…Only Criminals Will Have Guns
By Mitch Berg
As people start to sort out the Virginia Tech tragedy, one question that half the population will ask is “how is it possible Cho Seung-Hui was able to get a gun?”
The answer: Illegally.
Check out question 12f in the form you have to fill out to buy a handgun.
Cho lied on the form.
Law enforcement can find out in an instant if you shoplifted a candy bar halfway across the country when you were 18 – and if you have a criminal record, it’ll go into the national database that’ll flag your attempt to buy a gun – but if you’re batsh*t crazy, the cops are on their own.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Maybe they don’t check ’em out there like they do in MN. Here, they take so long to get your permit to you that they must have time to check everything from your great-grandfather’s immigration papers to your neighbor’s opinion of your over-all character and demeanor. It’s amazing that anyone in MN even gets a permit.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
This isn’t a CCW permit. This is permit to purchse.
Whole ‘nother thing.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
So shall Angryclown put you down in favor of closing that loophole, Mitch?
April 18th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
When my side screams about commonsense gun control and thorough, mandatory background checks, this is part of what we’re talking about.
I could give a rats ass if someone thinks waiting a couple of weeks is an infringement on their right to own a gun.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
The woman who is being threatened with violence from an estranged spouse/significant other might have different opinions of the necessary immediacy, Doug. Remember what happened a few months ago to the couple when the deranged ex-boyfriend broke into their apartment at 3 a.m. Thank God they had the necessary tool and presence of mind to use it. They would both be dead if they hadn’t had the gun at hand to protect themselves.
Since we all know restraining orders do OH SO MUCH to physically protect someone from someone else intent on causing injury or death (which that woman did have against the now ex- ex-boyfriend)
And again, Mr. Feng-Shui lied on the form saying he had never been diagnosed as mentally deficient. Your conmmon sense gun control and thorough, mandatory background check failed, to the tune of 32 innocent lives.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Oh, and likewise, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass if a protestor at the 2008 GOP convention feels that being shuffled (carted, dragged kicking and screaming, etc) off to a mandatory “free speech zone” blocks away from the Xcel center is an infringement on their right to free speech.
It cuts both ways, big guy.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Funny how two words never enter into the Left’s talk about mandatory waiting periods and detailed mandatory background checks since they provide an easy way to bypass all those “safety guards.”
Black Market.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
So shall Angryclown put you down in favor of closing that loophole, Mitch?
What loophole?
That mental health agencies should report a binary flag to the national database that lists people who can’t buy guns? Sure! Of course, that’s the Dems who oppose that.
When my side screams about commonsense gun control and thorough, mandatory background checks, this is part of what we’re talking about.
Almost never true, Doug. Most of the “commonsense” controls your side proposes serve only to harass the law-abiding.
Got specifics? Because if you set ’em up, I can pretty handily knock ’em down.
I could give a rats ass if someone thinks waiting a couple of weeks is an infringement on their right to own a gun.
So bureaucrats can pretty much do what they want, when they want to, as long as guns are involved?
Because that’s usually what is going on. The key “go/no-go” database check for purchasing a handgun takes less than five minutes (and the Brady people brag about how successful it is!). The background check for a CCW permit takes longer, but not much.
If I’m a law-abiding citizen (and I’ve never stolen so much as a candy bar or lit so much as a joint in my life, and have ample training on the subject), harassing me for the pleasure of some gun-control advocate doesn’t make the street one iota safer. Getting the data that we NEED to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them has nothing to do with that.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Speaking as someone who was stalked by a nutcase – a lunatic I’d 86d from a bar, only to have him start show up again talking revenge, and letting his pals see his nice shiny gun – I can tell you those two weeks can feel like a very, very, very long time.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
I can tell you those two weeks can feel like a very, very, very long time.
Fortunately, Doug could [sic] give a rat’s ass how very, very, very long it feels
April 18th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
I’m gonna have to start reading the Bleat more often. Picturing Lileks 86ing someone is like picturing Hewitt riding a snowmobile.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Mitch said,
“Most of the “commonsense” controls your side proposes serve only to harass the law-abiding.”
you call it harassment, I call it added precaution. If you’re too impatient to wait two or three weeks for a background check, you probably shouldn’t be buying a weapon.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Excellent point doug.
“If you’re too impatient to wait two or three weeks for a background check, you probably shouldn’t be buying a weapon.”
What would you have told those folks in LA who didnt want to see their businesses go up in smoke? Should have anticipated those riots three weeks before they started? Or maybe we should pass a two or three weeks delay before rioting?
April 18th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Damn, if I lived in Democrat Lala-land I’d want to be armed to the teeth! By the time the scumbags got done robbing me the gummint would be there indicting me for non-cooperation!
Sorry clown, was that bigoted? The truth sucks sometimes, don’t it?
April 18th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Well, Doug seems to advocate waiting periods to exercise Constitutional rights that might be abused.
Let’s start with abortion, requiring two week waiting periods, background checks, and education. And let’s certainly make those who’ve had them printed on a public list since just like CCW “the neighbors have a right to know.”
Shall we continue with prepublication review of two weeks for journalistic reports on classified information? After all, someone who was actually undercover might, in some cases, get hurt if we didn’t. Heck, go all the way and demand the government be able to hold any news story for up to two weeks if it wants. After all, the news cycle could wait, couldn’t it?
And how about allowing the cops to hold anyone for two weeks with no right of habeas corpus? All those loonies in the GOP-WC won’t mind that will they?
Gee Doug, it’s nice to see that you’re so flexible in deciding that the government should be able to impede your rights. If you demand that we “close that loophole” you have to give up the right of privacy for all those present and former wackos at the very least.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
you call it harassment, I call it added precaution.
If it takes one minute to dial the national database to see if I”m flagged, what does the time get you, except for that “pissing on people you disagree with” feeling that motivates you so much?
If you’re too impatient to wait two or three weeks for a background check, you probably shouldn’t be buying a weapon.
In your opinion.
Which is of little standing ,unless you can show us a pragmatic benefit to this delay…
…which, since I”m all about being a helpful guy, I’ll tell you; you can’t.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
I don’t get it. If someone is so pissed at their friend, boss, sig other, whatever, that they want to go out and buy a gun today & murder them — or maybe they want to blow their brains out — it’s okay to sell them a handgun two weeks from now? But they can buy a shotgun or rifle today?
April 19th, 2007 at 1:34 am
Well, its been pretty clear that I don’t seem to be on the same page as anyone on the gun control issue but here’s a couple thoughts.
On the one hand, since the issue that started all this was a suggestion for a flag in the database saying “this guy’s got issues, don’t sell to him” and that database gets checked for felonies and the like anyway, I don’t really see where the whole “weeks” thing comes into it. I would add that those rejections should be able to be appealed.
On the other hand, part of the reason that I have no issue with conceal-carry is that the people who actually get the permit plan ahead, get the training and are fully aware of what would happen if they’re stupid with a gun. There’s a reason we haven’t seen a single incident of someone with a conceal carry permit commit a firearm violation since the law got passed (as far as I’m aware – Mitch, can you confirm/refute?).
Similarly, I’d guess that for the most part, people who legally own guns tend to have experience and background that, while they may not be skilled or as safe as they should be, will tend to make them at least cautious. However, someone who does not own a gun, gets into a bad situation and buys it because they are scared seems to me to be a person who is highly likely to be prone to panic or overreaction and more likely to make a potentially horrible mistake. I may be projecting because once upon a time, that was me. Fortunately, no one spooked me before I got my sense together and stopped carrying it (Some people tried to kill me, the paper published my fricking name and address in the paper and I panicked and bought a gun. I legally owned it but was not legally carrying it. I was not smart about it and was just lucky that nothing bad happened).
All that said, I would think that a sufficient background check should be able to be accomplished in the time it takes to run a credit card and while I think that people buying guns under the “oh shit” circumstances are less likely to be the best people to be buying, if they’re clean on the background and aren’t acting in a way that alarms the shopkeeper, they shouldn’t be rejected.
Of course, if they do do something stupid, they should face the full force of the law and if they evidenced sketchy behavior, I’d think the person who sold it to them may at least be somewhat civilly liable.
Not really trying to make any conclusions here – just trying to insert some more thought and different points of view into the discussion.
My one bit of advice to everyone – if you can envision yourself ever deciding to buy a gun when a bad situation arises, please go out and buy one now and get yourself properly educated and trained.
If you think about it and truly can’t picture yourself buying it, when that bad situation comes up, don’t. Trust the decision you made when you were thinking clearly and find some other way to get out of the mess – stay with relatives for a couple weeks or something.
April 19th, 2007 at 5:49 am
Angryclown has no sympathy for firearms dilettantes like Lileks. At his age, any self-respecting right-wing nut would already have had multiple confrontations with ATF agents, possibly involving hostages.
April 19th, 2007 at 6:22 am
“There’s a reason we haven’t seen a single incident of someone with a conceal carry permit commit a firearm violation since the law got passed (as far as I’m aware – Mitch, can you confirm/refute?).”
one drunk CCW holder shot/killed a bouncer at Nye’s Polinaise a couple years back after an altercation at the door.
April 19th, 2007 at 6:40 am
While Likeks has, I am certain, been called many things in his life, “right-wing nut” seems the farthest from applicable.
April 19th, 2007 at 6:44 am
one drunk CCW holder shot/killed a bouncer at Nye’s Polinaise
Not quite.
The shooter had been inside Nye’s for some time, and was REALLY hammered. He also wasn’t carrying his pistol; he had someone drive him home, got the gun, and came back to Nye’s.
The way people without permits do it.
The permit had nothing to do with the crime.
April 19th, 2007 at 6:46 am
Sorry to throw cold water on an entertaining exchange, but your premise is faulty, Mitch.
The form asks if I’ve ever been ADJUDICATED mentally defective or incompetent. That word in that context means “found to mentally defective by a judge in court after a hearing at which both sides had an opportunity to present evidence.”
The form also asks if I’ve ever been COMMITTED to a mental institution. That word in that context means “confined against by will, on authority of a court order issued after a hearing at which both sides had an opportunity to present evidence.”
From what I seen on TV, Cho had not been formally adjudicated or committed, merely instructed to seek out-patient treatment.
Big difference. It’s the difference between “have you been arrested” and “have you been convicted.” One can honestly say Yes, I was arrested but my case was continued for dismissal, so No, I’ve never been convicted.
The mental health worker who thought Cho was a danger to himself and others had a chance to present that evidence at the hearing, but the judge weighed that evidence against other evidence and did not find it persuasive. No adjudication, no commitment, no lie.
Cho did not lie on the form. There was no fault in the background check. There was no loophole in the system to close.
.
April 19th, 2007 at 7:08 am
My one bit of advice to everyone – if you can envision yourself ever deciding to buy a gun when a bad situation arises, please go out and buy one now and get yourself properly educated and trained.
Good advice, I think. Kind of like: if you can envision yourself ever wanting to have fire insurance on your home, go ahead and do that now, rather than waiting until you smell smoke.
Obvious — but, still, good advice.
April 19th, 2007 at 7:20 am
Nerdbert said,
“Let’s start with abortion”
OK. Two weeks sounds reasonable to me.
“let’s certainly make those who’ve had them printed on a public list”
Good Idea. I’ve told this story here before. My mom used to work in Catholic hospitals before she retired. The procedure they performed on good underaged Catholic girls was called a DNC or a uterine scraping. It was done when girls had an unusual or “unexplained” stop in their periods. I know why their periods mysteriously stopped. Do you nerdbert? I personally would LOVE to see the names of the good Catholic and Evangelical Christian families published under a list of of people who have had an abortion for all the world to see.
“Shall we continue with prepublication review of two weeks for journalistic reports on classified information?”
Excellent idea. I’ve always thought the 1 year that they have been waiting was ridiculous.
“And how about allowing the cops to hold anyone for two weeks with no right of habeas corpus”
Already happening. You just refer to them as an enemy combatant and poof – no rights.
April 19th, 2007 at 7:22 am
Nate,
The form asks if I’ve ever been ADJUDICATED mentally defective or incompetent. That word in that context means “found to mentally defective by a judge in court after a hearing at which both sides had an opportunity to present evidence.”
I know. And he was
April 19th, 2007 at 7:24 am
Doug,
I asked for a reason for an extended waiting period, beyond “because I like to see gunnies wait”.
You haven’t. I tend to think you can’t.
I personally would LOVE to see the names of the good Catholic and Evangelical Christian families published under a list of of people who have had an abortion for all the world to see.
You are a sick little puppy.
April 19th, 2007 at 7:39 am
“The shooter had been inside Nye’s for some time, and was REALLY hammered.” = DRUNK
“He also wasn’t carrying his pistol” = when he walked back to the bar and shot the bouncer he certainly was.
“The permit had nothing to do with the crime” = he was a permit holder – if you ask the BCA has anyone with a CCW permit committed murder with a firearm they will give you his name.
he’s the black swan statistically.
was he carrying his weapon legally? was he conforming to the law? of course not he was committing a crime just like people without permits do. Having a permit doesn’t inoculate you from being stupid or committing a crime BUT, statistically, having a permit is a very strong indicator that you are a law abiding citizen who will act reasonably and responsibly with a firearm.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:11 am
Kel,
Your larger point – that having a permit, with background check and training, doesn’t immunize anyone from stupidity; it’s merely a good indication that one is both law-abiding and serious. Statistically, carry permit holder who pass all the “shall-issue” critera are less than 1% as likely as the general population to commit a signficant crime (I calculated that from the Florida data, from 1987 through about 1995, as well as Texas data from the first five years of its CCW law), so it’s generally a safe bet; but generalizations have their exceptions.
was he carrying his weapon legally?
He wasn’t carrying at all, initially. And when he got his gun – per his permit’s requirements? His blood alcohol was WAY over .04, so no.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Actually, Mitch, when he got his gun, he wasn’t carrying llegally.
Remember: Ourada’s rampage happened during the time between when the way the MCPPA was passed was ruled unconstitutional and before it was repassed — and it was the MCPPA that made CWI unlawful. (It was stupid, but not illegal, to carry while intoxicated before the MCPPA went into effect, and, again, when it went back into effect.)
As I think I pointed out at the time, the lawyer who filed the lawsuit that overturned the MCPPA — the lawyer who, with the aid of a compliant judge, made it lawful to carry while drunk out of one’s gourd — was David Lillehaug.
Irony, thy name is Lillehaug.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Well, Mitch, while I defer to your greater experience both with firearms and involuntary psychiatric commitment, this looks like a routine, emergency order that a judge would enter to get someone evaluated. A true commitment would only be ordered after a more elaborate hearing where Cho would be represented, I suspect.
I know you’d argue against forcing citizens to give up their most important constitutional right – the right to buy unlimited numbers of semiautomatic weapons – without due process. It doesn’t look like one took place here.
At the very least, given the confusing wording on the form, Cho could reasonably have believed he hadn’t been “committed.” Angryclown agrees that he’s a mass murderer, but defends Cho against your charge that he’s a liar.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:47 am
The point, Clown, is that under the Brady Law this involuntary commitment should have been part of the database; it should have flagged him as disqualified to purchase.
It wasn’t. Flagging the mentally-ill is a political football, and it’s one of the weaker parts of enforcing many laws (not just gun-related).
A true commitment would only be ordered after a more elaborate hearing where Cho would be represented, I suspect.
Possible – but for purposes of disqualification for purpose, the emergency commitment (given the fairly difficult to even achieve THAT these days) should have been a flag.
unlimited numbers of semiautomatic weapons
Assuming I’m a law-abiding citizen, what difference does it make if I have 100 semiautomatic weapons, or 20 full-automatic ones and a flamethrower and a tank, for that matter?
I think my peak was four weapons – two rifles, two pistols, all of them “semiautomatic”. And yet the temptation to kill anyone never crossed my mind.
How d’ya figure that happened?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Mitch backfilled: “The point, Clown, is that under the Brady Law this involuntary commitment should have been part of the database; it should have flagged him as disqualified to purchase.”
That simply shows the law needs to be tightened. That doesn’t exactly advance your argument.
“Possible – but for purposes of disqualification for purpose, the emergency commitment (given the fairly difficult to even achieve THAT these days) should have been a flag.”
See, I *knew* somehow you’d be familiar with involuntary psychiatric commitment. They don’t really come after you with big nets anymore, do they?
“I think my peak was four weapons – two rifles, two pistols, all of them “semiautomatic”. And yet the temptation to kill anyone never crossed my mind.
How d’ya figure that happened?”
At the moment, the voices are telling you to blog.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:07 am
That simply shows the law needs to be tightened.
Thanks for agreeing with the NRA!
At the moment, the voices are telling you to blog.
Since you’re a clown, do your voices come to you in pantomime?
April 19th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
As much as it pains me to find myself on the same side as the Angry Clown, I am convinced that Cho did not lie on the form. He was not “adjudicated” mentally ill. He passed the background check.
There’s a difference between a finding of mental illness based on one mental health worker’s affidavit filed in a slam-bam temporary hold proceeding; and an adjudication of mental illness after a full-blown evidenciary hearing at which Cho is represented by counsel and has his own shrink’s report.
The forms filed in the Virginia court reflect that difference and contemplate a later evidenciary hearing. See: http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/detentionord_1_070418.pdf
Similarly, Virginia law understands that there is a difference between a temporary hold and an adjudication of mental illness. The temporary hold isn’t reported to the federal “no gun” database as a disqualifying event.
Think hard about the consequences of changing the system to allow the government to permenantly ban you from acquiring firearms based on an affidavit filed by a social worker, or by an angry romantic partner, without an opportunity to have your lawyer attend to present evidence on your own behalf. That’s where we’re heading with domestic abuse hearings. We don’t need to expand it.
.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Um, do you realize Angryclown has persuaded some of your readers to agree with him on at least *three topics* in the last week or so?
Evil plan working. World dominance assured. Patience.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Mitch, by focusing on whether Cho lied on the form, you’re being seduced by the Dark Side. Let me point you back to the light.
Saying Cho lied on the application to buy a gun implies that the murders were made possible because the gun-control system was flawed, and holds out the false hope that future murders can be prevented if the gun-control system could be perfected. There are two things wrong with that line of thinking: (a) systems of behavior control designed and implemented by human beings will never be perfect; and (b) it’s possible to make no mistakes and still lose the game — sometimes, the other side is just better, faster, more clever, more diabolical, more patient, more cunning, more ruthless.
In this case, the gun-control system worked exactly as it was designed to work. Cho was over 21, passed his background check, bought one gun per month, paid full value from a licensed dealer, bought a high-quality gun and paid the tax on his ammunition. But the murders occurred anyway, because of the fundamental truth that words written in statute books can influence the behavior of law-abiding people but those words have no power to restrain the lawless.
We don’t need to fix the gun-control system; we need to fix the people-control system, by which I mean all the institutions that contribute to the moral fabric that binds society together with nothing stronger than voluntary compliance with the law.
.
April 20th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Um, do you realize Angryclown has persuaded some of your readers to agree with him on at least *three topics* in the last week or so?
I think most people understand that, even though a stopped clock is right twice a day, that’s not a particularly idea to count in it when one is trying to decide what time it is.