The underlying assumption that a "law" can stop anyone from doing anything is flawed.

Since when have laws stopped anyone from doing anything?

Making it illegal to purchase a gun of any kind would likely have prevented the murders. I don't support that, but I suspect that is the ultimate goal of those advocating "sensible gun laws," like the editors of the New York Times. If there were no legally licensed dealers, where would the VTech murderer have gone?

Making it illegal to purchase a gun of any kind would likely have prevented the murders.

Yes, because making it illegal to buy cocaine has totally and completely ended drug use.

I would go even further. Our criminal justice system is incapable of deterring conduct which a person is willing to kill themselves for.

My feeling always has been that having 0 semiautomatic weapons would reduce homicidal acts such as these (Ie. if all semiautos are illegal, they're are going to be much fewer stolen semiautos available). It's going to be more difficult to kill multiple people with a much slower firing weapon. However, I realize that a large population of the united states will never agree to this, so it's never going to happen.

I still think that a gun safety course (even brief) should be required before ownership(hell, it can even be run through the NRA). Although this may not weed out instances such as this one, it's possible that 'trainers' may recognize individuals with warning signs. Unlikely, but possible. Besides, a little safety knowledge may lower the number of accidents and teach people how to prevent their gun from being stolen.

These things sound obvious, but I'm constantly amazed at the basic things people don't know.

Interesting point, PD Shaw. What kind of "system" do you think is capable if dettering suicidal homicide?

And to answer the thread question: If those who had evidence of Cho's mental status (teachers, counsellors) were able to inform the police, they could have placed a "hold" on his ability to purchase weapons...something that would have come up in the background check. I'm not sure exactly what is checked here, but if it is simply whether the individual is a current or former felon, that's not enough.

He had a history of mental instability. It seems pretty clear that such individuals should be severely restricted in their ability to buy guns.

alchemist - I'll strongly disagree that semiautos are the root of this issue.

Revolvers with speedloaders reload very quickly, and lever-action cowboy carbines are competitive with MP-5's in rate of fire and hit harder.

The simple fact is that the only law that would have impacted this is one that would ban and confiscate guns. And how well that would work is obviously subject to a lot of question - as well as questions about what the social cost of doing it would be.

A.L.

Wei,

Being involuntarily committed to a mental institution is treated the same as a felony for gun purposes, and should appear in the backgroud check database, barring the sale.

It seems that he was never actually committed by a judge; not quite nuts enough for that, apparently.

A.L., your lever action fires 600 rounds a minute? Wow.

Seriously, I think the issue is reload time more than rate of fire. It's during the reloading that you might hope for a rush to clobber him. You can shoot a lever action pretty fast, but you can't reload it by just swapping out mags. And while you might be quick with a revolver, you'll be quicker with an auto.

Mind you, I don't think gun control will do a damn thing to prevent this sort of thing.

"My feeling always has been that having 0 semiautomatic weapons would reduce homicidal acts such as these (Ie. if all semiautos are illegal, they're are going to be much fewer stolen semiautos available). It's going to be more difficult to kill multiple people with a much slower firing weapon."

Maybe. But if Britain, Canada, and Australia are any guide all other types of crime, particularly violent crime such as home intrusion and rape will more than offset the difference. Hunting rifles and 1 shot pistols just arent particularly popular or reasonable for home defense. Again we are very much talking about putting the law abiding at the mercy of the those who wont obey the law.

Intereasting article on slate, I don't agree with everything, but there is an embedded idea that preventing direct peer-to-peer sales may help weed out those with a past criminal record. If you want to sell a gun to a friend, you have to do it through a gun store, which (for a nominal fee) runs a background check and (my addition) checks the safety and stability of the sold gun.

Again, this would not have stoped VT, where the shooter had no criminal record, but may prevent other incidents.

alchemist,

I'd wager that most peer-to-peer sales involving a criminal involve people who know full well they're selling to a felon. That is, they'd just make the sale anyway, without bothering with the background check.

Merely requiring that something be done by no means guarantees that anyone will actually do it.

I don't just sell guns to "friends" unless I know them very well. I've only done in on a couple of occasions anyway.

I don't think there's any way to have stopped him completely.

I think the best way to have stopped him early, however, would be to completely reverse current trends and have mandatory gun ownership, safety training, and defensive use training. The majority of the population in any particular location is likely to be sane enough to be trusted with a deadly weapon. If enough people around him had guns, and had been trained to safely use them in self-defense, he probably would have died or been incapacitated after the first one or two shootings.

Sorry. That was intended for emphasis on 'mandatory', not a strikethrough.

I'd be much more comfortable talking about some of these (mostly reasonable) gun control ideas if there were a SCOTUS ruling reaffirming the individual right to bear arms. The Canadian example is just too scary- anything the involves the government obtaining a list of gun owners will eventually lead to confiscation, and that is intolerable to me.

I'd wager that most peer-to-peer sales involving a criminal involve people who know full well they're selling to a felon.

If it's made illegal, than wouldn't it be easier to bring up people on those charges? You could set up sting operations preety easily, all you have to do is have someone make a sale outside of a gunshop. First attempt could be a large fine/stringent warning. Second could be jail time.

Alchemist, it IS illegal to sell a firearm to someone you know is not legally able to own one; has been for years.

(posted too soon) Selling to someone with a felony conviction for a violent or drug-related crime is itself a federal crime, and also a state crime in all states so far as I know.

A few years ago, there was an attempted mass murder at the Illinois state capitol a few blocks from where I am now. A college student had been denied a FOID card because of a history of mental illness. He stopped taking his medication and robbed a military surplus store of a shotgun by pretending to have a gun. He then killed a security guard at the capitol before fleeing. Today he is still too insane to stand trial for murder.

I don't think the mental health restrictions of FOID cards are a bad idea, but their not foolproof.

Ok, so I'm unfamilliar with the process, so I'm asking questions. How about if the seller doesn't know? What I'm saying is that if someone sells a gun to someone they don't know, couldn't they claim plausible deniability? Couldn't branding peer-to-peer illegal make it easier to bring charges against those who sell guns that way?

Just a thought.

Alchemist, when you buy a gun you sign under penalty of perjury that you are the actual purchaser, and if that's a lie, you can enjoy the delightful hospitality of the Bureau of Prisons.

I refer you to our friend the U.S. Code: 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(1)

This is known as a "straw purchase," and it is regularly prosecuted.

If on the other hand you already own the gun and want to give or sell it to someone else, the requirement that you take it to a gun dealer for a background check will only be effective if you're acting in good faith and don't realize your buyer is a felon. If you know he's a criminal but want to make the sale anyway, you'll make the sale.

Comments crossed...

if someone sells a gun to someone they don't know, couldn't they claim plausible deniability?

Yes, although watch out for the victim lawsuits. And your proposal would certainly eliminate that problem. The only question (to which I don't have the answer) is how big a problem these "stranger sales" actually are.

Making it illegal to purchase a gun of any kind would likely have prevented the murders.

I think it's reasonable to argue, however, that more stringent gun control laws can raise the marginal cost of such incidents. How high the cost could or should be raised is a matter for debate.

The only long term solution is killer government-controlled nanobots that devour your internal organs if your testosterone level gets too high. Upside- no more NASCAR.

There is absolutely no law that could have been passed that would have prevented this tragedy.

Just as there is absolutely no law or foreign policy innitiative that could have prevented 9/11.

Hopefully we won't make the same mistake in the aftermath of this tragedy that we made in the aftermath of 9/11. Mainly overreact and make idiotic domestic and foreign policy decisions.

Here's a thought:

The Second Amendment links, however imprecisely, the right to bear arms with the existence of a well-regulated militia. Are permanent resident aliens included in the well-regulated militia of the country? I guessing not, but I don't actually know. (Adams declared that the militia consists of "the whole people," and I know that Title 18 USC further defines the militia, but I couldn't find it on the internet.

Would it be possible to prohibit non-citizens from purchasing guns, and would this prohibition have prevented Cho from obtaining his pistols?

Good grief, a severe case of BDS.

The only sensible gun control measure I can envision is a requirement to demonstrate the ability to handle a firearm in a safe and effective manner. However, there are problems even with this approach that the commenters above have already touched.

Rev. Sensing:

Many if not most states define “the militia” as “all residents of the state”. Some have other provision so, for example, Colorado defines the militia as all able-bodied males in the state.

I remember reading that VT suspected Cho was responsible for two bomb threats last week. I don't know if that was confirmed or not, but my feeling is that even if he hadn't been able to procure guns (legally or illegally) he would just have used a different methodology for mayhem.

It is hard to get away from the fact that the only empowered student or faculty member was the psychopath. If only that Israeli professor had been allowed to carry an Uzi in his briefcase....

Davebo....I'm with you on this one. It's interesting to hear the warnings about "overreacting" to the shooting in VA coming from the very same people who routinely promote a disproportionate reaction to international terrorism.

This was the basis for my question to PD Shaw, above...and I'm still waiting for him to answer how he thinks "suicidal" killers can be deterred.

What kind of "system" do you think is capable [o]f dettering suicidal homicide?

None. That is unless, the suicide homicide is the product of a system, in wich case, the system should be identified and destroyed.

Rev. Sensing:

I noticed earlier from googling websites that Massachusetts appears to prevent resident aliens from possessing certain firearms:

Persons who are not citizens of the United States, and are residents of Massachusetts may not possess large capacity rifles, shotguns, handguns or non-large capacity handguns. These persons may only possess non-large capacity rifles, shotguns, ammunition, and chemical propellant spray.

http://www.ebpd.org/gun_control.htm

Following the links:

Large capacity weapon”, any firearm, rifle or shotgun: (i) that is semiautomatic with a fixed large capacity feeding device; (ii) that is semiautomatic and capable of accepting, or readily modifiable to accept, any detachable large capacity feeding device; (iii) that employs a rotating cylinder capable of accepting more than ten rounds of ammunition in a rifle or firearm and more than five shotgun shells in the case of a shotgun or firearm; or (iv) that is an assault weapon. The term “large capacity weapon” shall be a secondary designation and shall apply to a weapon in addition to its primary designation as a firearm, rifle or shotgun and shall not include: (i) any weapon that was manufactured in or prior to the year 1899; (ii) any weapon that operates by manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action; (iii) any weapon that is a single-shot weapon; (iv) any weapon that has been modified so as to render it permanently inoperable or otherwise rendered permanently unable to be designated a large capacity weapon; or (v) any weapon that is an antique or relic, theatrical prop or other weapon that is not capable of firing a projectile and which is not intended for use as a functional weapon and cannot be readily modified through a combination of available parts into an operable large capacity weapon.

Thanks, PD, sorry to "force" you into a reply...

But I'm not sure I understand your answer. The US has seen more than its fair share of such people....so one could argue that our "system" produces them. We have a culture that can be alienating for some, coupled to pervasive public displays of violence on TV and the encouragement of violent pastimes such as video games, and finally the ease of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.

The US has seen more than its fair share of such people....so one could argue that our "system" produces them.

Citation please.

Wei,

I don't really think you are a unable to see the difference between international terrorism and a psychotic rampage. So why you proceed in that direction?

We should know more of the events in order to produce an informed opinion: if Cho planned the whole thing in advance... stopping a psycho determined to die in order to commit a massacre is very hard. Besides illegal guns, there are other tools of mayhem. On the other hand, if he just flipped out, grabbed his gun(s) and went out shooting, it can be argued that more stringent gun control may have avoided the massacre. May... this time around.

I don't really think you are a unable to see the difference between international terrorism and a psychotic rampage.

Can you see the major similarity between the massacre at VA Tech and the attack on 9/11?

Here's a hint. Both are anomolies. Not common occurances despite what you hear in the media lately.

It's generally a bad idea to base major policy on anomalies.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to prevent terror attacks or school massacres. Just that we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that these are rare occurances.

So no, we shouldn't repeal the second amendment and start confiscating every gun in the country over this latest anomaly. Just as we shouldn't have weakened the first, fourth, fifth and eighth amendments (among others) in response to a terrorist attack.

Wei: Perhaps my use of the word "system" was poor. There are organizations which have as their defined purpose the production of suicide murderers. I believe that those organizations are deterrable because they have ambitions they seek to achieve beyond the lifetimes of the children they strap with dynamite.

AFAIK, Cho is the product of his own insanity. He violated the first premise which is that man will do that which he judges will preserve himself. Having no regard for his own life and orchestrating a situation in which he would "escape" by taking his own life, deterrence has no meaning.

(Which is not to say that one couldn't make the perpetration of such heinous acts more difficult. I agree with Dave Schuler (#22))

"Here's a hint. Both are anomolies."

Noooo, thats a bad comparison. 911 was not an anomoly, it was the culmination of a series of meticulously planned and escalating attacks. It was only an anomoly if you were asleep for the last 20 years. No shame in that, many of us were. The shame is in sleeping through the alarm clock.

Murderous rampages are psychological and sociological events that occur in every culture in every part of history- some call it 'cabin fever', or 'running amok' (from the malaysian word mengamuk, to go mad with rage), or berserker, or going postal. Its a psychotic episode with no tangible sane goal in mind.

To compare that to 911 is idiotic. You might as well compare the Salem Witch Trials to WW2.
The two couldnt be more different in motivation or in repurcussion. There are always going to be instances of psychotic people trying to kill their neighbors, there is probably a statistical probability we could figure out. 911 was an act of war by an enemy with a long term strategy that would and will repeat the act with increasing frequency until their goals are met. If there is one thing we know for sure, it was NOT an isolated incident. Ask the people of London, Madrid, or a dozen other places.

To the extent changes in the law would help prevent something like this, I would think reconsidering psychiatric commitment standards would have the most bang for the buck.

Okay, instead of focusing on the weapon, has anyone given thought to the offender? Why has it always got to be about the instrument instead of the player? Why do we blame society, mean people, parents, guns, video games, long lines at the bank, global warming, etc and avoid looking at the bad guy? Cho had a history of issues and our system, designed to respect, above all the rights of the individual, does not do enough to corral people like Cho into mandatory treatment programs and secure medical facilities. This is an area open to better legislation and promoting an actual solution to the dangers posed by such individuals, as well as actually trying to help him overcome his demons. The money currently wasted on political posturing over gun control and the deepest interpretations of the second ammendment would be far better spent on finding ways to regulate and control the large population of mentally ill individuals running around on the streets right now, not taking their medication and listening to voices that you and I can't hear. Cho slipped through the cracks of a political system that doesn't find his sort of problems sexy or appealiing enough to spotlight and try to cure. As you drive down the street of any large urban area, you will see dozens of others who have suffered the same lack of interest and are now living on the streets and talking to themselves. You just have to hope that at the moment they erupt into violence, you are not in the way.

Whew...I feel better now.

I think committing people is something that needs to be addressed. Mental healthcare in this country in general is abysmal- home many of our social problems from homelessness to druge abuse to crime result from mental problems that could either be treated or the person should be locked up? Im not excusing anyone for their actions, but the pragmatic solution is to find ways to identify and evaluate these people before bad things happen. I understand that is a thin line to walk in a free society, but we should start having the debate.

Unfortunately, no. Japan has the strictest gun control laws in the democratic world—with very rare exceptions it's illegal to own a gun. Nonetheless just yesterday the mayor of Nagasaki was shot to death.

While it's difficult to directly compare statistics from country to country (lots of other factors infleunce crime rates, murders etc). The attack in Japan. Is much more of a misnomer than the VT killings (which are also very rare). According to nationmaster.com, Japan has 1/3 of the gun crimes, and also has fewer rapes (~approx. 5% of US), burglaries and "total crimes" per capita.

I do note that this is different than in Europe, where there are very similar per capita murders, burglaries and rapes. (Although US tends to be a little higher in each of these categories). Again though, direct comparison is more complicated than straight numbers.

BTW: Supposedly 187 people died in Iraq today.

Noooo, thats a bad comparison. 911 was not an anomoly

A terrorist attack on US soil claiming hundreds of lives or more is indeed an anomoly.

Even if you consider the embassy bombings an attack on US soil, it's still an anomoly.

Seriously, an event that happens perhaps every few years and, if we exclude overseas attacks every decade or so?

Of course, we could have different opinions on the definition of anomoly.

Well, the post is titled "Sensible gun laws", so...

In Japan social conformity is also much more strict, there is a definite honor/shame culture, and from what I gather police have much wider powers than in USA or Europe. No wonder that crime is lower, but still criminals are criminals and have access to guns.

Italian gun control is strict (think of New York City), but our homicide rate is only 20% lower than in the States. I was looking at the Italian statistics for 2002 the other day: firearms account for a 40% of homicides, but for the majority of homicides committed by criminals.

Davebo, if you are talking about the event in a vacuum, fine, it was an anomoly. But if you want to talk about it in any kind of context that has the least possible value for any discourse in rational thought, the motives and context might help.

The fact of the matter is there is a clear trail of escalation in Al Qaeda's attacks since the 90s that culminated in 911. You are suggesting that had we ignored 911 we would have been in statistically no more danger of another attack than at any random time in history. That is absurd. Its like telling France they were in no danger of a Blitzkrieg because Poland was a statistical anomoly.

I know deep in your heart of hearts you yearn to treat 911 like a natural disaster (which in fact this rampage is closer akin to). It wasnt, and you will never get people to buy into that nonsense. i dont know how many times you need somebody to slap you in the face to realize you didnt just trip and fall on their hand.

I bungled my reporting; here's the link to the whole thing: http://www.eures.it/comunicati_stampa/rapporto_omicidi_2003.pdf. Intellectual honesty and all that.

Had Cho published a screed threatening to kill his fellow students, the government would have whisked him off for examination and possible commitment or incarceration.

al-Qaeda made similar screeds which were ignored either because of pride or neglect, but those intentions were manifested. There was little excuse for ignoring them before 9/11, there is certainly none now because the casualty rate was unprecedented.

Japan is racially homogeneous (diversity increases violence) and has strict social controls. That did not prevent a whackjob from killing 38 people in 1938 with a samurai sword.

Civil Liberties groups and Dems will stand athwart, Andrew J Lazarus, any attempt to commit nutcases against their will.

Gun free zones etc. just make it easier to kill trapped people in classrooms, hallways, dorm rooms, etc.

The only solution IMHO is re-map our mental models of how we operate, become more watchfully aware the way we do when defensive driving and less attuned to abstract operations.

And be prepared to act. Even if it's against PC, taboo, multi-culturalism etc. Report the suspicious acting Muslim men. Don't let Atta get on board. Report the psycho nutcase. Act pre-emptively against terrorist threats with no apologies or UN/EU approval needed.

You can draw a long line: 9/11, Columbine, VT, etc. to the failures to first perceive (the threat is real) and act (do something to stop it).

I just wish both sides would stick to the topic without cramming 9/11, Iraq, Islam etc in every other comment.

Forlorn hope.

Civil Liberties groups and Dems will stand athwart, Andrew J Lazarus, any attempt to commit nutcases against their will.

In general, I consider mass murder to be impossible to prevent. However, it can be made incredibly unlikely. Pursuant to that, I agree with AJL #38: if maximized rarity is the goal in this case, then look to the current standards governing psychiatric commitment, and if necessary, reform them.

Orthogonally, I would also consider making it illegal for established businesses to sell firearms to non-US citizens. The most RKBA-friendly argument I could make supporting this would be that citizenry ought to be one of our litmus tests for determining whether an individual truly has the cultural background to understand the reasoning behind RKBA. If you're a citizen, then you can be trusted. If you can't prove it, then you have to prove you can be trusted some other way. (Perhaps the US could strike up special deals with other nations wherein citizens of one could purchase firearms in the other.)

I seems distasteful to me to require proof from someone before you can let them buy a gun. However, I was raised to approach firearms ownership as deadly serious - a sacred right of every US citizen unless they went out of their way to abuse it, and in fact, a sacred duty to NOT abuse it. I can't necessarily expect every non-US citizen to understand that.

Also, while I expect that rule would have conveniently caught a Cho, ideally it's the psychiatric standard that should have, as there are probably quite enough criminally unstable minds with citizenship and the right to purchase. Naturally, I would demand any evaluation to be objective and rock-solid - if you can't definitively prove a citizen is too insane to carry, well then, too bad. (Indeed, that might scuttle the reform right there.) And as Jim Rockford says, none of this absolves anyone of the duty to be observant. It would merely make that task slightly less stressful.

I think Paul Brinkley makes some good points. I do think it might be worth considering restricting gun ownership to non-U.S. citizens for a certain period of time. I don’t think fifteen years is reasonable (how long Cho has been in the country), but one year might. One reason would be to make foreign-initiated terror operations more difficult. Not that it would prevent them, but possibly complicate them and increase the chances of discovery.

One reason against it is that it would possibly alienate a group that includes some of the biggest enthusiast for the American dream. I seem to recall that even illegal Mexican immigrants have been willing to inform authorities about certain unusual border crossings by Middle-Easterners.

I doubt it Andrew.

As Wretchard points out at Belmont Club, Cho did everything but put up a neon sign proclaiming himself to be a lunatic and potential murderer. Yet nothing was done. Why?

Well he was Korean. No one wanted a legal battle alleging discrimination. So they all went the easy way: the cops, the hospital, the school. Until people died.

I doubt the ACLU or Ralph Neas or People for the American Way are going to sit still to allow people to be committed to institutions against their will. Still less anyone of color or alternative orientation or non-Christian religion. Given that the ACLU and many Dems want to let go hardened and proven killers of Americans: KSM for one.

Already CounterPunch is blaming America, the VT students and faculty, parents, etc. for the murders because of ... Iraq.

And Fabio C it is all part of the same coin:

Atta was allowed to board even though the Gate Agent "knew" the guy appeared scary and middle eastern. Because it would be profiling and thus out of bounds socially and also legally.

The taboo against doing anything against anyone who might have protected status (basically not a straight white male) has been extremely costly.

If Cho had been say, a White guy from Alabama he would have been both expelled and committed IMHO. Because it seems clear that Cho operated behind the same PC-Multi-Culti shield (which in itself is profoundly feminized i.e. conflict-avoidance oriented) that the 9/11 plotters operated from. Again and again his conduct was brought to attention of the police, school, and mental health officials but no action was taken.

When Tim McVeigh exposed the danger of the Militia Movement the FBI was unleashed upon them and they were (rightfully so) destroyed. They could not operate from behind the PC shield. The clear danger they posed destroyed without hesitation or half-measures.

Everyone knew Cho was nuts but did nothing. Why?

Everybody knew Laurie Dann was nuts, too, Jim.

Agree with TK's comments. Cho had been brought up on stalking charges twice, apparently committed an arson at his dorm and was ordered by a court to undergo outpatient counselling/therapy. Virginia's laws should have prevented him from purchasing a gun, but somehow, he was not in the "Insta-Check" (sp?) system used to screen gun buyers. He most certainly should have been in the system and denied the gun. A longer waiting period, while a good idea, would not have mattered because his record was not in Virginia's "Insta-Check" system.

As a former NRA member (I used to hunt and target shoot as a kid, owning a couple of rifes, but sold them when I went overseas to work after college), I believe in requiring a mandatory gun handling course for anyone wanting to own a rifle (we require it for driving a car, also a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands), to be administered by the local police. At the time of the course, a thorough background check can be conducted. Perhaps reasons for denial should be expanded, as well, and certainly all criminal records and clear, verifiable (as in receiving court-ordered treatment) mental or emotional illness/problems should be grounds for denial.

Sentences for gun crimes, including possession of illegal or unlicensed guns, or selling guns to someone without proper permits/licenses (whether an individual or dealer) should be stiffened with higher mandatories. Loopholes should be closed on sales of guns at trade shows/exhibitions and peer-to-peer sales (i.e. without proper background checks), sale of oversized magazines and converter kits that make semi-automatics full automatics (those manufacturing and selling the kits should be held criminally liable for any crime committed by a kit they made/sold - there is no legitimate purpose to make privately held weapons full auto).

The issue of sales to legal, permanent resident aliens is a tough call, though illegal immigrants should definitely not be allowed to purchase guns. Police background checks/reports in their home country should probably conducted on resident aliens and naturalized citizens of less than 5 years.

The main problem is that normal, honest people will follow the rules, register their guns and abide by licensing laws. Cho was not normal and the system failed. People like him will find ways to obtain weapons and commit their homicides, no matter what.

Remember: The Oklahoma City bombs were made with ammonia, fertilzer and other, readily available, household materials. Deadly Ricin poison can be made in your kitchen with a pot, some easily obtained chemicals and castor beans. The list goes on.

Interesting (to me, anyway) question: If stricter laws are passed and more disclosure of criminal records and mental/emotional issues are allowed, will the ACLU take up the case against the government?

Whew! All this tripe is exhausting.

[Cue Geraldo in 3...2..1..Emote, Geraldo, emote!]

How quickly we forget 33 people are dead. The news vultures circle before they are even buried. We have lost a sense of proportion. We must let the families of the victims and the perp grieve, as is their right. There is plenty of time for analysis, analysis and paralysis.

He did it because:

(Fill in your favorite reason to blame someone.)

We need more, bigger, stronger gun control laws because:

(Fill in your fav reason.)

We need fewer gun control laws because:

(Fill in your fav reason.)

CBS, ABC, CNN, FOX, etc, carry on 24/7 and drag this thing thru the strainer needlessly.

It was Cho, after Anna Nicole, after....

We have become a nation of voyeurs and should be ashamed.

O God and Heavenly Father, Grant to us the serenity of mind to accept that which cannot be changed; the courage to change that which can be changed, and the wisdom to know the one from the other, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.

Mr. Rockford,
Police are not worried about political correctness when it comes to mental health. There is no group that has been "traditionally" targeted in this way and putting people on holds who are a danger to themselves and others is not one of those decisions that give one any angst. Everything is not about that kind of pressure when you work in law enforcement. Virginia Tech police did put Cho away once, but my complaints are about the system that will not hold him and will let him continue in school when he was exhibiting all of the signs of a future meltdown. There are not enough resources devoted to the services that may have helped Cho or at least kept him in a place where he could not live out his violent fantasies. The system approved him for outpatient services. That was the first serious failure, but it did not happen for the sake of political correctness.

Already CounterPunch is blaming America, the VT students and faculty, parents, etc. for the murders because of ... Iraq.

And Fabio C it is all part of the same coin:

Atta was allowed to board even though the Gate Agent "knew" the guy appeared scary and middle eastern. Because it would be profiling and thus out of bounds socially and also legally.

Mike(#54):
Oversize magazines and full-auto weapons don't kill by themselves. They still need a shooter. Besides, don't full-auto guns already require a special license?
There's plenty of honest, law-abiding citizens in the USA who aren't going to register their guns, no way.

Let me put it this way: would racial profiling have stopped Cho? No. Would it have stopped McVeigh? No. Would it have stopped the unabomber, the columbine killings or most serial killers. Probably not. You know what does?

Mental Profiling. Again, this is what Israels sercurity forces are trained to do. To find people who are displaying "stress" responses, which are more reliable for picking up terrorists than simply taking a handfull of A and a side of B.

TK: I agree with you. The problem is that most mental illness cannot be cured. On my list is a book called "Crazy: A father's search through america's mental health madness". Basically the current approach is doing nothing (since there are no other options but prison) until they become so deragned that they kill themself, or get locked in prisons for minor transgressions. Prison is even harder on their illness, so that they continue to deteriorate until they become permanent inmates or are released completely unstable. Historically, you can see a jump in incarcerations at the same time asylums were found unconstitutional (ie holding someone against their will).

The problem is that "being tough on crime" wins votes, trying to create a functional mental health system, not so much.

Had Cho published a screed threatening to kill his fellow students, the government would have whisked him off for examination and possible commitment or incarceration.

I doubt it.

If OTOH he had threatened to kill niggers, or queers, or nappy-headed hos, or (gasp) Muslims -- that might have caused some reaction.

:(

alchemist:

Let me put it this way: would racial profiling have stopped Cho? No. Would it have stopped McVeigh? No. Would it have stopped the unabomber, the columbine killings or most serial killers. Probably not. You know what does? Mental Profiling. Again, this is what Israels sercurity forces are trained to do. To find people who are displaying "stress" responses, which are more reliable for picking up terrorists than simply taking a handfull of A and a side of B.

I'm not sure I'd call it "mental profiling," but basically I agree. Just to avoid the conflation, though, most people who are mentally ill are not dangerous, and many people who fit the "mental profile" of a mass murderer have never been in the mental health system. It might very well be a good idea to provide "the unorganized militia" with some intelligence on exactly what that profile entails. Doing that, however, may require a self-defense culture that may not be compatible with the "white flag mentality" many espouse.