much what I’d expect yours might be.

    And it’s why I maintain my skepticism about gun control laws (though I do support some basic regulation).

    Anyway, horrible, horrible, sad thing.

  4. So why do these events this happen in “gun free” schools and churches? Because that’s where the unarmed victims are.

    Even gun-free countries aren’t immune, like Canada (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/13/news/canada.php) or Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_Massacre).

    It doesn’t sound like the police were very quick to respond. Let’s see what additional information is forthcoming.

  5. “I can’t avoid an obvious fact, which is that bad guys have always been able to obtain weapons and do bad things with them.” Well, there you have it! What insight! What analytic brilliance! Tell it to the Columbine families, where the gun-seller knowingly sold weapons to the underage. As someone with strong connections to Virginia Tech, I would ask that our conservative pundits would acquire the details of the tragedy that has unfolded, before breast beating their abject defense of weaponry.

  6. If all 100 or so folks rushed the gunmen, a lot less than 32 would have died. But you see how one person with concentrated firepower, even if in totality it is weak (Islamic Jihad oil or suicide bombing) can control and hurt many more people who in aggregate could overpower the lone individual?

    This is a human behavior process, but it is also an ethical framework in addition to a philosophical one. Human because it is how a few thugs can control a large number of people, or Hitler over Germans. Ethical, because it has to do with how strong you are and how “strength” doesn’t make evil what it is. Weakness makes evil what it is, but not only that, but the ability to spread this weakness to other people, either by destroying them or fragmenting them. Discord in a sense. Philosophical because it hits upon the question of “how can you defend everyone when the attack can come at anytime, anyplace, and anytime?”

    To which the answer to the last question is simple. Flight 93

    Grim Beorn wrote an excellent treatise on the philosophical part of this situation, I will see if I can dig up his Plan for Iraq strategy.

    On a different note. The West and various others believe that you can protect children by sheltering them and isolating them from dangers. I have a different philosophy. I believe the best way to protect someone is to either give him(her) the opportunity to learn the skills of dealing death with efficiency of force and power of will, or to motivate him into learning via manipulations of human behavior. Rewards and punishments. Incentives and taxes aka.

    The ability to know how to kill and destroy is just as important as the ability (knowledge) of how to build and protect. Specialization is not bad, Book. But it has its own down sides. Every person will have to make a choice as to how far does he wish to specialize, and how much is he willing to outsource his protection to other people. Because it is your life at risk here. The state’s not going to die if you do.

    Does it matter how powerful the West is, Book? If the individuals in it are weak and unable to defend itself? Strength is strength. The march of nations tests every civilization and power. Either the US will meet the challenge and grow stronger for it in Iraq and the NorthAm continent, or the US will Fall. And the Fall will be even more complete than Rome’s Fall.

  7. Allow me to repeat amantra I hear often from the Left. The Islamic Jihad cannot destroy our way of life. They cannot destroy our freedoms.

    I mean, for them to destroy our freedoms, it would take Americans themselves to restrict their freedoms because of fear. It would take Americans themselves to give into terrorists and craft policy to that trades essential liberties for temporary safety.

    Now that would obviously never happen unless Bush’s fabricated war made it happen…

    /off

    Do people see how insidious evil is, and how it permeates all that is good and stable? It puts itself into the guise of power, strength, and protection. While whispering poisons into your ear, until you are too weak to defend yourself. That or it attacks with concentrated force, your weak and vital parts, causing you to go into a fetal position as you try to defend what can no longer be defended because of your weakness being exploited.

    Evil can only be pushed back by attacking it. By applying force and destruction greater than that which evil can harness for its minions. Stand around and do nothing… well.

  8. Don’t put words into my mouth. My previous post characterized the extreme defense of gun-ownership that the conservatives who post here often articulate. There is very large ground between that conservative view and the prohibition of gun ownership, which is the view you wrongly attribute to me (the “world without guns,” as you put it). Conservatives (especially the kind that post here) typically find comfort in oversimplifying complex issues. Regardless, I expect you, Bookworm, to pay greater attention, when you presume to attribute opinions to others.

    P.S. Many issues confront us as a result of this horrific event. May I suggest that you, Bookworm — rather than worrying about a foreign country, one with zero relevance to our country’s history, legal system and culture (although let’s not deny the foreign country’s polarizing value for the conservative obfuscation of consensual progress) — our country embraces gun-ownership and a suite of freedoms that includes the freedom of movement. Public safety necessarily suffers as a result. Is a compromised level of safety the sacrifice here that we intend to make?

  9. Gun control is an idiot debate. Laws against guns won’t reduce crime. Widespread ownership of guns won’t reduce crime. What reduces crime is good policing, active prosecuting, and an involved citizenry. If society is law-abiding, it doesn’t matter how many guns there are. If society is lawless, it doesn’t matter either.

    It is a little sickening how the first reaction to any atrocity nowadays is to figure out how to blame it on the other American political party.

  10. Greg – Can you deny that with a ban on the ownership of hand guns the following will happen: law abiding citizens will not have them and criminals will? What does that suggest to you?

  11. It’s an impossible nut for a conservative mind to crack, Marguerite, but I have *not* described the topography of the middle ground where I think consensus lies, so stop attributing views to me that I have not articulated. Nonetheless, Marguerite, I can guarantee that if you would actually listen to what others said (rather than autonomically presuming to know what they think), you’d find the answers you seek, or at least, engage in a process that will bring all of us forward.

  12. Incredible… 32 people got shot to death and we’re talking about gun control?

    It used to be customary to at least pause for a few days to honor the dead before jumping back into the fray.

    Come on folks! At least let the dead be buried.

  13. I live in Virginia and I have a concealed carry permit. I seldom, if ever, carry my weapon on my person, but there are times when I do want it in the car. I grew up with guns but went for over 40 years without owning one. Times have changed, and I am glad that I have the right to have a gun with me.

    The above comments notwithstanding, I do not believe that guns on a college campus are acceptable. There are an excess of two volatile ingredients on and around any college campus, e.g., alcohol and testosterone.

    Thinking back some 50+ years I remember an incident in my dorm involving these factors that, although it had no significant adverse consequences, could have as easily ended tragically.

    There is no question that VT is a gun free zone, as is any school facility in Virginia. There are numerous other specified gun-free locations as well. Knowledge of these limitations also make these locations more vulnerable to the lawless.

    I also have no doubt in my own mind that these guns were not legally obtained, but we won’t know for sure until this plays out.

    I expect that both sides of the gun argument will be baying at the moon after this.

  14. I was in lower Manhattan on Sept 11, 2001. For months afterwards I carried a handgun in my briefcase because I refused to be the powerless victim of some crazed jihadi. I can’t help but think that an armed VT student body and faculty wouldn’t have allowed themselves to be lined up and complacently executed as what happened today.

  15. “I also have no doubt in my own mind that these guns were not legally obtained”

    Of course. That’s all your politics allow you to think. No other alternative exists, and on evidence (should it arrise) would ever convince you otherwise. It is the sorrowful consequence of conservatism, which is nothing but a repulsive way of thinking that drives cultures to murder, always.

  16. I’m hesitant to jump into this thread. My wife’s sister’s son is a student @ VA Tech and was in that dorm, two floors above the initial shooting. I don’t know enough to speculate on this tragedy, to say whether the guns the perp used were legally or illegally obtained, or whether the campus police failed to respond adequately to the situation, though considering the number of those slain, it’s a safe assumption they did not have control of the situation. I’m with Thomas and don’t think this is the appropriate moment for political posturing, or to generalize upon what repulsive way of thinking drives cultures to murder; neither the dead nor their assailant are named as yet. I’ll defer further comment.

  17. Greg, you don’t know what you’re thinking. Obviously nobody else can if you yourself don’t.

    Marguerite, Greg has malignant narcissistic personality disorder. He just wants attention.

    It used to be customary to at least pause for a few days to honor the dead before jumping back into the fray.

    I don’t think customs apply to greg, Thom.

  18. I don’t see it as a heated debate — but that’s just me. I see it more as a subject for rumination. 33 people died today, and mine is the type of mind that immediately tries to find meaning in it: Who did it? Could we have stopped it at the moment or through larger policies? Was it intentional? Was it the act of a person without an ordinary human conscience?

    People die all the time, whether from natural deaths, accidents, homicides. But there’s something unusually horrible about another person walking into a quiet day and intentionally mowing down people. My coping method, my distancing method, if you will, is analysis.

    As a long time anti-gun person, I’m still struggling to find the middle ground in a world with guns. And so, I look at what happened and ask myself the what if’s. Would this have happened if others had been armed? Is OldFlyer right that arming campus students would increase, rather than decrease, the risk? To me, these are Job-ian questions about why bad things happen. I certainly don’t mean it as a sign of disrespect to those who died or were wounded.

  19. Before 9-11 there were lots of laws against airline hijacking and lots of hijackings happened none the less.
    After 9-11 the hijackers knew that their fellow passengers would not sit quietly by and allow themselves to be killed.
    The result? No more hijackings.
    Today there are lots of gun control laws and lots of gun massacres. As soon as the killers realize that prospective victims will not sit quietly by and allow themselves to be killed then such massacres will stop.

  20. D. Reid – Your post is spot on.

    And Bookworm – I agree with you – I don’t feel this is a heated debate at all. It’s too tragic for that. It is simply the sudden realization in the face of all of this horridness that what happened today took a long time to play out. And had someone had the ability to stop it in its intial stages, the lives of so, so many would not have taken a devastating turn that few, if any, will recover from in this life.

    I also do not view this as a blame against an American political party. If someone did, I don’t think it would be accurate since people from across the spectrum approach this issue differently. What amazes me is that there are so many people who believe that if we outlawed gun ownership outright OR simply made it more difficult, time consuming, expensive, and cumbersome to legally obtain a weapon (through more laws, additional licenses, review periods, mental health checks, whatever) that somehow, we would not experience horrific shootings.

    If it would, I would be behind it 100% so that what happened today would not ever happen again.

    But I don’t believe it would. As has been said before, people who already are not inclined to follow societal norms and laws would have no problem obtaining them illegally. And the folks who do abide by the laws would be helpless. Not totally helpless – I suppose they could hope that the justice system would find the guilty and punish them accordingly but by then the damage is done.

    And lest I be mistaken as the kind of conservative who engages in extreme defense of gun-ownership, I am not against some measures of gun control. I would be willing to entertain the idea of prospective first-time gun owners being required to take a class that taught them gun safety and use techniques. I have no problem with laws prohibiting individuals with criminal and certain mental health backgrounds from owning guns. I’m open to suggestions.

    I just want to know that WHEN (not if) these laws, regulations, and other protections fail, there is a chance that someone with the training AND capability will be there to help mitigate the damage.

  21. Greg – The only answer I was seeking was to the question that I asked you, but I noticed that you didn’t answer my question, just vented against me. That would be an ad hominum attack, which is what people do when they don’t have an answer or an argument. I will check back and see if you do indeed answer my question.

  22. Greg –

    In addition to answering Marguerite’s question, I also would like for you to take a moment and “describe the topography of the middle ground” where you think there may be consensus.

    It’s important because many people more or less agree that American citizens should be able to purchase guns. These same people frequently will part company, however, when it comes to deciding on how, when, and under what circumstances the gun can be used.

    Where do you stand on this issue?

  23. http://bdroppings.blogspot.com/2007/04/quote-of-day.html

    Read the article to which i linked. Irony? Oh yeah, lots of it.

  24. Ever increasing?

    UK gun death stats:

    2001-02, 23.
    2002-03, 80.
    2003-04, 70.
    2004-05, 75.
    2005-06, 50.

    Small numbers with wide variance. And down as of last year. An increase in total, and any over 0 is unacceptable, but in a population over 60 million, not statistically significant.

  25. Where do I stand? I stand waiting for Bookworm to apologize to me for claiming I said things I did not.

    When the shoe was on the other foot — and I made false statements about Bookworm’s thoughts on some issue — she called me on it and I did the right thing. Show us your mettle, Bookworm, or at least your decent upbringing.

  26. Greg –

    Small revision – what I should have said above is that these same people frequently will part company, however, when it comes to deciding the conditions under which a gun can be purchased AND how, when, and under what circumstances the gun can be used.

    I should not type and multitask at the same time!

    Thanks for your input.

    Deana

  27. Complicated debate.

    Guns may help defend liberty (though if you’re hoping to defend your liberty against the US army in some totalitarian future, good luck with that – you maybe should have started when the fight was political).

    Guns can stop tragedies caused by armed lunatics like in Columbine or VT, or even (sometimes) armed crime.

    Then again, accidents happen around guns. Do the many deaths in gun-related accidents in the home and outside exceed the lives saved by armed citizens taking out armed criminals (or ever deterring them)? No idea.

    And guns can allow disputes to escalate to the point of no return very quickly. Excessive testosterone and alcohol, as someone pointed out above, may not help so much with that.

    It’s hardly a one-sided debate.

    I feel a lot safer in Northern Ireland, ironically. Even during the “troubles”, it felt safer.

  28. Virginia Tech
    16 Apr 2007 04:28 pm

    Is it just me or is there something just a little creepy about the impulse to blame gun-control policies on campus for a massacre of over 30 people? While the corpses are not yet cold? – Andrew Sullivan

    It’s not just him.

  29. Thanks for the great updates, Bookworm. Yours haev been among the best out there, even better than the so-called MSM………….

  30. TS, don’t project Andrew’s political motivations on other people.

    Gun deaths are not the same thing as increases in violence, Mark.

  31. Greg –

    If you are referencing Bookworm’s comment that you would like a world without guns, she included herself in that grouping. I suspect she could have included most of us here – in a perfect world, who could imagine the presence of guns? I don’t think she meant anything by it.

    At any rate, what are your thoughts on gun purchasing and use? What conditions would you like to see met before a law-abiding could purchase a gun? Do you want to see extended waiting periods? Successful completion of classes? Annual registration?

    Something else?

    Deana

  32. No, Greg, I won’t apologize. Your first comment, to which I responded, was a non-substantive attack that led me to infer that you strongly support gun-control. I’ll apologizing for misinterpreting your insults, but you and I know that’s not much of an apology.

    Re comment 25 from Mark: those numbers are indeed impressively low. What happened, though, in around 2002 that saw gun deaths almost quadruple? Also, I just saw an EU study that said Britain is becoming the most violent country in Europe. I know the Brits have always had a lot of knife crimes, and a knife has less scope than a gun. Is it still the weapon of choice for the violently inclined?

    Deana is right about the debate, which is to find a happy medium. My point about the killer probably not having gotten the weapons legally (something I haven’t confirmed or disproved by checking the morning news) is that gun control laws are only laws, not facts. That is, you can “control” guns until you’re blue in the face, but they still keep coming, if not from within the US, than from without. Indeed, it occurred to me last night that many of the same people demanding that the government make weapons entirely illegal are also the ones noting that the war on drugs is pointless, because no matter how illegal they are, they just keep coming in and being used.

    In that regard, I think Trimegistus, at #10, has the best point, which is that lawful societies handle guns well, lawless societies don’t — and it doesn’t matter whether you hide the guns or not.

    Having said that, I’m definitely for reasonable gun control. I just don’t know what reasonable is, and I think that’s a much more worthy subject of debate than the binary position each side seems to have assigned to the other — all guns or no guns.

  33. Bookworm –

    Yes! I also was thinking about the drug trade last night in light of this event.

    How many laws are on the books that are intended to prohibit and control drugs? And yet, they are everywhere. Even the Coast Guard and other gov’t agencies charged with enforcing these laws acknowledge that in spite of all they are doing, they are barely able to make headway. The demand for these illegal substances is just too great.

    Bookworm is right to point out that many of the people who advocate the idea that we should have no laws against the purchase and use of drugs precisely because these laws have no effect on their availability and use also believe (without any apparent acknowledgement of the inconsistency) that stricter gun laws will somehow reduce the number of gun-related crimes.

    On a separate but related point:

    Yesterday and now more so today, there are reports of students and parents who claim that VA Tech has “blood on its hands” for not “doing something” after the first shooting. They say that the school should have notified students earlier about the first shooting and/or immediately put the school in lockdown.

    I’m not sure how I feel about this. I can see where students probably should have been notified of the first shooting at an earlier time. But if the school had done that and NOT had a lockdown, I’m not sure how that would have made much of a difference during the second round of shooting.

    These students were in class. Increasing their “awareness” of the first incident would have achieved what? Perhaps some would have more quickly moved to barricade the doors? I just don’t know.

    I think I’m just feeling very bad for the school administration and police dept. They are going to be raked over the coals and held to blame for this. We do not know all the facts yet so my perception of this may change dramatically. But from what has been reported so far, it does not seem unreasonable for them to have thought in the first 2 hours of investigating the first shooting that it was likely to be an isolated event.

    They had so very little time. Who would have thought that it would turn into something so much worse?

  34. As to the statistics in 25. I just read on a UK website that there were over 5,000 firearm injuries and over 800 crime related fire-arm deaths in the UK in 2005. I have no idea which is correct. Perhaps statistics should not be quoted without a source.

    I too feel bad for the officials at VT. I am sure that they are personally in agony, but they must be pilloried publicly. There will be time to rationally analyze their decision making process, but the media can’t wait. We will never know how many student or parents the media had to question before they got the desired responses. Did I mention that I dont’ trust them?

    Remember the motto: “Report it fast; correct it later (or not).”

    The gun debate should be a serious one and will certainly heat up. We are already being told that events like this would not happen if guns were not readily available. Of course we were also told that yesterday was the worst school killing in U. S. history, the media failed to mention the event in Michigan in 1927–which did not involve guns. But, who has time to do homework at a time like this?

    As we resume the debate, I leave you with this thought for the next time you are grouped in a very large crowd in a relatively small space at, say a sporting event. It is very easy to get a student pilot’s license in this country, as in many others. Even a small airplane would be extraordinarily lethal in such a scenario.

    The sad truth is that anyone with murder in their heart can find the means.

  35. Oldflyer said it best in one line, and it’s worth repeating:
    The sad truth is that anyone with murder in their heart can find the means.

  36. Good idea

    http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf

    You’ll find lots and lots of stats to cherry pick, but the one I took was “There were 50 shooting victims in 2005/06 compared to 75 in 2004/05″

  37. Oldflyer, you might want to go to the site you saw those stats at and correct them.

  38. D Reid – no more hijackings after 9/11? Why do you believe that? What about the Istanbul flight last year? And there have been at least 3 air hijackings this year alone…

  39. Oldflyer, I don’t believe that people in the UK are less murderous than people in the US. Indeed, because the UK has a more concentrated urban population, it’s likely that crime would increase, because of increased personal conduct. Just in the UK, its more likely that knives and blunt instruments are at hand than a gun – so more people survive such an assault. Less people die because of that simple pragmatic fact.

    Draconian gun laws reduce deaths. It’s the job of the population affeceted to decide what level of liberty they are willing to sacrifice to achieve that.

    I’m happy to support the UK’s current position.

  40. One more thing to throw into the hopper re Oldflyer’s point that people with murder in their hearts will find the means. One of the most horrible mass murders ever, because of the unusual helplessness of its victims, was the Dunblane massacre, where, working around a ban on automatic and semi-automatic weapons, a deranged killer used 4 handguns to slaughter 16 kindergartners, plus their teacher. Guns are a terrible Pandora’s box. They’re out in the world. Limitations definitely work, but only up to a point. Beyond that point, there are some seeds in varying society’s that are just plain bad.

    As to the difference between England and America vis a vis gun crime, I’ve been reminded of a delightful book I read many years ago by Pierre Berton called Klondike, about the Alaskan Gold Rush at the turn of the last century. Two things linger in my mind from reading that book. First, the mosquitoes up there were so bad that they could kill a horse, both by suffocating it (because they swarmed up the animal’s nose) and by draining it of blood.

    The other thing I remember is Berton’s characterization of the differing communities built by British and American prospectors. These were ad hoc communities, but they nevertheless instantly formed distinct personalities, with the British communities being placid and heavily regimented with layers of government controls, and the American communities being fairly wild, libertarian places.

    These differences shouldn’t be surprising. The British are a homogenous people, with hundreds of years of settled norms. Americans are still a young people, a melting pot, blending the best and, as often, the worst of all societies that help contribute to the American make-up. You may have a highest common denominator of good, but you’ll also have a lowest common denominator of bad — and it’s been that way for a long, long time.

  41. Mark –

    I took a look at the Home Office statistics link you sent. It should be clarified that according to the report, there were 50 people who were fatally injured by weapons in England and Wales in 2005/6. (Table 2.07, page 47)

    This report appears to support what Bookworm said about the increase of violent crime using guns in England. According to the report, the number of crimes in England and Wales in which firearms caused injury has trended upwards over the past 10 years (with a slight decrease in 05/06). (Table 2.06, page 46) It has more than doubled since 1995.

    But your point about knives vs. guns is a given. Certainly, it takes much more effort and time to kill with a knife than a gun.

  42. Increasing their “awareness” of the first incident would have achieved what? Perhaps some would have more quickly moved to barricade the doors? I just don’t know.

    More or less, yes. The amount of time people have to prepare is critical in reacting to a surprise attack. Less time, more damage inflicted by the attacker. It’s a linear relationship.

    The media will of course mishandle it. That’s a constant people. But it doesn’t really affect anything else’s correct or incorrect behavior.

    Just in the UK, its more likely that knives and blunt instruments are at hand than a gun – so more people survive such an assault.

    The people who quote the lack of deaths due to firearms in Britain, as if this is a good thing, is also focusing not on safety and prosperity, but simply on making sure that people are oppressed but not killed. For example. Making sure more people survive, doesn’t mean making more people safe. That’s a very important distinction. There’s several kinds of peace. One where you live and the enemy dies, and one where you live and the enemy lives. One where you die and the enemy lives, and one where you both die.

    You could be alive and suffering constant burglaries. You could be alive and suffering constant shakedown and extortion attempts. You could be dead and have your valuables stolen. Dead and have your family dead. Or just alive but threatened. Lots of ways to be unsafe while alive, although one way to be unsafe while dead.

    It’s the job of the population affeceted to decide what level of liberty they are willing to sacrifice to achieve that.

    Ill put up the argument that reducing deaths should not be what the government should be doing, just as the government should not focus on saving the lives of hostages either.

  43. Hi Ymarsakar –

    Yes. If people have more time, they can prepare.

    I am thinking about what I would have done in that situation. If I had been a student there and had heard that a shooting in a dorm room had happened that morning, I am not sure if it would have made me more vigilant or be more “in anticipation” of something else happening.

    Would I have felt general concern? Oh yeah. Definitely. I’m just not sure that knowing that would have “prepped” me quicker for a subsequent attack.

    Maybe it would. I think it is just hard for most people to make the leap that something that horrible is right there.

  44. This Canadian blogger did a nice job of posting comparative data on the murder rates for different countries, even if the data is slightly outdated: http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html.

    Whereas our U.S. violent crime rates are high (I have seen statistics that suggest that total violent crimes rates are actually higher in England now than in the U.S.), this is primarily a cultural phenomenon that tends to be localized in specific areas (inner cities). Outside of drug- and crime-infested inner city environments, U.S. murder rates are comparable to those for Western Europe.

    Interestingly, Israel and homogeneous New Zealand and Switzerland also have very high household firearm possession rates but much lower murder rates. Also, Mark Andrich’s data does not include Scotland and Ireland, which have considerably higher murder rates than England and Wales. Statistics, therefore, mislead.

    To Book’s point, we are a very heterogeneous society of immigrants from many cultures (some violent) that exhibits considerably more friction than the homogenous European societies. Europeans are also more passive than Americans in confronting violence, deferring instead to authority. In Europe’s brief interludes of peace, that works for them. In times of war (Srebenica? Babi Yar, Dachau?), it doesn’t and Euros demonstrate have demonstrated repeatedly their aptitude for killing their fellow human beings with wanton abandonj – in Europe and elsewhere.

    For the life of me, Book, I don’t understand how any self-respecting Jew could even contemplate disarming themselves after what happened in Germany (I have made that argument with my daughter’s Jewish beau – he gets it, despite his very Liberal parents). As an American gun owner of European background, I am grateful for the right to defend my person against those that would take my ultimate human right from me. In Europe, I would be denied that right. And, if European history is anything to go by, their current era of peace, too, will draw to a close…and, then what?

  45. Mark, someone has already disputed the statistics on the web-site I referred to. My primary point is that data and statistics get thrown about pretty casually; witness the discrepancy I cited.

    Since last posting I read a commentary in a British newspaper that took the U.S. severely to task for our “tolerance” of gun violence. Many comments were offered that supported the writer’s thesis. A good per centage of these came from people in countries where individual liberties were never a high priority; or where they are being sacrificed on a daily basis, e.g. in the EU. But it is always satisfying to preach to someone else.

    Actually, U.S. attitudes have changed dramatically just in my life-time; and the pace will undoubtedly accelerate as we crowd closer together.

    To give some perspective on how we have changed–and also to pick up on BW’s point about how differently we have developed from many other countries. When I was quite young–in the ’40s–two of my distant relatives, teen-agers, were shot down in cold blood on separate occasions by different men. In both cases the killer was known, but their actions were justified by the law because both boys were on the other’s property, although innocently. In 1947 I watched an Uncle “rescue” his cows from a neighbor at the point of a shot-gun. Thereafter, he slept with his gun at hand because the man was known as “barn-burner”. People expected to defend their property and the law, if it became involved at all, would excuse a quite a bit in agreement with that notion. A family story relates how not too many years before I was born, my gentle Grand-mother fired her bedside pistol through her bedroom window one night when her husband, a rail-road engineer, was on the road. She hit nothing and no one ever knew if there was really someone at her window. But, she was never bothered by suspicious noises again. It never occurred to her to call for law enforcement, because she had the means for self-defense at hand. Although she had not-too-distant neighbors it also would not occur to them to report firing of the gun. No harm-no foul.

    At least in some parts of the country we are not as far from the frontier mentality as many folks would think. But, the times have changed and who would imagine these kinds of happenings today? Well, maybe in the inner cities.

  46. Bookworm – in what way are the British homogenous? I don’t just mean Celts, Picts, Angles, Saxons, Normans, Vikings, or Romans… but Jamaican, Nigerian, Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Chinese, Vietnamese, Zimbabwean…

    I was responding to the claim “ever increasing amounts of violent crime, especially gun crime”. It has been increasing, but it is no longer increasing, it is falling. It is still significantly lower than American, especially concerning murders, despite having a greater urban concentrated population.

    Are Virginian university campuses considered “drug- and crime-infested inner city environments”? Because that stat has been blown in one day. You’ve had 2/3 the gun deaths the UK gets in a year.

    I’d rather be oppressed than shot. However, right now, I feel I’m neither. Not allowed to buy a gun, am allowed to watch TV shows with swear words and wardrobe malfunctions on network TV.

  47. Oldflyer –

    Regarding the frontier mentality: It is very alive and well.

    The house in which I grew up, is 6 miles from the nearest town. Our nearest neighbor is a mile away. On several occasions when I was home alone during my later teenage years, I would grab a butcher knife and keep it with me if a male stranger came to the door.

    Now I live in a large city. If something went wrong in my neighborhood, my first thought would be to call 911. The feeling of needing to defend myself in my home is not nearly as pressing as it was in the country. But whenever I go to my parents’ home, that feeling is right there. I just know that we are too far away for someone to help us in time.

    But am I safer in the city? I’m not sure. I think it is more that because others are nearby, I ASSUME that they would help me.

    There is something about living in an urban/large town environment that strips people’s perception that they need to defend themselves. I’m not saying that calling 911 is a bad thing. It is fantastic and a measure of our society’s progress and goodness. But it means we are relying on others. And too often, by the time the first responders arrive, the only thing they can do is help clean up the aftermath.

    Deana

  48. Richandmark: the “Jamaican, Nigerian, Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Chinese, Vietnamese, Zimbabwean” people in Britain are relative newcomers to a culture that’s been primarily stable since 1066. Although there numbers are increasing since WWII, relatively speaking, they’ve been trickling to a monolithic culture.

  49. Well, richandmark, what happened at V-Tech is extraordinary because it is a rare event, just like the Dunblane massacre. Remember, we are about 6-times larger than the U.K. – that combined with an admittedly more violent cultural history, makes these events statistically more likely to occur in the U.S. than the U.K.

    In our inner cities (e.g., East LA), gun crime is rampant, just as gun crimes in the UK tend to be concentrated in certain areas (e.g. Manchester, Leeds). Yes, historically there is less gun crime in the U.K, but there is also a high rate of other violent crimes such as muggings, beatings, home invasions and rapes, many of which aren’t reported because the police don’t do much about them anyway). These crimes tend to be considerably more distributed in the U.K than in the U.S. and appear to be on the upswing – at what point do you become A Clockwork Orange type of society?

    You have made a rational and understandable choice to surrender your freedom to defend yourself in exchange for the perceived security of the State. We (Americans) just happen to hold very different views on freedom and society Brits are under no obligation to understand or accept.

    However, if I could suggest…should the worm turn and the State no longer be in a position to guarantee your security (to the extent that it does), it is unlikely that you will ever be granted you that freedom, once lost. In historical terms, Europe’s era of peace has been but a brief blip in time and modern trends like the Balkan ethnic strife and Islamic Jihadism don’t give us much optimism that your Euro Peace will last forever.

    So, speaking as a former Euro, we “cowboys” on this side of the Atlantic will just have to muddle along and do the best we can with a very different world view and accept the consequences of the choices we’ve made.

  50. “no more hijackings after 9/11? Why do you believe that? What about the Istanbul flight last year? And there have been at least 3 air hijackings this year alone…”

    Mark your comment reminds me of a story I heard in law school:
    A plaintiff’s Atty was cross examining an expert witness for the defense.
    Atty: “You wrote in your report that the support column showed minimal cracking, so there were cracks present, correct?
    Expert: “No there were no cracks present but I put that in the report because I knew some idiot lawyer would find one somewhere.”

    Of the post 9-11 hijackings you describe one involved a drunk Russian guy and another was not even announced to the passengers as a hijacking until the plane had landed. If a hijacker tried to take over a plane filled with 80 year old grandmothers then they would probably be successful. I stand by my previous comment.

  51. It is still significantly lower than American, especially concerning murders, despite having a greater urban concentrated population.

    Since when did Britain have a greater urban population? Or do people think that packing people into London means it is “concentrated”? One “concentrated” city is not equal to Chicago, New York, Atlanta, San Diego, San Francisco. It is less.

    Not only does Britain have less urban concentrations to produce city crime, but it is illogical to say that Britain is becoming more lawful given their inability to control immigration and the Islamic Jihad inside their countries. It’s just a tad counter-intuitive for people to start thinking that Britain is safer now, given world and domestic events there.

    You’ve had 2/3 the gun deaths the UK gets in a year.

    Well duh, given that the UK has less than 50% the pop of the US. People need to learn how to better manipulate the stats, if they are trying to pull one over folks. Two thirds the gun deaths… UK has 60 million, US has 300 million. Can’t you improve your propaganda a bit?

    I’d rather be oppressed than shot.

    That’s why you’re pro-British anti-gun culture, I suppose.

    Any Americans out here agree with that? Would you rather be gripped by the hand of powerful folks, or would you rather take your chances at getting attacked by a criminal with a weapon?

    I think it is more that because others are nearby, I ASSUME that they would help me.

    I don’t know about that, Deana. There’s far less a sense of community in big cities than there are in small to medium towns.

    I thinks this belief in “significantly lower than the US” in crime whatevers, is a sort of mental rationalization. Meaning, he believes he doesn’t have to defend himself by learning how to kill other human beings, because the state supposedly does it for him. Something deficient in that kind of thinking, in my view. Unethical to the point of suicide.

  52. Danny, I agree totally, the UK is just as violent a society as the US, if not moreso. But there are far less murders because we have gun controls. An attack with a knife, a bat, a brick is less likely to result in death than an attack with a gun – and in the UK it’s just harder to put your hands on a gun. Most people have never seen one. And, indeed, because police don’t carry guns as standard, and the public don’t have guns, criminals are less likely to feel they need guns to carry out crimes – especially considering the added sentencing for just being caught in possession of one.

    Draconian gun laws lead to less deaths, not less crime. It’s a pragmatic solution not an idealist one. Each society has to choose where it draws the security/liberty line.

    D Reid. You stand by your previous comment that there were no hijackings, even if you admit there were some? Including the flight diverted from Istanbul to Brindisi and the two 747s this year? You didn’t say there was minimual hijacking, you said there was none…

    ymarsaker – yes, the US has five times the population of the UK. That does not stop 2/3 the annual UK death rate happening in 1 day being a significant stat. Per capita, that’s 2/3 the annual UK death rate happening in five days. Assuming no one else was shot and died in the US that day.

    Not “take your chances”. I said “shot”.

    And yes, per capita, the UK has a greater urban population. Why do you only count London? What about Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Glasgow, Belfast, Aberdeen…

    I don’t have to rely on the state to defend me. I don’t need as much defending by anyone, least of all myself, that’s all.

  53. Not “take your chances”. I said “shot”.

    That’s cause you think of getting shot. You don’t think of it as a risk vs rewards assessment. Because you’re not going on that boat. It’s not a trip you’re going to take regardless.

  54. You didn’t say there was minimual hijacking, you said there was none…

    I don’t remember any American planes being hijacked with Americans on them going towards America.

    That would probably have created a sort of media frenzy.

  55. ymarsakar, you didn’t specify anything about American planes. look back.

    It’s true. I don’t like to think of playing risk vs rewards with guns. The only guns I’ve ever seen have been in the USA and South Africa.

  56. But this isn’t about me, since I wasn’t in the argument about planes being hijacked before. But I am now, and I will state the point that the only thing that matters to Americans concerning various gun control or fight back policies, is that there have been no successful hijackings of American planes. Richard the Shoe-bomber included.

    Comment by D. Reid | April 17, 2007

    My argument isn’t Reid’s argument, but I will say that I think it is a better one in light of Reid’s beliefs.

  57. Apologies for misattribution.

    I’m still wondering if this will be corrected by anyone: “England, which has very stringent gun control laws, is having ever increasing amounts of violent crime”

    since, the word should be “decreasing”

  58. D Reid.

    So basically, since there were stringent controls on anything that could be used as a weapon when going through an airport, there have been no US hijackings?

    I wonder if that could work on the ground. Maybe start with guns…

Leave a Reply