What gun control can and cannot do to prevent another Virginia Tech Massacre

[derby378]

From the Amendment II Democrats blog:

First things first. Cho Seung-hui, the South Korean native identified as the gunman in yesterday's massacre at Virginia Tech, was a permanent resident alien. Under Federal law, a non-citizen cannot possess firearms or ammunition in America except in the case of legal aliens who possess legally issued hunting licenses or permits. If Cho did not have any such permit, then he had no legal right to possess those two pistols in the first place. And if he did have such a permit, then why have the serial numbers on both pistols been obliterated? And if Cho did not remove the serial numbers himself, then who did?

It should be painfully obvious that renewing a Federal ban on semi-automatic rifles, as some in Congress have suggested, would do absolutely nothing to prevent such a tragedy from happening again. It is a reasonable assumption, however, that Cho obtained the pistols illegally for purposes of malicious intent.

So if we really want to renew the debate on gun control, we should not focus our energies on law-abiding gun owners or even on certain types of firearms.

Instead, we need to focus on illegal and questionable gun dealers.

The "well-regulated militia" provision of the Second Amendment, in my humble estimation, would seem to infer that said militia should only acquire its firearms from a completely legal and approved source. Your local FFL dealer probably qualifies. Most dealers at gun shows probably qualify, too. But now we need to turn our attention to the black market dealers within our own borders - one of whom has almost certainly facilitated the Virginia Tech shootings by supplying Cho with a couple of pistols without bothering to check if he had any right to own them in the first place.

You want tighter gun control in America? Then apply that control to the marketplace, not the citizen. Let's take aim at the black market and shut it down once and for all.

http://blog.myspace.com/a2dems

[Taverner]

1. Exactly

We have enough gun laws on the books. I argue that some laws should be rescinded (call me crazy, but I think fully automatic weapons should be legal.)

My problem is when AG's like John Ashcroft go about purposefully not enforcing existing gun laws such as the ones you mentioned above.

[Warpy]

2. We can't stop hidden nutcases from buying guns legally

that's the bottom line. With the number of guns out there in the general population, we can't stop an obvious nutcase from obtaining them illegally.

What we can do is get rid of the enormous clips. Reloading more slowly or more frequently might have allowed time to tackle the guy.

Limit those clips to 8-10, adequate for self defense or target shooting, but inadequate for mass murder on this scale.

Those huge clips belong with the military and law enforcement.

[derby378]

3. Says who?

This is exactly what I've been talking about. If you talk about restricting the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms (including "hi-capacity" ammunition magazines), you're taking the focus off of the criminal and putting it back on the legitimate gun owner.

[Warpy]

4. No, not quite. The focus is on crazy people just like the criminal

and how to reduce the mayhem the next time one of them snaps and his insanity makes him go out and murder people. There will be a next one. Bet on it.

Slowing him down is the best we can do and we should do it.

Show me how reducing the size of the clip infringes on your right to use a gun to defend yourself or do recreational shooting.

Is reloading that big a nuisance?

Nope.

[derby378]

5. I would suggest telling that to an American soldier in Fallujah

As far as these magazines go, if they're good enough for our troops, they're good enough for law-abiding citizens.

I think going after black-market and straw-purchase dealers is a perfectly acceptable avenue to take in the aftermath of the VT shootings. We've done it to a certain extent already; now let's take the gloves off and leave the law-abiding citizen alone in the process.

[yellowcanine]

6. Your argument would be correct except for one thing. Legal guns can be turned into illegal guns as

you point out. If it were more difficult to get certain kinds of guns in the first place - for example if only police officers, active members of the military, and federal officers could legally own semiautomatic handguns - not gun dealers, not anyone else, then the supply would not be there. Yes there would still be a black market in semiautomatic handguns, but the cost of them would be so prohibitive that someone like Cho likely could not get one, let alone two. The way it would work is that the only legal place to get the guns, the clips, and the ammo would by issue from a law enforcement agency or the military. Non semi automatic long guns, shotguns and handguns (all with maximum capacity of 6 rounds) would still be available with a proper license AND training for home defense and hunting. Let the NRA or other private groups do the training, fine with me. For the few private citizens who could claim legitimate need for a semi automatic handgun or rifle, there would be a strict certification process involving need verification, background checks, and training. And then the gun and ammo would be issued by a government agency only - not private dealers, with annual recertification and strict accounting of guns and ammo. Now that would be well regulated, and the people's right to bear arms would still not be infringed. The 2nd amendment never said we can't draw lines as to what types of arms are permitted.

[derby378]

7. What you're proposing...

...sounds a lot like a return to the 1994 semi-auto ban, which stripped Democrats of their control of Congress. And yes, it is an infringement of the Second Amendment. Semi-automatic firearms are indeed arms, and as such, "We, the People" have the right to keep and bear them.

I could see your restrictions being applied to full-automatic firearms and riot-control shotguns, but no further.

[BOSSHOG]

8. Have the right to keep and bear them for what?

To defend the nation, just like it says in the constitution. Not to fucking shoot up a college campus.

[yellowcanine]

10. howitzers are "arms" also, fully automatic machine guns are arms,

Yet we can ban them. So obviously lines can be drawn. It is just a question of where to draw them. As for the political side of it, the right thing to do is not necessarily the politically expedient thing to do. But when one does the right thing the politics tend not to matter as much. 1994 was about a lot more than gun control.

[damntexdem]

9. He bought the Glock at a local gun store.

He apparently complied with all of the policies that effectively applied in VA.

He wasn't "well-regulated." Neither is Virginia, nor much of the U.S.

[alarimer]

11. Yes, cracking down on dealers is the place to start

Closing gun show loopholes as well.

But we, as a society, need to stop with the gun fetish already. I don't know how we change that aspect of the culture though.