More Gun Control? Don't Hold Your Breath

Stricter Gun Control Laws After Virginia Tech Shooting Would Be A Hard Sell

(AP)  After the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid cautioned Tuesday against a "rush to judgment" on stricter gun control.

A leading House supporter of restrictions on firearms conceded passage of legislation would be difficult.

"I think we ought to be thinking about the families and the victims and not speculate about future legislative battles that might lie ahead," said Reid, a view expressed by other Democratic leaders the day after the shootings that left 33 dead on the campus of Virginia Tech.

Democrats traditionally have been in the forefront of efforts to pass gun control legislation, but there is a widespread perception among political strategists that the issue has been a loser in recent campaigns. It was notably absent from the agenda Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled earlier this year when the party took control of the House and Senate for the first time in more than a decade.

In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, a few Democrats renewed the call for gun control legislation, and more are expected to join them.

"I believe this will reignite the dormant effort to pass commonsense gun regulations in this nation," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who was a leader in the failed drive to renew a ban on certain types of assault weapons that expired in 2004.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., was one of very few lawmakers to refer on gun control in the early hours after the shootings. "There will be time to debate the steps needed to overt such tragedies," he said on Monday, "but today, our thoughts and prayers go to their families."

By coincidence, Kennedy and Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., are scheduled to attend a demonstration Friday to draw attention to microstamping, a procedure by which serial numbers are placed on ammunition casings. The goal is to allow police and other investigators to quickly track ammunition to the gun that fired it.

The two lawmakers support legislation to require microstamping for all guns manufactured after 2009, and aides to both said they planned to go ahead with the demonstration.

Overall, though, said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., "It is a tough sell" to pass gun control legislation. Neither Reid nor House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., seemed eager to predict Democrats would lead a drive to toughen existing laws.

Less than a month ago, Pelosi and other Democratic leaders abruptly pulled legislation to give the District of Columbia voting representation in the House. Republicans were using the issue to try to force a vote on repeal of the capital's handgun ban, and Democrats feared it would pass.

Hoyer told reporters he thought and hoped the shootings at Virginia Tech would make it harder for Republicans to prevail when the voting rights bill returns to the House floor later this week.

He refused to be drawn into a discussion of the longer-term political consequences of the shooting, saying, "All I am saying is there will be a debate. I am not going to enter into the debate today."

Not all lawmakers were as reticent.

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, one of Congress' most persistent advocates of gun rights, noted that the student who police say was the shooter at Virginia Tech had brought a weapon onto campus in violation of restrictions. He said he doubted a law could be passed that would protect "any of us when somebody who is mentally deranged decides to do this."

One law enforcement official has said that the gunman's backpack contained a receipt for a March purchase of a Glock 9 mm pistol. The gunman held a green card, meaning he was a legal, permanent resident, federal officials said. That meant he was eligible to buy a handgun unless he had been convicted of a felony.

Democrats have grown less supportive of gun control legislation as a party in the past decade.

After the shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado, then-Vice President Al Gore cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate on legislation to reduce the availability of certain firearms. He and other gun control advocates claimed victory, but many strategists believe the vote hurt him in the 2000 presidential election.

Gun control tends to win favor among suburban voters, but it often stirs opposition in less heavily populated areas

So far this year, there has been little evidence that Democrats feel otherwise after winning control of the House by picking up seats last fall in parts of Indiana, Ohio, Texas, Arizona and elsewhere where hunting is popular.

[gunnerv1]

TomBoone: The handguns you mention are not "Assault Weapons"! I'm not defending him, he was a wack job from the get go, but I am correcting you.

[gunnerv1]

ttinsly. THEY DIDN'T USE GUNS, YOU NINNY Try banning Box Cutters!

[mrp1nk]

And as for the FBI checking the guns that the 9/11 terrorists had, I'm not sure if anyone noticed, but they weren't using guns. Maybe we should ban box cutters and airplanes? Maybe we should just ban the dangerous box cutters? Anything with a razor blade? Ok that's ridiculous, how about planes that run on flammable fuel? Only rubber band propelled planes from now on. I hope the rubber band doesn't snap or someone could get hurt.

[mrp1nk]

If you think a waiting period, a limit on purchases, banning 'dangerous' guns and a background check would have stopped this massacre, you are mistaken. He waited one month to purchase the second firearm because there *is* a one gun per month limit in Virginia. I'm not sure how you would classify any gun as non dangerous, but he had a small caliber pistol and a 9mm. Those are not assault weapons. A background check? His background was checked and he passed, because he admitted himself into the hospital. If you want to track mental patients more closely, that's a different argument for a different person, but I doubt the NRA will have a problem with it. Maybe it's time to admit that no matter how many laws you pass if someone is a nut job and they want to kill other people they will do it and you can't stop them.

[irishbitch1]

Wasn't Cho living here since he was 10 or 11? I thought he was a citizen?

[docpeter-2009]

I just don't understand why Cho, a student with a Green Card as his only form of ID, was sold the guns in the first place. He is not a permanent resident nor an American Citizen. It would seem prudent to me to NOT sell guns to a foreign national in this country.

Perhaps the shop owner should have his ATF license investigated a little further. While no laws were supposedly broken a few additional questions should have been asked before the sale. The shop owner has the right to sell to anyone he wants to as long as the criminal background check is complete. The shop owner also has the right to refuse to sell to anyone with questionable intent.

[tomboone]

Why doesn't 2d Amend guarantee right to pack a nuclear suitcase? The "arms" protected by our right to bear arms today are a far cry more mean and lethal than the "arms" existing in 1776. The founding fathers simply did not envision modern arms. There is no constructive purpose or justification for arming ordinary citizens with these weapons. The notion, for example, that that the 2nd Amendment ensures our ability to rise up against a corrupt government is also completely absurd when the government packs a nuclear arsenal. Anyone who honestly believes that the solution would be for every teenager in a college classroom to be packing also must think that the path to nuclear stability is to arm every country in the world with a nuclear ararray on par with the U.S., Soviets, and China? What the 2nd Amendment means needs to be re-examined and re-defined in light of the realities of 2007. Everyone may be entitled by Constitutional right to own a weapon, but that does not mean the government has to make it simpler than a piece of cake for anyone to buy one. I find it a disturbing paradox that the state has now decided without any apparent problem whatsoever to make it difficult for me and you to buy Actifed for our sinuses, but seemingly is completely and utterly incapable of doing anything whatsoever to make it hard for anyone to procure semi-automatic assault weapons simply by presenting a driver's license.

[erasmus6]

rheola

hmmmmm, yes, I might consider that a worry also.

[rheola-2009]

Erasmus6

We do have a bit of a worry really, we have a relatively small, in land mass area, immediately to the north of us, Indonesia, approx 350 million people, 300 million Muslims.
fortunately we at present and have for some time have had cordial relations with them, but the advent of religous fanaticsm is a bit of a worry.

I have nothing against Islam per se, however the lies perpetuated by religous leaders in general are a bit more of a worry, this particuarly so with Islam.

This is not an attempt to knock religion, just a means of explanation of a fact

Hope you had a great day, remember what I said about tomorrow.

[rhs648]

The gun debate clouds the real issues. The shooter was mentally ill and everyone around him knew it. A judge had declared him incompetent. The system allowed this person to roam freely. State and Federal laws and court rulings make it very difficult to hospitalize a mentally ill person. A recent documentary on tv stated that 20 to 30 per cent of inmates are mentally ill. Yet, the authorities can not force mentally ill people to take medication. The reality is that the system failed the students. If this person was in a mental institution, the incident would not have happened. Certainly, there was fair warning. Once again, the system failed to protect the innocent.

[erasmus6]

rheola

Yes, I understood what toldyouso21 was saying about the "sarcasm" part, but lately I find that too many people say things and then brush them off, as they didn't mean it. Like Imus, Mel Gibson for instance, when they make a racial comment and then say they don't think like that. Well if they didn't think like that, they wouldn't have said it.
I do not think for one moment that ALL Americans are loud, arrogant, hate mongering, violent oafs like toldyouso21 was insinuating and when I asked you the question, How many more have this mentality?, I am truly curious to know, because if too many people have that attitude, it could indeed me a major problem.
You could consider yourself lucky, (if you can consider yourself lucky to have a water shortage that is), because no one will invade your country to get it. The Americans have had problems for years with power and water from what I have heard, so when something like global warming starts happening, well, lets just say that things are going to get alot worse and when you have people saying those kind of things, it makes you THINK.

[randalds]

I called my Congressman this morning and suggested all registered gun owners (militiamen, rural sheepherders, and southerners, no difference)) in the USA now bve required to serve their country and report for active duty in Iraq. His office thought that was an excellent suggstion!

Posted by condumism at 03:32 PM : Apr 18, 2007

Been there, done that (even though my guns are not registered as they are hunting weapons and not required to be). Except my war was Vietnam. What one was yours?

[rheola-2009]

Veteran71

Further to last.

Not much we can do at this stage about explosives, but surely it can be attempted to lower the horrific loss of live by the use of guns in your country, I understand approx 30,000 gun related deaths per year, what a terrible waste.

I believe we have a wonderful freedom here, part of that freedom to me, is the ability to venture out of doors, with a greatly reduced chance of becoming just another statistic.
I can happily do without a gun, for just that.

Enjoy your evening.

[rheola-2009]

Veteran71

A compromise form of gun control exists in Australia, the very greater majority of the population agree and are relatively happy with it, their only concern at present heightened by that recent happening, is that handguns are, though controlled , still a little to easy to access.

Our gun related death rate on a pro rata basis is a fraction of that in the U.S. surely that in itself is an answer to all criticsm.
There is nil Paranoia here of a government running out of control, nor of a militia attempt of the same.

YOU MAY WELL QUOTE THAT CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS ACCESS GUNS, THAT IS SO, BUT AT LEAST IT IS MUCH HARDER FOR THEM, IN FACT MOST OF THE WEAPONS HELD BY CRIMINALS HERE, ARE SMUGGLED IN PRESUMABLY FROM COUNTRIES WITH LESS RESTRICTING GUN LAWS.

Sorry about the capitals, was not intended.

[rheola-2009]

Erasmus6

I replyed to your posting last night, however failed to scroll down the pertinent postig completely, and will now offer my humble apologies to the poster.

Keep up the good work, we are on the long term winning side.

[rheola-2009]

Veteran71

Your last makes no sense.

I could just as easily say you are basing your argument on emotion, not based on fact, but focused on fear of a percieved problem.

Your examples, though do have a little merit, but are so much easier for them to carry out with a redily obtained gun

[erasmus6]

The problem with everyone having guns is that you are going to get people who will shoot another person just because they don't like what another persons says or does. There are a lot of people who have problems with anger.
Also I read a post where someone said that they killed a burglar entering their home. Now I can see killing some one if they are trying to KILL YOU. Most burglars aren't trying to kill you they are there to steal something.

[rheola-2009]

Engineer2001

If in fact the stats are about the same, then all of America should have a feeling of dense shame, to allow such a situation to continue.

[engineer2001]

"Americans have such short attention spans when it comes to public policy. Over the past 20 years, the number of violent gun attacks in the US has exploded, and it seems to be accelerating." - Too_Many

Have you any actual facts to back that up? The media is simply covering school shooting more now than they did, same as they did a year or so ago with shark attacks. The stats stay about the same, but the coverage goes up, and people think, "oh no! This is getting much worse!" It's really about the same as every other year. Does it make it any less heinous? Absolutely not! Does it mean we should use this to press pro- or anti-gun agendas? Certainly not! This is a mental health and school administration (rules banning weapons not being enforced) issue, not a gun issue.

[rheola-2009]

Following is a post from early this morning.

Myself I feel the comment about restrictions on portrayed violence are equally as important as some form of partial restrictions on gun ownership.


It is true that Switzerland is among the most heavily armed nations in the world. I used to be an officer in the Swiss Army and carried a StGW 57 (Swiss made assault rifle) and 24 rounds of ammo at home.

But do you also know that the sale of automatic and semi-automatic weapons is prohibited in Switzerland? Do you also know that access to violent video games is limited? and that the Swiss Radio & Television Commission imposes restrictions on the violent content of TV shows and movies.

Isn't there an obvious connection between low crime rate in Switzerland and its gun control laws and anti-violence policy?

The Virginia Tech shooting raises the philosophical question of liberty. What is the meaning of true freedom? Is it a self-centered right to satisfy my compulsive craving for instruments of death? or is it a deeply fulfilling state of being free from constant fear?

The measure of a free and civilized society is not the amount of deadly toys its populace owns, but the good it produces with it.

America, the entire world looketh at thee and shaketh its head in disbelief...

Posted by aprilmonkey at 02:40 AM : Apr 18, 2007