RTD: Politicizing TechPolicy

Earlier this week, we noted that it was unseemly for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to attempt to use the Virginia Tech tragedy as a political statement on gun control…especially when the current gun laws played absolutely no role in the event.

Today, The Richmond Times-Dispatch also notes that what Bloomberg and anti-gun advocates did had no merit.

Cho did not buy his guns at a show. A closed gun-show loophole would not have prevented him from obtaining his weapons….Although the gun-show loophole long has been a topic for debate and has a place on the agenda, adding Tech to the mix crosses the line.

Gov. Tim Kaine and Attorney General Bob McDonnell worked together to close the mental health loophole that enabled Cho to purchase his weapons. According to the editorial, they did the right thing as Virginians, and not for political points. Unfortunately, Mayor Bloomberg and his anti-gun allies don’t seem to understand that.

  • Mark

    Is it politicizing the horror that was inflicted – by guns – when the goal is to prevent it from happening again? I think this is a simple matter of political perspective.

    I saw an interesting statistic the other day, since 9/11 120,000 Americans have been killed by guns. On 9/11 we lost less than 3,000 individuals, the majority of whom were Americans.

    What does this tell you about the gun problem in America? Either we do need more gun control – or maybe terrorist attacks really aren’t that big a deal…?

  • http://www.littledavidobermark.blogspot.com/ LittleDavid

    If 120,000 citizens had not been killed by guns, then they would have been killed by knives. If you also make knives illegal, they would have been killed by fingernails.

    The answer to the problem is not to make it illegal for law abiding citizens to own guns.

  • http://www.bearingdrift.com Brian Kirwin

    I love how people assume that someone willing to commit murder is somehow inhibited by gun laws.

  • http://www.littledavidobermark.blogspot.com/ LittleDavid

    How does the saying go? If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

    Outlawing guns will not result in a decreased murder rate. It might result in murderers becoming more creative in their means of murder. It also will result in a lesser means of law abiding citizens defending themselves.

  • http://TidewaterLiberty.com Britt Howard

    The IRA seemed not to have a problem killing people while strict gun laws were in place.

    Mark, politicians might claim gun laws will make a difference in preventing tragic shootings like at Va. Tech. That doessn’t make it so. Many laws asked for don’t even correlate with any of the circumstances.

    Additionally, I’m just not impressed with your statistical evidence there. How many people were killed in automobile accidents? Quick! Outlaw automobiles! Oops……did I just fall into an “Green Lefty” trap?

    How many babies drown in buckets? We still have buckets with warning labels and babies continue to drown. If you’re not willing to outlaw buckets then babies drowning must not be a problem to you, huh?

    Come on Mark…….we can get statistics to justify anything almost.

    Just a reminder, owning a gun is not illegal nor is owning a bucket. Flying a plane into a building and willfully murdering over 3,000 people is against the law.

    Terrorism is an act of war. Owning a gun or a bucket is not.

  • Mark

    It’s like I’m witnessing the NRA’s spin firsthand. America has by far the worst crime and highest murder rates in the industrialized world – and what makes us different from the others? Easy access to guns.

    As for the foolish comment that if they weren’t killed by guns, they’d be killed by knives – really? Would a murderer with a knife have been able to walk into a community center and kill13 with a knife. Doubtful. Guns make mass murder extremely easy – see Virginia Tech, Columbine, etc – and moreover, guns make all crimes far more dangerous. It’s difficult to kill someone with a knife, not so much with a gun.

    Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

    Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)

    USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
    Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
    Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
    Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
    Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
    France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
    England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
    Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
    Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

    So you are 1,000% more likely to be killed by a gun in the US than Canada. I dunno, that seems like a bit of a problem… But, then I guess the NRA just doesn’t value human life or freedom and so long as they have the money, they have the power – and the power of propaganda – which is obviously working.

  • http://TidewaterLiberty.com Britt Howard

    Your statistics include suicide and accidents which do bare a direct correlation to gun availability however, that skews your stats in favor of your arguement. You’ve seen the stats already that were released in the past where deaths went down in the face of relaxing gun laws. Cause and effect Mark? Maybe, maybe not but, I see you don’t roll out those streams of data.

    Again, you can make statistics and polling say just about whatever you want. You just have to find the right angle and put the burden on the other side to prove you wrong.

    You wanna talk about mass murder? How about bombs? Ask the terrorists how effective bombs are compared to your mentioned knife or gun for that matter. You don’t even have to be present to detonate a bomb.

    Killed by a gun, killed by a bomb, killed by a knife, killed by a pill overdose, killed by drowning in a bucket, killed in a car wreck, does it make a difference as to the manner in which you die? The result is the same.

  • Mark

    exactly – which is why we should try to limit criminals’ ability to kill us. as my farmer and lifelong hunter wrote to the nra when turning in his membership – why do i need an ak-47 to hunt? the aks only purpose is to kill.

  • http://novatownhall.com Jack

    On Sept 10, 2001, 5000 children were murdered in their mother’s wombs. Sept 12, 2001, another 500 were so murdered, and again Sept. 13, Sept 14, and so on and on and on.

    When will we outlaw that?

  • http://novatownhall.com Jack

    Our murder rate is right in line with Canada’s when the race of the victims is taken into account.

    The UK and Australia saw their murder rates INCREASE when the gun bans went into effect, while States that implemented CCW saw their violent crime rates, including murder, drop.

    Canada’s violent crime rate is TWICE as high as ours, and occupied-home break-ins are FOUR times higher.

  • http://www.littledavidobermark.blogspot.com/ LittleDavid

    Mark,

    The reason for the 2nd Amendment (in my opinion) is so that the armed citizenry can raise a militia to overthrow a tyrannical government if ever such a government was to arise in our nation.

    Now my opinion is that the need for such a violent revolution only becomes necessary if the government ever declared an emergency which they claimed justified the suspension of elections. As long as we citizens are allowed to vote, our revolutions can be held peacefully at the ballot box.

    However I will lift a quote from today’s Virginian-Pilot (Saturday 04/18/09) which appeared in a piece in the editorial section written by Omar Shamaho (brother to one of the Va Tech shooting victims) which states:

    “…both John McCain and Barack Obama support closing the loophole, as do 83 percent of gun-owners, according to a recent bi-partisan poll.”

    My problem is that it really is not a gun show loophole. It is a bigger private seller to private purchaser loophole that just so happens often takes place at gun shows. Close off the gun shows and you have not solved the problem. They’ll just move the actual transfer of ownership somewhere else or even avoid the gun shows altogether.

    It seems that gun owners are aware there is a problem. Law abiding gun-owners do not want to see guns ending up in the hands of terrorists or mass murderers either.