Massacre Gun: $571 for 9 mm Glock and 50 Bullets at Roanoke Store

[tcfrogs]

Source: ABC News

Seung-Hui Cho bought his first gun, a 9mm handgun, on March 13 at a Roanoke, Va. gun store, the owner tells ABC News.

John Markell, the owner of Roanoke Firearms, said today that he had been interviewed by three agents from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms about Cho's purchase of a Glock 9 mm handgun.

"I feel terrible about this," Markell told ABC News at his store today, which is part gun shop, part pawn shop on the outskirts of Roanoke.

Markell said Cho's gun and a box of 50 bullets cost $571. He said Cho paid by check and left the store with the gun.

Read more: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/massacre_gun_57.html

[slackmaster]

1. That's a lot more than most college students, or typical junkie crooks, can afford

Much less expensive, albeit less reliable handguns are available.

California Police Equipment in San Diego offers the same pistol, but with a 10-round California legal magazine, for $549.99.

http://www.capoliceequip.com/

[aquart]

3. A round is a bullet?

I know so little about guns. I heard 15 rounds, not fifty. Must have heard wrong. So where did he buy the rest of the ammo, because some people were shot three times and the numbers don't add. And the magazine on this Glock held how many?

I guess I'll have all my misinformation about guns corrected in the next few days. How educational mass murder is.

[slackmaster]

7. Bullet = projectile, round refers to one bullet or one loaded cartridge

The stock magazine on a Glock G17 holds 17 rounds (10 if you live in California, NY, NJ, or some other states).

Pistol ammunition is widely available in ordinary sporting goods stores, and by mail order.

[aquart]

13. Thanks. I've been posting 15 rounds all over the place

In the totally mistaken belief that a round held a bunch of bullets.

So he shot 17 times, stood there and reloaded the magazine and shot another? That's not right. He had spare magazines? How was he able to do that?

[slackmaster]

17. The law does not limit the number of magazines a person may own

Magazines are generally not serialized, so they are basically untraceable.

[benEzra]

16. The capacity of a Glock 19 is 15 rounds.

Ammunition is generally sold in boxes of 50 or 100 rounds.

My wife owns a Glock 26 (subcompact 9mm, smaller than the G19), but it accepts the same magazines as the G19.

[JPZenger]

21. CNN: Expired Gun Law Had Limited Size of Magazine

Yesterday afternoon, CNN said that the assault weapons law that had been passed during the Clinton Administration had limited the capacity of a semi-automatic magazine (I think it was 10), but that the law had expired a few years ago. If I remember correctly, they said that a 9 mm magazine is available for up to 19 rounds.

[benEzra]

33. The Feinstein law raised prices on over-10-round magazines

CNN: Expired Gun Law Had Limited Size of Magazine

Yesterday afternoon, CNN said that the assault weapons law that had been passed during the Clinton Administration had limited the capacity of a semi-automatic magazine (I think it was 10), but that the law had expired a few years ago. If I remember correctly, they said that a 9 mm magazine is available for up to 19 rounds.

The Feinstein law raised prices on over-10-round magazines (handgun magazines only, rifle mags weren't significantly affected) but did not ban possession, sale, or transfer. Sitting in our gun safe right now is a 15-round Glock 19 magazine that my wife purchased for herself in 1997 or 1998, during the "ban."

FWIW, over-10-round firearms have been on the civilian market since the 1860's, and over-10-round pistols date from the 1890's to early 1900's.

[NickB79]

63. Since he was able to reload numerous times, that is a moot point

He shot and killed 33 people, and on CNN last night it said that the dozen or so survivors had all received at least 3 or more gunshot wounds. It would appear he expended at least 50 rounds, if not more. He was able to stop and reload many times during his shooting spree. Using 10-rd magazines instead of 15-rd magazines would have just meant a few more mag changes.

[iverglas]

85. ah, speculation

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18170761/

Because he killed and injured so many victims in a short span of time, some people speculated that Cho used high-capacity magazines containing as many as 33 rounds in each clip.

Under the federal assault-weapons ban enacted in 1994, magazines were limited to 10 rounds. But that ban was allowed to expire in 2004.

We shall see, eh?

I do wonder about this:

Virginia State Police Superintendent Col. W. Steven Flaherty said Tuesday afternoon that both guns were purchased legally in Virginia.

since:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18169776/

However, after the second incident, the department received a call from an acquaintance of Cho’s, who was concerned that he might be suicidal, Flinchum said. Police obtained a temporary detention order from a local magistrate, and in December of that year, Cho was briefly admitted to Carilion St. Albans Behavioral Health Center in Radford, NBC News’ Jim Popkin reported.

To issue a detention order under Virginia law, a magistrate must find both that the subject is “mentally ill and in need of hospitalization or treatment” and that the subject is “an imminent danger to himself or others, or is so seriously mentally ill as to be substantially unable to care for himself.”

As I understand US firearms law, such a committal would be a bar to purchasing a firearm. But then, since the only way of knowing whether it has occurred is if the person concerned checks off the box on the background-check form that would result in disqualification ... well, basically, you have to have been committed *and* be really stupid to be unable to buy a gun.

A US court has actually held that requiring a person disqualified from firearms ownership by a criminal record to say "yes" to that question the form amounts to a violation of the right against self-incrimination. (That's an utter nonsense, of course, but that's what it said.)

[benEzra]

118. The Federal background check is against the FBI's central NICS database...

As I understand US firearms law, such a committal would be a bar to purchasing a firearm. But then, since the only way of knowing whether it has occurred is if the person concerned checks off the box on the background-check form that would result in disqualification ... well, basically, you have to have been committed *and* be really stupid to be unable to buy a gun.

The Federal background check is against the FBI's central NICS database and state criminal databases, and is based off your driver's license number and social security number or other government issued ID. What you put on the BATFE Form 4473 prohibited-person questions has no bearing on the background check; those answers are only used to convict you of perjury if you lie (unless, of course, you are a really stupid prohibited person, as you point out).

If the court had entered a record of an involuntary mental health commitment into his record, his background check would have come back as denied, but apparently they didn't.

[MGD]

24. There are 30 rd mags available for the glock 19 as well.

?aa=20070417133404

[saigon68]

4. The paperwork was perfect

In the first entry, in update 13, I reprinted the message a gun store owner from Roanoke posted on a bulletin board:

Call BS all you like, but I just spent the last several hours with 3 ATF agents. I saw the shooter’s picture. I know his name and home address. I also know that he used a Glock 19 and a Walther P-22. The serial number was ground off the Glock. Why would he do that and still keep the receipt in his pocket from when he bought the gun?ATF told me that they are going to keep this low-key and not report this to the tv news. However, they cautioned that it will leak out eventually, and that I should be ready to deal with CNN, FOX, etc.My 32 camera surveillance system recorded the event 35 days ago. This is a digital system that only keeps the video for 35 days. We got lucky.

By the way, the paperwork for Mr. Cho was perfect, thank God…

http://crimeblog.us/?p=368

[aquart]

9. Wow. His camera caught the criminal buying the weapon before the crime.

Thank God. We got lucky. Ain't that just grand? No guilty nightmares for this vendor.

[pokercat999]

46. He shouldn't feel guilty, he is in a legal business and

complied with all the laws governing that business. If he feels any guilt he should get out of the business. What else could he have done?

As for his statement "thank god we got lucky" I think he was referring to the fact that his machine still contained the video and was set to erase in in a few days.

[saigon68]

59. Exactly

It's a legitimate business. People need protection from the zoned out nut jobs running the streets.

Except in this case dude was legal to buy

The ill informed here wish to legislate a perfect world-- it ain't happening

These six were killed in IRAQ-NAM yesterday

apparently no tears from the media for them

16-Apr-2007 6

US 1st Lieutenant Shaun M. Blue Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
US Lance Corporal Jesse D. Delatorre Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
US Lance Corporal Daniel R. Scherry Al Anbar Province Non-hostile - accident
US Private 1st Class Lucas V. Starcevich Baghdad (southern part) Hostile - hostile fire -
US Private 1st Class Aaron M. Genevie Baghdad (southern part) Hostile - hostile fire -
US Sergeant Mario K. De Leon Baghdad (southwest part) Hostile - hostile fire -

[CreekDog]

70. So, for self-defense, we need 9mm's that can fire off 50+ rounds in a minute?

For self-defense, we need this to be legal?

Are you out of your mind?!

You can argue against gun control, debate the 2nd Amendment, but you cannot argue for the need for the average person on the street to own a gun or guns that can discharge the number of rounds that the 9mm used in this crime discharged in that amount of time.

Honestly, if you are discharging 50 rounds out on the street in what you call self-defense, you should be locked up.

Expecting to be rushed by a football team on the street? Perhaps 50 ninjas attacking?

Bogus. And your post has made me think more strongly of gun control and made me rethink what self-defense actually means.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

90. I got one thing to say about this,

50 rounds does not mean 50 hits.

[Recursion]

114. What do you want, muzzle loaders?

You're saying the rate of fire of a handgun is too high? How do you intend on slowing that down? Go back to blackpowder muzzle loaders?

[Kukesa]

101. And may they rest in peace. Thanks, Saigon. nt

[originalpckelly]

11. Well, of course it was.

There's no way to stop anyone with a clean record. It's just not possible.

We need to focus on society, not the gun. The gun is being used by selfish vengeful people, not the other way around.

[saigon68]

15. Absolutely true

As in "Lets Ban Airplanes"

Because 5 nut case Islamics Jihadists flew one into the north tower and wiped out bond traders Cantor Fitzgerald

[CreekDog]

72. heck of a lot more restrictions on flying/owning an airplane

Than on owning a gun and a gun's purpose in an urban setting is killing people, period.

How easy do you want it to be for a nutjob to kill many, many people in short order in order for you to feel safe?

I'm serious. For you to be able to own guns that can discharge so many rounds, so quickly, the malcontents get that ability too. They get their hands on the same guns that you have access to.

Outside the hands of law enforcement, as the weapons get more powerful and can kill more people more quickly, the incentive of killing people over using them for self-defense grows.

[brentspeak]

37. Incorrect. NJ has a system in place which screens out most potential psycho gun killers

To get a handgun permit in NJ (i.e., to be able to purchase a handgun), applicants have to receive permission from their local police department. They interview applicants face-to-face, query neighbors and others about the applicant, etc. Things like Cho's stalking women on campus or his violent writings don't show up on computer background check, and otherwise wouldn't prevent an applicant from getting a permit -- though they should. A NJ police department would find out that Cho set fire to a dormitory room and stalked women, and that would be it: no permit granted.

So, not only is it possible to stop a potential psycho with a clean record, it's already been done, and for many years.

[Speaker]

45. Incorrect.

applicants have to receive permission from their local police department.

They can go to the local crack dealer and get a gat for $500 bucks, and they won't even be asked their name.

[sendero]

52. Hey...

... don't intrude on the delusional notions of a seeming majority here who think they can legislate a perfect world!

Shame on you!

[brentspeak]

57. What happened at Virginia doesn't happen in NJ

So, who's the one with the "delusions"?

[Speaker]

60. 4 shot dead in Queens, on TV now.

New York City's gun laws are tougher than yours.

[slackmaster]

NYC has pretty much "Australian style" gun control

Four dead in one incident. How horrible!

[slackmaster]

71. stutter punch

n/t

[iverglas]

92. shot with a legally possessed firearm?

Seems we'll have to wait to see.

Perhaps the distinction has eluded you.

[Speaker]

96. Perhaps the fact...

that gun control didn't prevent this shooting has eluded you.

[iverglas]

97. perhaps the fact

that speed limits didn't prevent a few car crashes last holiday weekend has eluded you.

Oh, hmm ... are you alleging that I maintain that gun control stops all shootings? What is this magical "gun control" that I apparently believe in, pray tell?

Time to abolish speed limits, I say. They obviously do nothing but interfere with our driving pleasure.

[brentspeak]

106. Did this incident happen in NJ? No.

It took place in New York Freaking City. Where the guns used in the Queens killing likely were obtained from out-of-state.

I mentioned NJ; you changed the subject to NYC, and then failed to cite just how "New York City's gun laws are tougher than yours".

NRA-style logic: there is none.

[CreekDog]

73. Reduce the supply of guns, they become harder to acquire

Legally or illegally.

What if you needed to register a gun to legally own it?

And we aren't leglislating for a "perfect world" as is said here so many times. But we aren't fated to have the same guns laws forever and ever either, just like speed limits change, drunk driving laws change, etc.

This guy was in a mental hospital two years ago and bought the weapons legally afterwards. If you don't think laws that permit that should be reevaluated, maybe you aren't thinking straight.

Heck, if you have a seizure you can't apply for a driver's license for three years. Three years!

But have a breakdown, go ahead, in some states you can buy a weapon whose purpose is to kill people.

They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. Bingo.

[Nederland]

82. Harder for whom?

Reduce the supply of guns and all you do is take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. For criminals, nothing changes--they can still get their hands on a gun because the fact that it is now illegal matters little to them.

[iverglas]

87. yeah, keep saying it

Maybe you'll persuade someone. Someone really stupid.

For criminals, nothing changes--they can still get their hands on a gun because the fact that it is now illegal matters little to them.

That's why there are just as many handguns in criminal hands in Canada and the UK and Australia and all western European countries as there are in the US.

Not.

[ProudDad]

119. STOP YOUR STUPID BULLSHIT COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!

Straw man, straw man, straw man...

No one is recommending "taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens" Your statement is BULLSHIT.

Here's a link to a responsible, rational way to limit guns and assign responsibility for their use and abuse where it belongs:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3225462


No bans, No confiscation, No yanking your silly little toys from your cold, dead hands...

[Nederland]

121. Excuse me

...but read the post directly above yours before claiming that "No one is recommending "taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens".

THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT THE POSTER IS RECOMMENDING.

[ProudDad]

122. No, it's not

There was a statement about "reducing the supply of guns"... That's a GREAT idea but it's not "taking guns out of the hands of anyone."

My main recommendation would be funding for mental health services starting at an early age to breed the gun love pathology out of the American People. Once that sickness is mended, no one will want guns.

[Nederland]

123. Yes it is

You may not be reading that particular post the same way I do, but how about this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2810782#2811880

Are still saying that "no one is taking about taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens?"

[kingoth]

127. NBC said

there are over 280 million guns currently in circulation in the USA and that figure is only registered guns. How would you recommend reducing those figures ????!!!!!

[pokercat999]

113. In most states used guns can be bough and sold in the

private (not a gun store) market without restrictions of any kind.

[iverglas]

86. sorry, you're wrong

There's no way to stop anyone with a clean record. It's just not possible.

There's no way to stop *everyone* with a clean record, but there's a way to stop *some people* with clean records from purchasing firearms legally.

It's called licensing. And it involves a little more than a routine check-the-boxes form for the background investigation. It's done in Canada. It doesn't stop *all* inappropriate firearms purchases, but it would quite likely have stopped this one.

We need to focus on society, not the gun.

Okey dokey. How did society cause this? And how do you propose to remedy whatever deficiency you identify?

The gun is being used by selfish vengeful people, not the other way around.

This gun was used by an obviously unbalanced and, perhaps not so obviously, dangerous person. They can be hard to spot.

[oldhippie]

19. Standard Glock 19 magazine holds 15 rounds.......

The G19 is my normal concealed carry piece. When you buy one it usually comes with two mags. Extras are available for approx. $25 each. 9mm ammo can be bought at any sporting goods store and most WalMarts in most areas.

[Rick Myers]

20. There's more than one place the serial number is placed on a Glock

The s/n is on the weapon in atleast 3 places.

[soothsayer]

2. a month is alot of premeditation, if that's what this indicates.

[aquart]

5. Yeah. He wasn't set off by a quarrel. I think.

When did he buy the door chains?

[jody]

6. Media hype suggests premeditation so one obvious question is how does society identify people who

are risks so they can be helped or treated before they harm them self or others?

My question deals with profiling so how would government policies/programs be implemented without discriminating against benign individuals with similar profiles?

[billbuckhead]

8. This just proves that no one can be trusted with easy access to guns

America needs to do what the rest of the civilized world does and make gun access very hard.

[slackmaster]

12. Speak for yourself

If you don't think anyone can be trusted with guns, that would include yourself.

So don't buy one.

[billbuckhead]

39. Guns give a godlike power of life or death over mankind

It's obvious that's why many love them so much.

[MadHound]

47. And then the homicidally crazed people will simply turn to other weapons

Hell, a person can take down a hell of a lot more people with a rental car, fully gassed, mothballs and scotch tape.

Guns are merely the means with which these people enact their dark thoughts. Take them away and they will find another way to act out. What really needs to be addressed is how our society produces these people, how our societal stresses and norms push these people over the edge. But such problem solving is a long, hard process, involving changing many societal norms. Our society is notorious for wanting quick fixes, thus these calls to ban guns. Such a ban won't fix a damn thing though, and the madness will continue. Rather than band aid fixes like banning guns, lets opt for doing the in depth soul searching and societal change it will take to prevent this sort of madness. That's what will fix the problem for good.

[billbuckhead]

49. Than why don't they use them instead of guns?

Multiple guns are the first choice of murderers.

[MadHound]

50. Again, rather than applying a band aid solution

Why not address the root causes of this madness and eliminate it?

[billbuckhead]

51. The UK had 46 firearm homicides last year

Australia banned guns.

We lowered our drunk driving problem with stiffer laws and jail. We still have drunk drivers but it's much less. Regulation works.

[MadHound]

53. And yet Russia, who also has banned guns, has more murders per capita that the US

Canada, who has more guns per capita than the US also has less murders per capita. Again, it isn't the gun, it is the collective insanity of the society. Address that and the gun won't matter.

As you can see with Russia, banning guns won't result in fewer deaths, it simply means that people will find other methods to kill people.

[CreekDog]

74. Canada has stricter gun regulation than we do

Although they do allow gun ownership.

Canada's gun laws are not Virginia's.

[MadHound]

80. I'm not arguing that point

What I am saying is that they have more guns per capita than we do, yet fewer murders per capita. Contrariwise, Russia has banned virtually everybody from gun possession, yet has more murders per capita than we do. This sort of discrepency points to the fact that the underlying cause isn't guns, but the stress and strains that our society imposes upon people. Solve those societal problems and the gun "problem" will take care of itself.

[iverglas]

93. stop the insanity!!!!!

Does no one here every learn anything????

Canada, who has more guns per capita than the US also has less murders per capita

This seems to have grown from the oft-repeated meme, allegedly culled from Bowling from Columbine but in fact nowhere to be found there, that Canada has as many firearms per capita as the US. IT DOES NOT.

And it most certainly DOES NOT HAVE *more* firearms per capital than the US. How could anyone think about this for 2 seconds and even imagine that it is true??? Surely it is famously common knowledge that the firearms ownership rate in the US outstrips anywhere else on the planet.

For a good basic critique of what Michael Moore *did* say, see:
http://www.canadaka.net/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=79

In order to accurately analyze this question, Michael Moore’s proclamation about Canadian society must first be analyzed. Moore’s first assertion about Canada is that since it is a country with “7 million guns,” it must therefore be a “gun crazy country.” While Moore’s statistics are accurate, the actual ratio of people versus guns is quite distinct from the United States. If all 7 million guns were distributed to different individuals in Canada, only 25% of Canadian’s would have a gun in their hand. Whereas, if all the 222 million firearms in the United States were distributed to different individuals, 82% of American’s would have a gun. It seems a gross exaggeration to claim that Canada is the “gun crazy country”. ...

... Owning a handgun has been illegal in Canada since the 1930s; the only exceptions being the police and registered gun clubs or gun collectors. As a result, “Canada has roughly 1 million handguns while the United States has more than 76 million.” ... Therefore, there are 63.3 times more handguns in the US. <Make that 7 times more handguns, on a population-adjusted basis.> ... Much research and statistical analysis by the COALITION for Gun Control has shown that crimes that involve firearms are predominantly executed with a handgun. ...

About 25% of households in Canada report possessing firearms, consistently over a variety of surveys and several years. That, to start with, is far lower than in the US. Next, multiple firearm ownership is rarer here. And most importantly, handgun ownership is far, far below the rate in the US.

It is legal to possess handguns in Canada, apart from rare instances where the firearm is needed for the purpose of employment and extremely rare instances where someone is permitted to carry one for protection, only if one is a member of a recognized sport shooting club or a collector. Even so, there are a lot more of them around than many people here have any idea of.

The handgun distinction is important, because that is the weapon of choice for the commission of most crimes and the most common homicide firearm in the US.

Firearms homicides in Canada are most commonly committed by people in *illegal* possession of firearms:
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-002-XIE/85-002-XIE2006006.pdf

Homicide in Canada, 2005

... Handguns most common type of firearm used in homicides

The type of firearm used during the commission of homicides has changed over the past three decades. Prior to 1990, rifles/shotguns and sawed-off rifle/shotguns were used far more frequently than handguns but, beginning in the early 1990s, the proportions began to reverse. In 2005, handguns accounted for 58% of all firearm-related homicides whereas rifles/shotguns and sawed-off rifle/shotguns accounted for 30% (Table 7). The remaining 12% were committed with a fully automatic firearm, a firearm-like weapon, or a firearm of unknown type.

... Among the homicides which occurred between 1997 and 2005 where detailed firearm information was known, 70% were not registered and four out of every five (79%) accused persons did not possess a valid firearms license. Where ownership of the firearm could be determined by police, the accused owned the firearm in 51% of these homicides, compared to 13% that were owned by victims.For the remaining homicides, someone other than the accused or the victim owned the firearm (36%).

The available data suggest that most firearms used to commit homicide were not registered and the accused persons were not licensed firearm users. Studies in Australia and England and Wales have found similar results (Mouzos, 2000)

Growing numbers of handguns are in illegal circulation here, because of two major and relatively equal factors: thefts from legal owners (including large - by Cdn standards - hauls from "collectors") and smuggling from the US.

But homicides by people in legal possession of firearms are extremely rare. About 1/3 of homicides in Canada are by firearm -- that would be just under 200, now (our homicide rate hit 2/100,000 in 2005, for the first time in years). That would mean 40 homicides, in a population of 30+ million. The equivalent of about 360 homicides in the US. Are there 360 homicides a year in the US committed by people in legal possession of firearms ... or maybe a few more?


As you can see with Russia, banning guns won't result in fewer deaths, it simply means that people will find other methods to kill people.

Do you actually have some kind of data to back any of this up? What means did Russians choose?

Do you have some way of knowing how many homicides there would have been in Russia without its gun laws? No? Then what's the basis for your assertion that its laws didn't result in fewer deaths?


Nobody actually expects laws against firearms possession to stop crimes, any more than anybody expects laws against drunk driving to stop people from speeding.

Laws against doing some things have no effect on the conduct of some criminals unless they actually make it more difficult to do those things. Criminals break laws. Duh. But if a criminal can't get hold of a gun, s/he is not going to be committing crimes with a gun.

Laws that require firearms owners to be licensed, and to register their firearms, and to store their firearms securely, make it considerably less likely that they are going to be handing their firearms off / losing their firearms to people likely to use them to commit crimes. Theft and smuggling become the necessary source, and action has to be taken to reduce those too.

Why anyone would imagine that someone else thinks that making a law against doing something stops it from happening, I've never really understood. But I guess there are people who have no problem convincing themselves of multiple absurd things before breakfast, and of the dimness of their adversaries, if it furthers an agenda.

[MadHound]

99. You are correct, that's what I get for relying on MM

Instead, let's substitute Switzerland for Canada in that statement. "One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States, Switzerland has virtually no gun crime." <http://pages.prodigy.net/vanhooser/the_swiss_and_their_guns.htm> As far as the comment about rifles however, I would refer you to the Clock Tower shootings on the UT campus, among many, many others.

As far as where I'm getting my numbers on murders per capita, I'm getting them from here <http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita> Russia gun laws I know all about from the many, many Russians that I know. Guns have virtually been banned since the fall of the Communist regime, yet as you can see, their muder rate per capita is much higher than ours. How do they kill people? A number of ways, I'm sure.

"Nobody actually expects laws against firearms possession to stop crimes" Again, you are correct. In fact that is my whole point. It seems as though we have a sickness in our society that is driving people over the edge. Rather than banning guns and such, it would be a much healthier option for us to undertake the massive work it requires to change our society in order to make it healthy again. Pay a living wage, lower the hours of the work week, establish a real social safety net that includes UHC. If we do this work, people in our society won't feel like they are constantly up against the wall, and fewer people, much fewer people in our society would snap.

If we continue to apply band aid solutions like banning some or all guns, all we're going to do is simply see these types of incidents continue, albeit with different weapons.

[iverglas]

100. pie in a non-existent sky

Pay a living wage, lower the hours of the work week, establish a real social safety net that includes UHC. If we do this work, people in our society won't feel like they are constantly up against the wall, and fewer people, much fewer people in our society would snap.

Cho didn't snap because of any of those things. He was mentally ill, apparently delusional, and he had firearms. There are really quite a few people in any society who are not candidates for firearms ownership for similar reasons. Myself, I suffer from a post-traumatic stress disorder that manifests in generalized, omnipresent fear exacerbated by perceived threats, and very heightened startle response. I am not a good candidate for having a firearm about my person.

Who would know this but me -- and how many people in my situation even have that level of understanding of their condition in the first place? A common response of victims of violent crime is to want to arm themselves to prevent it happening again. It seems rational. It isn't, in the sense that it is not going to solve their problem, and many of their other responses, while "normal", are not appropriate.

Many, many people lose jobs and spouses and homes and don't go out shooting. The situation may have exacerbated the already precarious state of those who do, but it is equally likely that their problems were as much a cause as an effect of the situation they find themselves in. Mentally ill people don't tend to do well at finding and keeping jobs and housing.

Social and economic conditions do affect crime rates. That is a different matter from individuals committing assaults and homicides for reasons / in circumstances not associated with criminal activity.

"One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States, Switzerland has virtually no gun crime."

But it does have firearms homicides. A national sports hero was shot dead by her estranged husband just last year. He used his military-issue weapon.

Guns have virtually been banned since the fall of the Communist regime, yet as you can see, their muder rate per capita is much higher than ours. How do they kill people? A number of ways, I'm sure.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that one of the more common ways is with firearms. You're still stuck in this "laws prevent actions" rut. Outlawing firearms possession doesn't make the firearms go up in a puff of smoke.

Laws are a tool that can be used to affect conduct in a variety of ways. The only one that ever seems to be held up by opponents of firearms control is the deterrent effect they supposedly have on criminals: do this and you'll go to jail. Laws simply don't have that effect, to any great extent, on people who engage in crime as a way of life. Not laws against gun possession, not laws against bank robbery, not laws against car theft.

Laws can have considerably more deterrent effect on the "law-abiding". So it makes sense to direct laws, and law enforcement, to them. If a normally law-abiding person is told by the law to store his/her firearms under lock and key (both so that children cannot access them and so they are less vulnerable to theft by people who want them to facilitate crimes), that is more likely to reduce the incidence of gun theft, for instance, than laws against gun theft. Because law-abiding gun owners are more likely to obey the law than gun thieves are.

It can also be easier to enforce laws that are directed at people subject to greater scrutiny. Enact laws that require people who sell firearms to follow certain procedures -- not sell to anyone without a licence, and not make a sale without registering it -- they have considerable incentive, i.e. their livelihood, to comply. And they are also easier to monitor. Again, the ease with which criminals can access firearms is reduced. And because of the paper trail, the willingness of third parties to make straw purchases will likely be reduced, those third parties being qualified to acquire and possess firearms, and thus at least kinda law-abiding and less likely to want to risk prosecution.

Those are the kinds of things that have been done, in increasing intensity, in places like Canada and the UK and Australia and Europe. And there is less misuse of firearms by the law-abiding here than in the US, and criminals here have far less access to firearms than in the US. Coincidence? I tend to think not.

Indeed, the social problems that lead to widespread crime itself are more serious in the US, and much of US firearms violence is associated with that widespread crime, and particularly the drug trade. I wonder, though, how there could have been, or why there would have needed to be, a war on drugs, if the other side hadn't had the weapons to participate in the war ...

[MadHound]

102. Pie in the sky eh? So we should simply continue to let our society

Sink into madness and despair as our society and way of life takes an increasing toll on our populace, both physically and mentally. Real kind of you. Gee, you don't think that if Europe can do it, so can we?

And how do you know why Cho snapped? What, are you omniscient now? Then why did he snap? It has already been stated that the man was severely critical of US society. But nah, according to you it simply couldn't have been the toll taken by living in the USA.

And your contention that Russia's leading cause of murder is still the gun actually helps make my point. IE that gun bans and such will not prevent a damn thing, that this is a societal problem. Take care of the root problems in our society, and our murders and madness will go away. Continue as we are, and it won't matter what band aid solutions we apply, gun control or gun banning, the insanity will continue. After all, most guns that are used to committ crimes are picked up illegally anyway, what will change.

And one thing you are misinterpreting, the war on drugs. The WOD did not become violent until Nixon, and especially Reagan, made it such a priority in law enforcement. This pressure drove up the prices, making illegal drugs a big big business, thus upping the ante and spawning increasing violence. Another societal problem that the US needs to address, much the same way the Europeans are doing, legalizing, decriminalization, treating drug use as a health care problem rather than a law enforcement problem. If we did this here in the US, much of the secondary crime wave associated with the drug trade would go away.

Pie in the sky, hummph. Just another excuse for people to do the bare minimum because the percieve that the solution, while not in any way impossible to implement, would take a lot of work. The excuse of the lazy.

[iverglas]

103. yeah, but you should really do something more actively horrible, I'd say

Of course, I didn't say anything remotely resembling what you're pretending I said, so whatever.

Pie in the sky eh? So we should simply continue to let our society
Sink into madness and despair as our society and way of life takes an increasing toll on our populace, both physically and mentally. Real kind of you.

And now you could try reading for comprehension. Or I could repeat myself endlessly ...

The Cho shooting had NOTHING TO DO with madness or despair INDUCED BY social or economic problems. Few such incidents do.

Madness and despair really do exist entirely independently of social and economic problems.

Madness and despair commonly CAUSE individuals' social and economic problems.

Raising the minimum wage and providing universal health care is not going to cure every mad or desperate person, and is not going to prevent them from shooting a few dozen people.

And how do you know why Cho snapped? What, are you omniscient now? Then why did he snap? It has already been stated that the man was severely critical of US society. But nah, according to you it simply couldn't have been the toll taken by living in the USA.

Well, maybe YOU can explain why 250,000,000 people haven't done what he did. They all live in the USA.

I have a fair bit of experience with mad and desperate people. I've also read what I could about this one. I can spot madness when I see it. It isn't really that difficult.

After all, most guns that are used to committ crimes are picked up illegally anyway, what will change.

We aren't fucking talking about guns used to commit crimes. Can we stick to a topic? Cho got his guns "legally", i.e. they were sold to him legally, although I would think that his non-disclosure of his mental health history made the purchase illegal.

And your contention that Russia's leading cause of murder is still the gun actually helps make my point. IE that gun bans and such will not prevent a damn thing, that this is a societal problem.

Well, if you find someone arguing the contrary, do let me know. If you find "gun bans" in anything I've said, of course, you can get back to me.

Of course, if you're seriously arguing that widespread easy access to handguns isn't a contributing factor in crime and homicide rates, well, there's probably no point.

Pie in the sky, hummph.

Humph indeed. Precisely my reaction to being misquoted.

I said pie in a NON-EXISTENT sky. You are trying to solve a NON-EXISTENT problem. The problem of people being driven to commit mass homicide by some social or economic problems in their lives. THEY AREN'T. They may have social/economic problems exacerbated by mental illness, or mental illness exacerbated by social/economic problems, but people do not just pick up firearms and shoot strangers because they are unemployed or homeless.

Take care of the root problems in our society, and our murders and madness will go away.

Nonsense -- but in the meantime, make sure that all the mad and desperate people are well armed.

Gee, you don't think that if Europe can do it, so can we?

Since I'm a Canadian, I don't really think the question is addressed to me.

Just another excuse for people to do the bare minimum because the percieve that the solution, while not in any way impossible to implement, would take a lot of work. The excuse of the lazy.

Yeah, lazy people like me who give up months of their lives to run for office as a social democrat, who devote years of their lives to advocating for and organizing tenants, refugees, women, international solidarity actions ...


Should you feel an urge to address anything I actually said instead of making shit up and dressing me up in your straw outfits, do let me know.

[MadHound]

107. I did answer what you said, but I think I will let your statement now stand alone

It speaks louder than anything I could add about how clueless you are, both about society, madness and despair.

If you want to buy a clue somewhere, I suggest that the first place you start is with Cho's own words.

Peace:hi:

[iverglas]

108. that's a good one

Yes, if I want to know what colour an orange is, I'll ask a person without sight; if I want to know what key that song is in, I'll ask a person without hearing.

And if I want to know why a madman kills 33 people, and how to prevent it, I'll ask the madman.

If you'd like a clue of your own, google paranoid schizophrenia. Take a look at bipolar disorder too; the symptoms can be very similar.

Let me help. Schizophrenia for the beginner; see whether anything sounds familiar.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

... a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a mental disorder characterized by impairments in the perception or expression of reality and by significant social or occupational dysfunction. A person experiencing schizophrenia is typically characterized as demonstrating disorganized thinking, and as experiencing delusions or hallucinations, in particular auditory hallucinations.

Although the disorder is primarily thought to affect cognition, it also usually contributes to chronic problems with behavior and emotion. ...

... Patients diagnosed with schizophrenia are highly likely to be diagnosed with other disorders. The lifetime prevalence of substance abuse is typically around 40%. Comorbidity is also high with clinical depression, anxiety disorders, and social problems, and a generally decreased life expectancy is also present. Patients diagnosed with schizophrenia typically live ten to twelve years less than those without the disorder, owing to increased physical health problems and a high suicide rate. Unemployment and poverty are common.

... A consistent finding from the research is that individuals with a diagnosis of schizophrenia are often the victims of violent crime - at least 14 times more often than they are perpetrators, with 4.3% being victims in a one month period and this ongoing "victimization" has been linked to committing violent acts and an increased perception of threat. ...

... paranoid type (where delusions and hallucinations are present but thought disorder, disorganized behavior, and affective flattening are absent), ...

People with disorders of this nature are indeed very vulnerable to poverty, unemployment, homelessness and criminal victimization. This does not help their mental health. It undoubtedly raises their risk of engaging in seriously antisocial conduct.

But poverty really doesn't cause delusional mental disorders. And Cho wasn't poor or homeless or unemployed or criminally victimized.

[MadHound]

111. So now you are using wikipedia to diagnose mental illnesses.

That's a real authoritative source:eyes:

Look pal, my father was bipolar, and yes indeed, part of the reason that he slipped over the abyss was a chemical imbalance. Part of it was also due the stresses that he was feeling in his life.

I was a diagnosed as clinically depressed at one point in my life. Gee, guess what was causing it. Stresses involved with dealing with my bipolar father, and the stresses I was feeling first trying to make it on my own in the real world. I've worked with schizophrenics in a professional capacity, and yes indeed, part or all of their disease is caused by societal stresses. If you don't think that the stresses of society cause mental illness, well then you just don't have a fucking clue. Using wiki, my God:eyes:

And frankly you have no idea what was going on with Cho, neither do I, since we have very little information at this time. But somehow you feel that you are qualified, living in a different society, with limited information and wikipedia to diagnose what was wrong with Cho. What's next, laying on hands via the internet:crazy:

I think I'm going to copy your last post here, and send it to my friends and colleague in the psychological, psychiatric and sociological field. They need a good laugh, and looking at statements of yours like "But poverty really doesn't cause delusional mental disorders." and such like crap will indeed give them a laugh, if only in a sardonic way, pitying the person who is way out of their depth when it comes to mental disorders.

Tell you what friend, a piece of advice before you continue to make a fool of yourself. Go find a friend, acquaintance, somebody who is a professional in the mental health field. Take this thread along and have them explain to you why you are wrong. I simply don't have the time.

[iverglas]

116. buh bye

Yeah, I used Wiki to diagnose. I mean, that's what I said, right? "Yes" would be a lie.

As a lawyer, I worked with the poor and the victimized. Perhaps you're an expert in the mental health problems of refugees. I worked on setting up mental health services for victims of torture. I worked for tenants losing their homes because of their mental health problems. I worked with people who thought they were refugees, because of mental health problems (one USAmerican was being followed by Oral Roberts, who had blown up her car). I worked with immigrant women suffering the stresses of discrimination, exploitation, marital abuse. I was initiated into forensic psychiatry as a law student (yup, they had me diagnose patients in the forensic ward at the local psychiatric hospital), and was appointed to represent delusional individuals in legal proceedings while in practice. One does not do these things if one is completely ignorant of mental illness.

My own fine case of PTSD comes from a series of major traumatic events thoughout my life (useful background when you're working with torture victims, but something I could have lived without nonetheless). Oh, and I had a bipolar partner for a while (an addict, the psychiatric diagnosis coming much too late, making him a classic undiagnosed dual-diagnosis case, and a victim of child abuse, and an example of the way that social and economic problems can exacerbate mental health problems).

The Wiki article summarized a little of what I actually know, intended for the use of anyone who didn't know or who chose to deny what is known.

You were depressed, not delusional.

But I guess you're the expert at diagnosis. In your own desperate attempt to push an agenda and divert discussion from the role played by easy access to firearms in this and other tragedies, you attempted to blame "society" for the mental illness that causes some people to "snap":

You:
Pay a living wage, lower the hours of the work week, establish a real social safety net that includes UHC. If we do this work, people in our society won't feel like they are constantly up against the wall, and fewer people, much fewer people in our society would snap.

Me, returning to the subject at hand:
Cho didn't snap because of any of those things. He was mentally ill, apparently delusional, and he had firearms.

As I've said, Cho wasn't poor or unemployed or homeless, or criminally victimized. In fact, some expert opinion is that people like him, and Kimveer Gill and Marc Lépine in Canada, are deeply narcissistic -- but I suppose that's caused by a low minimum wage. Cho's previous psychiatric history suggested delusional illness, but that may not be the case.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070416/school_shootings_070415/20070416?hub=TopStories

Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist and University of Toronto professor, ... doesn't paint a pretty picture of such killers, calling them self-pitying and narcissistic.

"Someone like this is usually profoundly alienated -- and they're arrogant, resentful and obsessive. They're unwilling to take responsibility for their own state of mind. They fantasize about revenge incessantly," he said.

That was clear in the Cho case, but also in Columbine, he said.

I said Cho was apparently delusional; I indeed do not know. But I do know that he wasn't poor or unemployed or homeless or criminally victimized.

And I then said that delusional mental illnesses are not caused by poverty, and offered some info about the two-way relationship between delusional mental illness and poverty (i.e. poverty is often both a result of the illness and - because of side-effects of stress, criminal victimization, poor physical health - a cause of deterioration, but it does not cause delusions).

Cho was not poor; the Columbine students were not poor; Marc Lépine who killed 14 women engineering students in Montreal in 1989 was not poor; Kimveer Gill who killed a student in Montreal last year (only one, his other victims survived; police happened to be in the building and shot Gill before he fully played out his fantasy) was not poor. Oh, and we have universal health care in Canada. We still have school shootings.

And if you think all your expert friends will find that entertaining, do feel free to recount it.

Meanwhile, keep pretending that firearms had nothing to do with any of this, and desperately insisting that no action shoudl be taken to reduce access to firearms by the delusional, the depressed (let's not forget pointless suicides, some of which are murder-suicides) and the just plain nasty.

[Recursion]

115. A number of ways

Guns have virtually been banned since the fall of the Communist regime, yet as you can see, their muder rate per capita is much higher than ours. How do they kill people? A number of ways, I'm sure.

Including, btw, with illegal guns

[ShortnFiery]

104. Hey, you have to figure in the POVERTY and Drug and Alcohol effects more than with US.

It is one austere existence as an average citizen of Russia. :( :scared: :(

*Many of us would continuously choose to alter our consciousness if abject poverty is one's reality. :shrug:

And we all know alcohol and other drugs brings out THE WORST in human behavior.

[MadHound]

112. Thank you for helping to make my point!

You are absolutely correct. Societal influences over there. Same way over here in the US, our societal influences are drugs, alcohol, lack of health care, lack of a social safety net, stress from massive overwork, etc. etc. Different countries, different societal stresses:shrug:

Sadly, some around here think societal stressors have little or nothing to do with murder or mental heath.

[iverglas]

117. sadly, sadly, sadly

Sadly, some around here think societal stressors have little or nothing to do with murder or mental heath.

Even more sadly, some people with an agenda to push don't hesitate to lie if they think it helps their cause.

PM me, and I'll name one.

Can you name one of the people you're talking about?

Name me, and see whether the total of the ones I'm thinking about changes.

[benEzra]

55. Except the UK had the same low gun violence rate BEFORE instituting controls...

The UK had 46 firearm homicides last year, Australia banned guns.

Except the UK had the same low gun violence rate BEFORE instituting controls..which, BTW, were passed by the Conservatives in the 1920's to keep guns out of the hands of lefties.

And the UK gun violence rate now is HIGHER than it was before the handgun ban was passed after Dunblane.

No, it's not the gun laws, it's UK culture.

It's Not About the Firearms (Bob Cesca, Huffington Post)

We lowered our drunk driving problem with stiffer laws and jail. We still have drunk drivers but it's much less. Regulation works.

Exactly. We don't ban alcoholic beverages over 10% alcohol in order to fight drunk driving; we focus on alcohol MISUSE, by going after the people who abuse it.

BANNING alcohol, on the other hand, failed miserably.

[CreekDog]

75. Culture is not the only explanation

Or else Switzerland, with a greater rate of gun ownership, would not have an also much higher rate of gun related homicides.

[iverglas]

94. is that rotting fruit I smell?

And the UK gun violence rate now is HIGHER than it was before the handgun ban was passed after Dunblane.

How 'bout the drunk driving rate in the US? Is it higher now that speed limits have been raised?

How many times have you read PertUK's posts telling you that the handgun ban WAS NEVER INTENDED TO REDUCE THE USE OF FIREARMS BY CRIMINALS IN THE COMMISSION OF CRIMES?

It was intended to reduce the incidence of homicides by people in legal possession of handguns.

How many of the firearms homicides in the UK since the law in question were committed by people in legal possession of handguns?

Hm?

[benEzra]

109. If the violent gun death rate goes up instead of down,

I'd consider the law a failure, personally. (Yes, I know you can't assume post hoc, ergo prompter hoc, but if one makes the assumption that the law didn't cause the rise, it certainly didn't hinder it.)

Violence by lawful gun owners was so rare before the laws were enacted, that eliminating it entirely could hardly drop the overall violence rate, I suspect.

[iverglas]

110. and if the price of tea in China rose precipitously

it would undoubtedly be because of that butterfly flapping its wings.


I'll just have to keep waiting for someone to explain to me how

a fluctuation upward (or lack of fluctuation downward) in firearms-related crime committed by people in illegal possession of firearms that it would have been illegal for them to possess before the legislation

can be attributed in any way to

legislation designed to eliminate the commission of assaults and homicides by people in legal possession of firearms by prohibiting most possession of handguns by members of the public.


Violence by lawful gun owners was so rare before the laws were enacted, that eliminating it entirely could hardly drop the overall violence rate, I suspect.

And I'll just have to keep wondering what your point is.

You are the one attempting to make this connection, so you really oughta make it.

If I stop watering my houseplants to save money and it rains twice as much this summer as last, the overall wetness level on my property will rise significantly ... but I'll still have dead houseplants. So, should I just stop watering the houseplants, because not watering them isn't having any appreciable impact on the overall wetness level on my property?

Some people want to get everybody to think about "the overall violence rate", because thinking about the actual separate and independent elements of that rate doesn't advance their agenda; so they pretend that it's what every discussion about firearms violence is about.

Some people think about a room full of dead kids and think about things that might prevent more kids from being killed.

The UK handgun legislation was not ever intended to be, or characterized as being, a remedy for "the overall violence rate", or intended to have, or characterized as being likely to have, any effect on "the overall violence rate".

You know this and anyone who gets his/her news somewhere other than gun-head covens on the internet knows this, and anyone not pushing an agenda that doesn't actually pay any more than lip service to reducing any violence at all acknowledges it.

Handgun ownership in the UK prior to the legislation was legal only in extremely rare instances, but occasionally very unsafe. I will venture to say that legal handgun ownership prior to the legislation played very little to no role in any classically "criminal" violent activity in the UK.

Why anyone would think ... or in any event say ... that ending legal handgun ownership in the UK would play any role at all in the fluctuations in firearms crime -- let alone crime that has nothing to do with firearms -- I'll probably never know.

[Zynx]

126. Mexico, Russia and Brazil disagree.

[primavera]

68. Why not answer billbuckhead's question?

It sounded like a perfectly reasonable one to me.

[MGD]

79. If there werew no guns, they would be igniting buildings full of people and driving semi trucks

into crowds of people. A person who is intent upon mass murder can not be stopped with legislation.

[CreekDog]

76. Hard to drive rental car into a 3rd floor classroom and kill 30 people

And a car serves a useful purpose and is regulated very heavily.

A gun designed to fire off many, many rounds, very, very quickly is designed not only to kill, but to do it more quickly and allow it's owner to kill more quickly and effectively.

The crazed madman with one gun versus a better gun kills 32 now when before he would have had trouble killing half as many.

And nothing should be done about this? Therapy?

[MadHound]

81. No, but easy into to drive a car into the front entrace

Have the car go BOOM, bring down at least half, if not all of the building, and kill a lot more people.

What should be done is to address the underlying problems that exist in our society that drive people to kill. This would inherently be a much more comprehensive, and longer solution, but one that would be much more thorough and in the long run healthier solution than a band aid solution such as banning all guns, etc.

[RamboLiberal]

89. Exactly - this kid could've done a Tim McVeigh

on one of the buildings. He was probably smart enough to build a bomb. Do we outlaw fertilizer, diesel, batteries, etc? Or he could mow 20-30 on the grounds with a car.

[slackmaster]

10. Maybe we all need to do a better job watching out for each other

Tough question. Sometimes good people suddenly go bad, and bad people go good. I think behavior changes may be the key, but who is going to watch the hermits and loners?

[aquart]

25. And what are the signs of paranoid schizophrenia

taking hold of a formerly healthy sane young man? Did his grades change? Were his papers suddenly late and sloppy, or incoherent? Did we actually know enough to stop him if we'd put it all together? This is going to haunt that campus.

Edit: My mom called and told me his writing was so frightening that his teachers marked him for "care," whatever that is. So we did know. But not enough to act in time.

[happyslug]

26. Schizophrenia defined:

http://www.schizophrenia.com/szparanoid.htm
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/paranoid-schizophrenia/DS00862/DSECTION=2

"Schizophrenia is a form of psychosis, which is an impairment of thinking in which the interpretation of reality is abnormal. Psychosis is a symptom of disordered brain function."

[villager]

14. What a great thing that guns are so easily available in Virginia! Yay, NRA!

n/t

[benEzra]

35. OK, show me a state where ordinary 9mm pistols are banned. (n/t)

[villager]

43. I'd love to -- but instead of your "straw horse" question, I think the question really is:

are 9mm's harder to get in other states than they are in Vigrinia?

[benEzra]

54. Generally, no, and you can count the exceptions on one hand.

New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts. I can't think of any others off the top of my head. In most states, it's show up, pass the Federal and state background check, fill out the Federal paperwork, pay for the gun/ammunition/taxes/fees, and you are good to go.

This idea that Virginia gun laws are somehow "lax" compared to most states could only come from MSM talking heads who know nothing of the U.S. outside of New York City. Virginia's laws are America's laws, except for its one-gun-per-month restriction (most states don't have such restrictions). Florida has a 3-day waiting period on handgun purchases, unless you hold a state-issued carry license, but that's an exception as well.

Most restrictions on handgun purchase are Federal, i.e. the background check requirement, paperwork/tracing requirements (BATFE Form 4473), age requirement (must be 21 or older), and must have a clean record (not a felon, no misdemeanors related to domestic violence, not subject to a restraining order, never adjudicated mentally incompetent, must be a citizen or legal resident alien). Some states will block the sale if you have unpaid traffic tickets and whatnot, I understand, though I'm not sure if that is legal under Federal law.

[iverglas]

95. well done!

Timely, succinct, and the question none of 'em ever wants to address.

Does making it harder to get firearms have an impact on firearms crime/violence?

Gosh, I think that's what firearms control advocates may have been saying all this time ... and wouldn't you think some of our friends might have got it by now?

Maybe they have ...

[NickB79]

64. The shooter had a clean record

In the vast majority of states, he would have been able to buy a gun with about the same ease. Here in Minnesota, our system requires that you obtain a permit to purchase a handgun before buying one. You go to the local police station, fill out some paperwork (full name, last 3 addresses you lived at, SS number, etc), and they do a background check. It took 2 weeks to receive mine, which is the normal waiting time.

Our state is a bit more strict than most others when it comes to buying handguns, but if this shooter was a student of the U of MN instead and wanted to go on a shooting spree, he could have obtained a handgun here as well. He didn't have any previous criminal record that would have barred him from obtaining a permit. Since he waited over a month from purchase to killing, a 2-week wait for a purchase permit wouldn't have stopped him.

[primavera]

69. Which is why we need a system more like Germany's...

... where prospective gun owners need to not only undergo a criminal background check, but also have to pass annual exams on gun safety, belong to a registered gun club, store the weapon at the club, and submit to unscheduled checks to ensure that they are complying with the laws governing the safe use and storage of firearms. Had this fellow been so restricted in his use of guns, it is far less likely that he would have been able to pull off this massacre.

[Schema Thing]

18. Well, at least it wasn't cheap...

except in relation to life.

[underpants]

22. Welcome to Roanoke Firearms!

http://www.roanokefirearms.com/

[minkyboodle]

23. good lord

Osama is shaking in his boots...

[northzax]

27. that's a lot of guns, right there

and is that a .50 cal sniper rifle on the counter?

[Old and In the Way]

28. Strictly a defensive weapon.

Or a damn fine rabbit hunting rifle.

I'm glad the paperwork was in order. It proves the guy was a law abiding citizen at the time of the purchase.

[northzax]

29. yeah, if the rabbit has two inches of armor plate

heck of a rabbit.

yes, I am actually glad for the owner that he doesn't have to deal with selling this under the table.

[CreekDog]

78. Only a defensive weapon if used for defense

Ask the families of those killed by the DC area sniper 5 years ago.

Strictly defensive weapon my foot.

A weapon that is designed to kill gives the owner the decision of who to kill.

[jmowreader]

30. The Barrett is the most inoffensive weapon in America

List price (according to the manufacturer) is $8010, it's WAY too big (not just in bullet size, but physically--the rifle is huge and it weighs 28 lbs) to use in crime, and every squeeze of the trigger removes about two dollars from your pocket.

The only way any criminal in the world wants 28 lbs of firearm is if it's like eight or nine guns.

[northzax]

31. depends on the crime, doesn't it?

think you couldn't take down a helicopter, or even an aircraft, with a well placed shot from that thing?

[benEzra]

34. Maybe if you're Luke Skywalker, and you use the Force...

depends on the crime, doesn't it? think you couldn't take down a helicopter, or even an aircraft, with a well placed shot from that thing?

there's a reason why the military uses homing weapons to bring down aircraft, and that is because it is very, very difficult to aim a ballistic weapon at a fast-moving target. If you ARE Luke Skywalker and did use the Force, then you'd succeed in putting a half-inch hole in the plane's skin. If Luke were VERY lucky, someone might actually notice.

Long-distance shots on fast-moving targets are essentially impossible with a .50 BMG rifle, even from straight ahead. If you had a .50 machine gun on a pedestal mount, and tracer ammunition so you could just walk the stream into the target (like the old .50 AA guns on WW2 battleships), maybe you'd get a hit. But not with a 33-pound, 5-foot-long scoped rifle. It'd be like trying to shoot skeet at 50 yards with single-shot rifle chambered in .22 short, with a 10-power scope, with a cement block tied to the muzzle.

There's a reason why even military special forces only use .50 rifles for disabling parked airplanes. Shoulder-fired missiles are a credible threat to airliners in the vicinity of an airport, but .50 BMG target rifles just aren't.

As far as helicopters, if it is stationary and close, you could bring down a civilian helicopter with a deer rifle. If it was moving, or it's a military bird, no, not happening.

[jmowreader]

44. You can take down an aircraft with a .30-06

The .30-06 (pronounced "thirty-ought-six") is the most popular hunting caliber ever invented, and millions of them are sold every year.

It will drop a civil aircraft with no problems whatsoever. Yes, the Barrett will do the same thing, but consider: if you buy a Barrett the cops are going to know who you are. Spend eight grand on a gun big enough to punch a hole in the side of a concrete-block building, and word gets around. If you shoot down an airplane with it, the cops will beat you home.

Shoot down an airplane with a .30-06, and the cops have everyone who's bought a hunting license in the last five years as a suspect.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

56. "Well Placed"

LOL hitting an object moving 200mph + with another object that follows a hyperbolic path with no in fliht course correction.

Keep dreaming. The only way that bullets are used in AA today or even in wars past was they were big and there were ALLOT of them and planes literally had to fly through them to get hit by them. Even then, they had to hit the right place.

[Zynx]

62. No. And .50 cals aren't used in crime.

Aircraft tend to, well, be moving at a couple hundred miles per hour at at least a mile away from the shooter.

Futureweapons on the Discovery Channel had an ex Navy SEAL who was a trained sniper shoot at a stationary target 1.5 miles away with a prototype long range rifle with computer-assisted aiming. He managed to hit it after three ranging shots.

If it was moving, he never would have hit it.

As far as general crime, I'm not aware of a .50 cal *ever* having been actually used. They're enormous and can't be fired from anything other than a prone positon.

[benEzra]

36. No, they look no larger than .30's...small game or deer calibers, but with modern styling.

and is that a .50 cal sniper rifle on the counter?

No, they look no larger than .30's...small game or deer calibers, but with modern styling. The one on the right could be a Steyr, and the one on the left a Remington, but I'm not very familiar with bolt-actions. Definitely not .50's.

[Up2Late]

38. Believe it or not, I think that's a BB Gun -- These are 50 Cals

BB Gun link below:
<http://www.airsplat.com/Items/AR-UA-315-TAC9.htm>

Great "toy" for your kids! :eyes:

50 Cal Sniper links below:

<http://www.specialoperations.com/Weapons/Light_Fifty/gallery.htm>

<http://www.specialoperations.com/Weapons/Light_Fifty/default2.html>

<http://www.specialoperations.com/Weapons/Light_Fifty/gallery2.htm>


<http://www.50caliberterror.com/index2.html>

[aaronbees]

40. Picture worth a thousand words

:puke:

[Up2Late]

41. I know of a dozen "Pawn Shops" just like that here in the Atlanta Metro...

...and here in the the home of the Glock, (and Newt Gingrich) Marietta, Georgia.

[aaronbees]

42. Same here in Texas and Arkansas

And if I remember right up in Oregon when I lived there. It's an Americana of a velocity, malevolence and insanity I'll never understand.

[iverglas]

98. shoulda looked ...

Website now down. Poor pet was getting nasty emails from ignorant people. (I'm sure he was, but I'm also sure he got serious emails from knowledgeable people, not that his screed says so.)

Ask google images for <roanoake firearms> and you can still see a miniature version, though, and google will still provide a cached version of the home page sans pix.

[youngdem]

32. there are handguns for sale in the New Orleans ares for less than $160 new.

Ammo? Can be $15 a brick (100 count) for small ammo (22 or 9mm, for example)?

I wonder if this has anything to do with our sky high murder rate? NAH.....The 2nd Amendment ROCKS and is what is KEEPIN ME SAFE!

:sarcasm:

:grr:

[MiniMe]

48. They left off part of the quote

"I feel terrible about this, but its not my fault." was the clip that was played on the local DC news last night.

No, its not his fault, he didn't pull the trigger. He didn't do anything illegal in Virginia. There was just something about that that rubbed me the wrong way.

[ckramer]

58. Democrats should support gun banning in all US cities

There is nothing good come out of it with so many guns in a city.

Obama should state that goal in his campaign.

Gun can only ruin a city economically eventually.

[RamboLiberal]

61. Not this Democrat - speak for yourself

Get real - with the number of guns in the US this would work as well as prohibition or the war on drugs. Only the law-abiding like myself would be deprived.

[NickB79]

65. I've had enough of Repubs in office, thank you

Calls for gun bans by Democrats has probably been one of the best ways for Republicans to get into office.

Obama would lose a very large number of voters by stating that in his campaign.

[ckramer]

120. That's why America will be in endless gun violence forever

because politicians are afraid of telling the truth lest offending the voters.

Gun saves life is a myth.

The 2nd Amendment has been killing American kids.

[kingoth]

128. is it possible????

for a politician or a lawyer to tell the truth ? I think not.

[brentspeak]

67. We don't need gun "banning"; we need sane gun control laws

Which we currently don't have -- no matter what the NRA claims concerning "the hundreds of gun control laws on the books".

[hogwyld]

125. Hear Hear!

We need to get these WMD's off of our streets. LBJ's civil rights legislation wasn't popular, but it was right. We should do what is right and ban the guns. I'll support any candidate that will go against the NRA anyday.

[morgan2]

66. damn 50 rounds, 33 kills

that psycho was a pretty good shot.

[RamboLiberal]

77. He had more than 50 rounds - doctor said most shot 3 times

I am interested in getting more background on this story.

[Up2Late]

83. NPR did several good stories and updates today, plus they have some "extras" on-line...

...at these links. Personally, I'm rather disgusted with "Morning Addition" so recommend the top link.

All Things Considered:

<http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=2>

Morning Addition:

<http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=3>

[Zynx]

91. Guy shot 50 people, most multiple times. He had a LOT of ammo.

[firefox_fan]

84. 50 bullets? Is that all he had? That does not compute.

Given the number of people who were shot and reports by the doctors that all people were shot at least 3 times. He must have had more ammo.

[RamboLiberal]

88. He had more than 50 I believe

The 50 was the initial number he bought when got the Glock in March. I expect he went out and bought more ammo. I'm wondering if he practiced with the gun. And I'm wondering if he had any background shooting firearms. While a Glock and a Beretta 22 are easy to shoot for beginners, I would think he would've had to do some practice to know what the hell he was doing with the guns. If not, he was a helluva natural.

BTW, the sicko sent in that pack a photos a shot of the hollowpoint ammo all neatly lined up.

[RamboLiberal]

105. FYI - heard several news people last night reference 75 rounds

Makes sense in that is 5 15 round magazines(not clips) for a Glock 19. But I think he had more. They haven't told us how many magazines he had for each weapon.

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

124. Based on "kill ratio" that's the bargain of the century!

Irony Alert!SARCASM! The kid got a good deal and an even better one at Walmart. Irony Alert!SARCASM!