Many details have yet to come out, so I’ll preface this with a warning it might change.
However, many on the left have rushed to point to a variety of policies that could have prevented yesterday’s tragedy. (Virginia Tech student Seung-Hui Cho killed 33 people, including himself.) Sadly, they’re wrong on all counts.
From the accounts I’ve seen (check Google News for the latest), the individual bought the gun in March and had a receipt for it.
Mother Jones makes a point about secondary sales — in all but 17 states, only licensed dealers have to perform background checks when selling guns. Even I see some logic in requiring private people to call in their buyers’ information before selling, but again, there’s no evidence the shooter bought it from anyone but a licensed dealer. A receipt doesn’t prove that, but it points in that direction.
What’s amazing to me is how this case skirts around gun control proponents’ biggest arguments. Waiting periods, so angry people can’t immediately procure guns? There was a month between purchase and killing. Background checks? So far, there’s no evidence he would have failed one. Checks for mental instability? He was possibly depressed, but there’s nothing to indicate his case had been documented to the point the government could take away a constitutional right. Trigger locks and safety training (as Mother Jones also notes)? The guy was trying to hurt people.
The only credible argument is that the constitution doesn’t fully apply to non-citizens, but liberals don’t want to go down this road. So I ask: If a 23-year-old, with (we’ll assume) no criminal record and no documented, severe mental illness can’t buy a gun, who can? The only way to prevent this case would have been to ban all guns, confiscating tons of property and ripping the Constitution to shreds. And you’d have to do that nationally (probably internationally), not just in one city or state, as big cities with gun bans have shown us.
Loading ...
2 users commented in " Why gun control could not have stopped yesterday’s shooting "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackYour statements are BS, a few simple regulations could have prevented this tragedy. You gun freaks need to pull your heads out of your asses. A gun is a weapon. Despite what the avid enthusiast say they are designed for one thing, to kill people. I don’t advocate banning guns but I don’t understand the resistance to regulations. The regulations to the seller should at least be as strict as they are for selling alcohol. Only licensed gun brokers should be allowed to trade guns. Meaning if you have a gun to sell you can only sell it back to a licensed broker. To the buyer it should be as strict as obtaining a drivers license involving a written exam, an actual physical usage test demonstrating a knowledge of how to safely load, shoot, and store the gun, and most important all people wishing to purchase a gun should submit to a certified psychological profile test. If people are that gung ho to own a weapon then they should have to jump through a few hoops to get one to weed out the extreme crazies. This guy would have never gotten a gun legally if we had some controls in place. Illegally? Maybe but more than likely he would have gotten killed in the process.
Tom,
I own several guns and wouldn’t mind if had to “jump through a few hoops” to buy them. I disagree though that any law will prevent someone intent on buying ANYTHING from obtaining it. Look at illegal drugs. There are millions of illegal transactions a day and maybe a few people getting killed. We’ve spent billions and you can still buy them in any city. The additional gun control might reduce some impulse buying and raise the price of illegal guns, but supply and demand regulates availability of any product. Reduce the number of violent people by having mandatory life in prison for any violent crime involving a gun.
Leave A Reply