Your Press Corps At Work
April 16, 2007 at 8:16 pm
A member of your White House press corps asked this question at today’s news briefing with Dana Perino:
Q Columbine, Amish school shooting, now this, and a whole host of other gun issues brought into schools — that’s not including guns on the streets and in many urban areas and rural areas. Does there need to be some more restrictions? Does there need to be gun control in this country?
Um, more restrictions than we have? And there’s no gun control in this country? Do facts matter anymore? How about intelligence? Certainly there’s some gun control somewhere in this country — isn’t there?
DADvocqte said,
April 16, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
I watched the 7:30 PM press conference at Virgina Tech. Is there a more clueless group than the press? I doubt it.
David Schlosser said,
April 17, 2007 @ 12:13 am
In my dreams, Ms. Perino would have replied, “When you ask about ‘gun control,’ do you mean ‘gun control’ like the Virginia Tech gun-free school zone gun control, or do you mean ‘gun control’ like the lack of gun-related crime in the gun-free cities of Washington, DC and Chicago, or do you mean ‘gun control’ like the UK’s ban of gund which has now made London more dangerous than New York City ever was?”
Jack said,
April 17, 2007 @ 12:34 am
They’re not stupid, they’re begging the question so that they can frame the response as acknowledging the need for gun control - i.e. any response which doesn’t explicitly refute the questioner’s assumptions can be framed as acknowledging the need for gun control.
Gullyborg said,
April 17, 2007 @ 12:45 am
how about “gun control” like two the chest, one to the head?
boure said,
April 17, 2007 @ 1:26 am
Just once, for fun, I’d like to hear Dana Perino answer, “No, Dumbass, it doesn’t. ”
“Next.”
Kirk Parker said,
April 17, 2007 @ 2:08 am
According to the White House transcript, the questioner was addressed as “April”. Anybody know who this is? Because this level of stupidity/duplicity needs to be publically acknowleged!
notforguncontrol said,
April 17, 2007 @ 5:02 am
The proper answer:
There WAS gun control at work here. Virginia Tech had a policy banning guns on ;campus. That’s how the deranged shooter was able to kill so many students.
They were unarmed, and thus, defenseless.
Faith+1 said,
April 17, 2007 @ 6:48 am
Wonder what they will say when it turns out the shooter illegally obtained his guns thereby providing more evidence that all gun control laws do is make law abiding citizens vulnerable?
Sam Boogliodemus said,
April 17, 2007 @ 7:25 am
Is ‘frame’ the new paradigm/gravitas/trangulation/etc…?
Jack is Back said,
April 17, 2007 @ 7:29 am
Right up there with asking Doug Williams how long he had been a black quarterback. Its the inane leading the irrelevant who are stuck on stupid. Anyone watch the Fox News broadcast of the presser? Notice the blond in the red suit left of camera shot angle? At such a solemn event she was waving, smiling, air kissing and just plain being blonde. Oh, this is going to get so politicized that it will make Iraq look like someone’s idea of vandalism. There goes the NRA lobbying budget for the next two years.
Craig T. said,
April 17, 2007 @ 7:38 am
The press was pretty clueless, but unfortunately I thought the university president, chief of police, and the other guy were even more clueless at the 4:30 pm press conference. I realize they needed to get information out, but they made themselves look like idiots. They should have issued statements and waited to take questions.
Of course it reflected their lack of intelligence starting early in the day.
Frank said,
April 17, 2007 @ 7:43 am
I can only hope there are “press” lurkers here getting a good idea of the degree of contempt they’re held to. They’re not all bad, but I would agree that for the most part they are a clueless pack of dimwits.
GW Crawford said,
April 17, 2007 @ 8:14 am
When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns
Well, duh! They NEED them, that’s their job!
Well, it just goes to show, you should just call the police, they are there to protect you
Soon as I saw the news about this, I knew all the ‘arms are for hugging’ freaks would be out in force citing this as proof that more gun control is needed.
Eventually liberals will be happy when America ends up like Sweden where a woman was raped in a mall and no one tried to help her because self-defence is against the law
Janielle Dones said,
April 17, 2007 @ 8:36 am
No one every went broke underestimating the bias of the American media.
HerrMorgenholz said,
April 17, 2007 @ 9:03 am
how about “gun control” like two the chest, one to the head?
Ooooh…the Triple Tap. Going for Style Points?
Wildmonk said,
April 17, 2007 @ 9:07 am
I have a lot of sympathy for the people that will now call for more “gun control.” Indeed, I sincerely wish that gun control worked. It would be ideal if we could ban semi-auto pistols of the type used in this shooting and, magically, semi-auto pistols would disappear.
The problem is that, no matter how much I might *want* this to be true, it simply isn’t. No matter how many politicians pose next to tough-looking policemen as they sign yet another “gun control” bill, motivated criminals will still get guns. Indeed, someone motivated enough to shoot 31 people and then blow his own face off is motivated enough to get the weapons to commit this type of crime regardless of whether our politicians pass laws or sell us on their happy-talk and magical thinking. I’ve shot innumerable rounds over the years but cannot *imagine* directing a bullet at an innocent human being. It takes extraordinary brutality to not only do so once but to do so again and again and again. The difference between the millions of shooters of all stripes and this guy isn’t the gun, it is the soul.
This is the sadness of an imperfect world: a realization that we’re forced to wrestle directly with some choices that have no good solution. Indeed, the only way a crime like this could have been stopped would have been for someone nearby to have the capacity to respond in kind to this animal before he was able to rack up such a stunning count of victims.
So, rather than engaging in the magical, wishful thinking of gun control - at a time that surely cries out for it - we must all steel ourselves to the reality that the world will always demand that we accept responsibility for our own safety.
Barry said,
April 17, 2007 @ 9:33 am
>we must all …accept responsibility for our own safety.
Absolutely GD right. But the Virginia legislature took that away from the VT students when it defeated a bill that would have allowed concealed carry on campus (VA is a right to carry state.)
When you surrender your personal safety to others, you are at the mercy of their judgements. I wonder how the state lawmakers in VA feel about their actions this morning.
Gabriel said,
April 17, 2007 @ 10:12 am
It’s amazing that so many right-wingers think the solution is to have every individual armed to the teeth in order to prevent such mass slaughter. There seem to be a lot of Walter Mitty fantasists out there who are confident they would’ve been able to take care of everything if they had only been there with their rifle. A sad lot, them.
william said,
April 17, 2007 @ 10:12 am
One “brilliant” reporter at the TV press conference asked why some one didn’t tackle the shooter? Yeah, I’m sure if this reporter was facing someone with two automatic pistols would try to tackle him>
Korla Pundit said,
April 17, 2007 @ 10:28 am
Too bad the commuters on Colin Ferguson’s train weren’t armed either. He wouldn’t have been able to kill so many.
How come the very people who demand more gun control and mock gun owners as some kind of hillbillies are the same people who cheer Palestinians posing their newborns and toddlers with machine guns and ammo belts?
richarda said,
April 17, 2007 @ 10:35 am
I heard this AM that the killer was a “Resident Alien” (i.e. Green Card holder).
Paging Pat Buchanan!
Gunga said,
April 17, 2007 @ 10:36 am
Michel Moore, Rosie, now this, and a whole host of other free speech issues brought into schools — that’s not including free speech on the streets and in many urban areas and rural areas. Does there need to be some more restrictions? Does there need to be speech control in this country?
Rob.C said,
April 17, 2007 @ 11:07 am
An armed society is a polite society. Our politicians in politically correct Canada have removed many of our natural rights including defending ourselves.
Stephen said,
April 17, 2007 @ 11:10 am
No Gabe’ What’s sad is that way too many folks, you being the example present, just cannot think outside their pet emotional pigeon hole. Thought doesn’t enter into it. 60 years ago firearm safety was taught in many schools, kids carried .22s anywhere for plinking, per capita gun ownership was higher and public massacres were unheard of. Since that time, feeling has slowly replaced thinking as THE tool for analysis. So, what has changed since then Gabe, the guns or the people. And why?
Ad hominum replies will not be considered.
Yanni said,
April 17, 2007 @ 11:12 am
If I may take the leftist view in another direction.
Gun Control has not worked since any determined person who wants one will find away. Remember the old saying ..”where there is a will there is way”? That old chestnut is based on something real or wouldn’t still be around.
I suggest we simply ban people who do this sort of crime. In fact we should ban crime altogether. And put people who do crime in …. er … jails. Yeah, that outta do it.
In life, bad things happen and good things happen. We cannot control life. We can only live it. Really deranged people continually try to control it. Guess who they are?
What say you?
Californio said,
April 17, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
The press, for the most part, is no longer credible.
The entire VT event was tragic. I cannot say that having someone other than the shooter having access to a firearm would have prevented or curtailed the tragedy. however, if you think about those students, sitting in class (where they should have been) and then an armed man walks in, shoots the professor and then proceeds to gun down the students at nearly point blank range - well, how safe it is to let others die like trapped dogs so you can safely pontificate about how guns are “bad”. Any other groups disfavored by academia who could have helped? ROTC? Athletes? Police? More Police? We all have to learn to come to each others’ assistance in a time of crisis - while it may not have been absolutely preventable, the community could have responded better. (and yes, perhaps with guns) What lessons will we learn from this?
Gabriel said,
April 17, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
Stephen, you clearly missed the point of my post, which was that all the talk about the need for a “fully armed citizenry” to combat such madmen is misplaced and ridiculous. You can fantasize all you want about wishing you were there to tackle the big bad guy and shoot him between the eyes, but the US would most definitely not be safer if anyone could legally carry a gun in any situation. A lot of right-wingers are trying to milk this tragedy to make some off-the-wall points about gun-control being the culprit, and it’s a low and tasteless thing to do.
SporkLift Driver said,
April 17, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
Gabe
It doesn’t matter what I personally would have been capable of doing. I’m a bad enough shot with a pistol even when the adrenaline isn’t flowing. Your belief that NOBODY out of hundreds who were present would have been able to take effective action says more about you than it does about us.
The shooter was not a citizen of the united states and I believe had no right to keep or bear arms in the U.S.
So how did my second amendment right to bear arms enable the shooter in this instance?
biopiracy said,
April 17, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
Funny they don’t ask if Universities need armed security guards,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
In light of the horrific shootings at a university in Virginia, which claimed dozens of lives, does Canada need to enact stricter gun controls to prevent similar incidents here?
Yes
No
Stephen said,
April 17, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
Gabriel, first off, thank you for (mostly) addressing the issue, not the man. I would not characterize you as a “left winger.” Such pigeonholing—which used to be called stereotyping—only endangers analysis and understanding.
I don’t believe I did miss your point, but I now believe you may have missed mine. Here why I think so.
“It’s amazing that so many…think the solution is to have every individual armed to the teeth in order to prevent such mass slaughter… all the talk about the need for a “fully armed citizenry” to combat such madmen is misplaced and ridiculous.”
It is fair to ask; do most of “them” really believe this is a solution for prevention, or is this merely your own emotional hyperbole? What exactly is “armed to the teeth” and what majority of people can you document who advocate “arming to the teeth?” It is fair to ask; why, in the absence of any other way to deal with threats, is preparation for self defense “misplaced and ridiculous?” Virginia Tech was declared a “gun free zone.” Well, that now seems to mean a “self defense free zone.” What else would you call it? Gun free it was not!
Regarding prevention, does “mass slaughter” just happen in a vacuum, or does it have causes? (you are free to respond to the relevant questions in my first post). For some perspective on this, I suggest you search the name Suzanna Hupp and get to know her experience in the Luby’s restaurant massacre of 15 years ago.
“There seem to be a lot of Walter Mitty fantasists out there who are confident they would’ve been able to take care of everything if they had only been there with their rifle…You can fantasize all you want about wishing you were there to tackle the big bad guy and shoot him between the eyes…”
To the extent that is true (and the posts you read hardly speak for 80 million gun owners) what you may be hearing is a growing frustration-response by folks who are getting mightily fed up with the rising rate and severity of public shootings, and of crime in general. A rise caused IMO by years of clearly failed social policy. A response by people who are daily becoming fearful because failed social policy has come to the point where it is putting them at daily risk. So I ask, Gabe, what is your plan to prevent future mass shootings, and the daily run of assaults and robberies? And if you have a plan, why will your plan work? And again I ask, what has changed in 60 years, the guns or the people? And why?
“A lot of right-wingers are trying to milk this tragedy to make some off-the-wall points about gun-control being the culprit, and it’s a low and tasteless thing to do.”
You will be very upset when I tell you that, within a half hour of breaking the story, ABC’s web site had a “more gun control yes/no” poll linked in the middle of their article. Further, I will await your equal condemnation of Ted Kennedy, Charles Schumer, and other, um, Democrats who have never failed to make immediate and very public political hay for gun-control out of these kinds of killings.
Last question; what is happening in the laboratories? Have “wild west shoot outs” really arrived in the concealed carry states after 15 years of their expansion? Is violent crime greater or lesser in restricted carry states? What is the current assault and robbery picture in England and Australia, where guns and self defense have been banned?
With respect Gabe, until you read more and can answer these and many other questions, you simply don’t know the subject matter. Emotional reaction might feel good, but it will not save you.
Gabriel said,
April 17, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
Stephen, while this is an issue that is heartbreaking for a lot of people and the shooting troubles me deeply, my case can be made dispassionately. I’m not making an emotional, touchy-feeling response, as you suggested. I don’t think that all guns should be banned or that attempting to do so would alleviate violence. The core of my argument is a cost-benefit analysis. Sporklift Driver above mischaracterizes my position; it may very well be the case that an armed citizen could’ve stopped the shooter. Who knows, though I don’t think it’s very likely. But even with the odd chance that an armed student could have successfully intervened, is it desirable to break down our regulations on where and when people can carry a firearm? Would you feel safer if you were a student at a university where you knew that a large number of your classmates were packing? I sure wouldn’t. Is it worth basing our policies on such miniscule probabilities as a) a shooter going on a rampage and b) a good samaritan happening to have a gun and c) that person intervening successfully, when there are much larger probabilities that a “fully armed citizenry” is one that finds itself on the receiving end of gun crime and altercations that escalate out of control, etc. etc. ? I find it hard to believe that anyone could see this as sensible.
Stephen said,
April 17, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
Gabriel,
That the shooting troubles you is pretty clear. And rightly so. It troubles me as well and you are right, heartbreaking is the very word for every incident—whether a massacre or the more common pettier crime gone wrong. How does one deal with such news, let alone those who must hear and see some innocent choke out their life at some heretofore safe location?
How are we to mitigate this? If the core of your argument bearing on solution is “a cost-benefit analysis” I would agree wholeheartedly. However, I think it is worth your challenging some of your assumptions, for, if it happens that some of them are wrong, such c/b analysis must lead you to very different conclusions.
Assumption 1:
”…it may very well be the case that an armed citizen could’ve stopped the shooter. Who knows, though I don’t think it’s very likely.”
According to extensive research by a PhD and professor of criminology who is a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause, law abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals over 2.4 million times every year—or 6,575 times a day. This figure has been supported by other research and would certainly affect any kind of self-defense cost/benefit analysis. Is it worth your looking further into?
Assumption 2:
”But even with the odd chance that an armed student could have successfully intervened, is it desirable to break down our regulations on where and when people can carry a firearm?”
Your question relies on the idea that regulations prevent gun crime. Obviously, they do not. The criminal “packer” simply does not care where and when he/she carries a firearm. You further assume that merely carrying a gun, whether or not with malicious criminal intent, means immediate danger to surrounding individuals. Where is your evidence for this assumption?
Assumption 3:
”Would you feel safer if you were a student at a university where you knew that a large number of your classmates were packing? I sure wouldn’t. ”
Actually I would. Again, you assume that by merely carrying a gun, even those licensed to do so are an immediate danger to those around them (look at your use of the term “packing.” An emotionally loaded term I have heard on many a “news” report). Consider that concealed carry permit holders are not only law-abiding citizens, but have been photographed, fingerprinted, subjected to a national FBI and local background check, and paid a license fee. Written exams are required and most states—this is increasing—require range training. Finally, according to ABC reporting, 36 states are “shall-issue” for concealed carry and none have, in 15 years, reported any upsurge in CC gun crime. Most states are reporting well under one percent for “incidents.”
Assumption 4:
”Is it worth basing our policies on such miniscule probabilities as a) a shooter going on a rampage and b) a good samaritan happening to have a gun and c) that person intervening successfully, when there are much larger probabilities that a “fully armed citizenry” is one that finds itself on the receiving end of gun crime and altercations that escalate out of control, etc. etc. ? I find it hard to believe that anyone could see this as sensible. ”
You have two problems here. First, right-to-carry policy is not at based merely on your assertions of a) and b). That is a “straw man” or “excluded middle” argument—take your pick. Right to carry law is based on self defense in all possible situations of which your assertions are merely a part. Second, that an armed citizenry is one that “finds itself on the receiving end of gun crime and altercations that escalate out of control” is surely made up out of whole cloth. Not that you did the making up, but there are no facts at all, taken in their proper context, to support either idea.
I submit that most of what you “know” and feel about people carrying guns comes from the thousands upon thousands of gun related negative images you have absorbed from movies and TV throughout your life. All wrong. You are not alone in this and your attitudes are perfectly understandable. However, what is real in this issue is vastly different, and deserves your study.
Go here to read a few items, any of which are a good springboard for research, if you really want to get closer to the truth.
Alienated said,
April 17, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
In Virginia, gun control is holding the Glock in two hands…
apollo said,
April 17, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
A simple review of the stats show that guns do indeed kill more people in the US than in other countries. These are dates, but the order of magnitude can not be disputed.
Armed robbery (per 100,000 people)
United States 221
Canada 94
United Kingdom 63
Sweden 49
Germany 47
Denmark 44
Finland 38
Norway 22
Japan 1
Murders committed with handguns annually:
United States 8,915
Switzerland 53
Sweden 19
Canada 8
United Kingdom 7
Murder rate (per 100,000 people):
United States 8.40
Canada 5.45
Denmark 5.17
Germany 4.20
Norway 1.99
United Kingdom 1.97
Sweden 1.73
Japan 1.20
Finland 0.70
Stuck in LALA Land said,
April 18, 2007 @ 5:26 am
As an American stuck in Britain (I married in … whups), I can only second those who have pointed out that sentiment and emotion-driven irrationality fuels much of the anti-gun debate … much as it has motivated the anti-hunting debate here in Britain, that has taken away a centuries old tradition and tool of fox control in the countryside. I feel very vulnerable in this society because I’m not allowed to defend myself and all the teen age thugs carry knives or guns. I know if I ever got into a scenario where I had to hurt someone in self defence, I would NOT feel comfortable reporting it to the police. A young man here a few years ago was subject to the most horrible personal abuse and bullying. When he struck out at his tormentors, injuring a couple of the eejits, the police arrested HIM. Utter lunacy.
Duxx said,
April 18, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
Murders committed with handguns annually: Finland 0.70
Why? Gun control? I offer additional statistics that explain this seemingly low figure.
% of population of a different color: Finland 0%
Kilometers of unprotected border with an impoverished nation: Finland 0km
Minority racial demagogues promoting hate and revenge with complicity from MSM: Finland 0
Apollo’s statistics are uncomposted bull____.
Iain said,
April 19, 2007 @ 12:31 am
Well what if this guy here couldn’t acquire the pistol he bought legally and then used to kill over 30 innocent people?
Gabriel said,
April 19, 2007 @ 7:15 am
Stephen, the website you referred to is interesting, but very slanted. Stats on firearms used for self-defense are notoriously wide-ranging, from a couple hundred thousand each year to more than 2 million each year, and this author chose the latter figure and stated it as fact. It would be great if we had reliable stats about this, because that’s what we need to make a cost-benefit analysis and we both agree that such an analysis is the heart of the matter.
Lacking that data, we can guess that there would be a negative correlation between how well-armed a country is and how high its murder rate is. Why this isn’t always the case, it’s difficult to say (and no, I don’t buy into Duxx’s racist diatribe above). Why doesn’t the US have an extremely low murder rate? Perhaps international comparisons will be too plagued by confounding factors, in which case a state-by-state analysis would be interesting.
knot 4guncontrol said,
November 7, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
8 Dead in Finland School Shooting
Wednesday, November 07, 2007 11:29:17 AM
An 18-year-old gunman killed eight people at a high school in southern Finland on Wednesday, then shot himself but survived, police said.
They said the high school’s principal was among the dead.
Police said the gunman, who used a .22-caliber pistol, was taken to hospital with serious wounds and the situation was “under control” after officers surrounded Jokela High School in Tuusula, some 30 miles north of the capital, Helsinki.
It was the first known school shooting in Finland, where gun ownership is fairly common by European standards, but shootings are rare.
************************************************************************************
Dear Mr. Silvey Rubicon,
In reference to your blog article at
http://www.robertsilvey.com/notes/gun_control/index.html
It’s not the law abiding U.S. Citizens who are the problem, it is the crimminal element abetted by illegal aliens, (oh yeh, I guess that’s really redundant isn’t it ) who are doing the bulk of the killing here. And then there is the occassional anomoly, like at Blacksburg, just as in the case of Finland which you praised for it’s “sensible regulation.” It appears that even “Sensible regulation” cannot prevent an unbalanced mind from killing.
Forgetting about knives, and taking away the guns, an angry person with a few molotov cocktails judiciously tossed into a classroom with the doors chained closed would achieve a greater death effect and leave any survivors in excruciating pain and with lasting scars as well as. The Facist and the Commmunist both confiscated their citizen’s firearms in order to subdue and control them. Which are you?
knot 4guncontrol
Vermont, USA