. . . in two or three editions,
And I'm giving you a longing look,
Everyday, everyday, everyday I write the book."
"Everyday I Write the Book", from the album Punch the Clock (1983)
--Elvis Costello
[Socrates speaking] "Life without this sort of examination is not worth living."
Apology, 38a.
--Plato, Greek Philosopher, 429 B.C. - 347 B.C.
"For when the One Great Scorer comes to write
against your name,
He marks--not that you won or lost--but how
you played the Game."
Alumnus Football, l. 63(1908)
--Grantland Rice
Most of them never had a chance. I'm speaking of course about the Virginia Tech University murders. Three things need to be done to cut down on the probability of carnage on such a massive scale occurring again:
1. Ban certain styles of handguns. I did some quick research on mass murders involving guns in the United States since 1990. There have 16 such items that type crimes since 1990. Of those, I was able to find what weapons were used in 10 of crimes. 7 involved 9mm weapons. Easily available at any gun store, the clips and semi automatic firing capabilities of these weapons need to be banned. You NRA types can save it. Don't even bother writing. We'll allow you to trade in your weapons that have clips and semi-auto firing capability for weapons that don't have those capabilities. You want sporting? Shoot shotguns and bolt action or hand cocked rifles to your hearts content. That's giving a sporting chance, not just slaughtering an animal because you can. You want man-stopping power for personal protection? Well, hell yeah, you can trade in your 9mms for .357 Magnums. Is it going to completely stop these type of murders? No, but will cut down on the amount of carnage when they do occur.
2. Institute a massive tax on ammo for 9mm and other semi-auto guns. I didn't come up with this idea (I think comedian Chris Rock did), but instead of banning the weapons he suggested putting a $5,000.00 per bullet tax on 9mm ammo. I suppose that could work, too.
3. Why, during this day and age (i.e. post 9/11) are we allowing someone who is less than a full citizen to purchase firearms? Any politician with half a lick of sense should strike while the iron is hot on this one.
But in the end, does it really matter how they died? They died far too young with lots of accomplishments , hopes and and dreams in front of them. But far more young people (for the sake of argument, let's just call them people between 18-22 years old) die senseless deaths every day in car accidents and from cancer, for example, than died from the horrific mass murders that took place the other day. We need to take the time on a daily weekly and monthly basis to examine how we are writing the book of our own lives. Are we playing this little game we call life only for own benefit or for the benefit of others, as well?
P.S. I woke up about 4:00 a.m. and I see that NBC is parading around a bunch of crap that the Va. Tech. killer mailed them. Do me a favor and don't dignify it by watching it. Or e-mailing that stuff. Or calling him by name.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Tom,
I really appreciate your ability to express your thoughts in writing. I think you hit the nail on the head (again). Not to undermine the tragedy at Va Tech, but how many people die every day from drunk drivers, domestic violence, drugs, and illness like cancer? Many, many more than combined murders and slayings. While their deaths are not as newsworthy, those who have passed were no less significant to their families and friends.
My heart goes out to the families of the Va Tech victims. Unfortunately, even with the controls you propose, a motivated maniac will always find a way.
Art
I don't know about selling guns to people in PR status - maybe Uncle Pat could weigh in on this? But I do know that there is a law in effect that noone who has ever been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, as was the case with this person, is allowed to purchase weapons. I don't know if the guns were black market or otherwise, but there was certainly a failure of the system.
This is the sort of evil that makes be believe there's such a thing as the Devil.
Here here on the gun control ideas! I do believe in the right to bear arms but I don't see how anyone has a need for a semi-automatic weapon! Not for personal protection and certainly not for "sporting" activities. Another proposal I think worth visiting is that it shouldn't be allowed that someone deemed an "imminent danger to himself or others" by an actual doctor; hereby LOSES the right to purchase said weapons prior to completing some sort of counseling/drug therapy!
"Columbine Bowling
childhood stolen
we need a bit more gun controllin'."
- Beastie Boys
Today is the anniversary of the OKC bombing. 168 people killed by a nut job with fertilizer and diesel, no firearms were used. Gun bans may make people feel better but they will have no positive impact at all. Just look at D.C. where all the bad guys just ignored the gun ban for years and continued to own, and use firearms in their crimes. Laws are wonderful, provided everyone actually follows them.
Now, I'm off to run a red light in Clive.
Tom Ashworth.
Tom,
I saw some of the NBC footage on the evening news. I did turn it right off. What luck! I imagine the producers danced with joy when the package arrived in their mail room.
Tom, thank you for offering a fair and balanced look at this tragedy (and no, I wasn't intentionally trying to make a Fox News reference). I can't believe that NBC has released as much of the packet that was sent to them as they have. When will human decency triumph the quest for ratings?
While point 1 and 2 make a lot of sense, what exactly does 3 have to do with anything?
You did an admittedly quick check on mass killings. Did you take a look at the number of these types of crimes in foreign countries? Sure, there are wars and insurgencies around the world, but mass murder in otherwise peaceful societies does seem to be an uniquely American characteristic.
How many of the perpetrators in those mass killings you counted were not “full citizens?” Do you have any idea how many foreign nationals live in America, both legally and illegally? What percentage of mass killings would be expected based on those numbers?
Are those people who aren’t full citizens that much of a threat for something like this? The guy grew up in America for ***’s sake!
Don't legal residents live in the same dangerous neighborhoods as their American neighbors? You know - the one's with the .357 Magnums.
Your third point is part of the American phobia of the rest of the world. It is part of an American myopia that all problems, big or small, begin and end at the American borders. It is part of the hubris that brought Iraq.
It is just, sorry, just so – racist.
Ben,
Am not, am not, am not!!!
Here's the list I used:
John D. Lee (Mountain Meadows Massacre, 1857)
John Filip Nordlund (Sweden, Mass murder on the ferry Prins Carl, killing 5 wounding 8, 1900)
Simone Pianetti (Italy, Camerata Cornello, 1915)
Andrew Kehoe (Bath, Michigan, Blew up school, killing 45 (mostly children) 1927
Mutsuo Toi (Tsuyama massacre, Okayama, Japan, killing 30, 1938)
Howard Unruh (Camden, New Jersey, 1949)
Tore Hedin (Hurva, Sweden, killed 9, 1952)
Jack Gilbert Graham (bombed an aircraft taking off from Denver, Colorado, 1955)
Edgar Ray Killen (Mississippi civil rights worker murders, June 21, 1964)
Charles Whitman (University of Texas Shootings, Austin, Texas, August 1, 1966)
Harry Roberts (police killer, London, 1966)
Richard Speck (murdered eight student nurses, Chicago, 1966)
Victor Ernest Hoffman (Shell Lake murders, in Shell Lake, Saskatchewan, Canada. August 15, 1967)
John Linley Frazier - killed five (including four members of a family) in Santa Cruz, CA, 1970
John List (Westfield, New Jersey, 1971)
Edward Charles Allaway (killer of 7 people at the library of California State University-Fullerton on July 12, 1976)
Jim Jones (Killer of 915 in Jonestown, Guyana on November 18, 1978)
Woo Bum-Kon (Gyeongsang-namdo, South Korea, killing 57, 1982)
Denis Lortie (National Assembly of Quebec, May 8, 1984)
James Oliver Huberty (McDonald's massacre, San Ysidro, California, 18 July 1984)
Jeremy Bamber (farmhouse family murders, Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Essex, England, 1985)
Andrew Walker, Scotland, killed 3 army colleagues, 1985
Iñaki de Juana Chaos, Spain, 1985-1986.
Patrick Sherrill, Edmond, Oklahoma Post Office, killed 14, then himself, 20 August 1986
David Burke, (PSA Flight 1771, San Luis Obispo, California, 1987)
Michael Ryan, (Hungerford massacre, Berkshire, UK), 1987
Ronald Gene Simmons, (16 family members, Russelville, Arkansas), 1987
Patrick Edward Purdy (Cleveland Elementary School Shootings, Stockton, California, 17 January 1989)
Jeffrey Don Lundgren (Kirtland Cult Killings, April 17th, 1989)
Marc Lépine (École Polytechnique Massacre, Montreal, Quebec, 1989)
Julio González, arsonist at Happy Land Social Club in the Bronx, NY, March, 1990. 87 people were killed.
David Gray (Aramoana massacre, Otago, New Zealand, 13 & 14 November 1990)
George Jo Hennard, (Luby's massacre, Killeen, Texas, 1991)
Kenneth French, Jr. (North Carolina, USA, 1993)
Colin Ferguson (LIRR Massacre; USA, 1994)
Mattias Flink, (Falun, Sweden, killed 7, 1994)
Baruch Goldstein (Hebron, West Bank 1994)
Thomas Hamilton (Dunblane massacre, Dunblane, Scotland, 1996)
Martin Bryant (Port Arthur Massacre, Australia, 1996)
Mohammad Ahman al-Naziri (Sanaa massacre, Sanaa, Yemen, 1997)
Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden (Jonesboro massacre, Jonesboro, Arkansas, 1998)
Matthew Beck (killed five at CT Lottery Headquarters, Newington, Connecticut, 1998)
Larry Gene Ashbrook (Wedgwood Baptist Church, Fort Worth, Texas, USA, 1999)
Susan Eubanks (Vista, California, 1999)
Buford O. Furrow, Jr. (Los Angeles, California, 1999)
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (the Columbine High School Massacre, Littleton, Colorado), 1999)
Byran Uyesugi (Xerox Murders, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1999)
Michael McDermott (Edgewater Technologies, Wakefield, Massachusetts, 2000)
Dipendra of Nepal (Nepal, 2001)
Mamoru Takuma (Osaka school massacre, Osaka, Osaka, Japan, 2001)
Robert Steinhäuser (Erfurt massacre, Erfurt, Germany, 2002)
Richard Durn (Nanterre massacre, Nanterre, France, March 26, 2002)
Hanadi Jaradat (Haifa, 2003)
Jeff Weise (Red Lake High School massacre, Red Lake, Minnesota, 2005)
Kyle Huff (Capitol Hill massacre, Seattle, Washington, March 25, 2006)
Charles Carl Roberts IV (Amish School Shooting, Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania, October 2, 2006)
Cho Seung-hui (Virginia Tech Massacre, Blacksburg, Virginia, killed 32, then himself, April 16, 2007)
So no, contrary to your assertations, it is not a uniquely American phenomenon.
I added Gang Lu. (University of Iowa, 1991, Iowa City, Iowa) Five murders (or six if you count him taking his own life) and one beautiful 20 year old girl left a quadreplegic for life. I was on campus when Lu, a non-citizen, shot up Van Allen Hall. Add Colin Ferguson, another killer on resident status, (and ironically, an anti-white racist) and Cho Seung-hui, and you've got 3 of the last 16 mass murders, or about 19%. I don't know how many illegal aliens and foreign nationals there are in the U.S., but I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb to say that it's less than 56 million people. (300 million * 18.75%).
Tom Ashworth,
Your comparing apples and oranges. Your example was terorism, plain and simple. I'm talking about mass murders occurring as a result of the person(s) hatred toward society in general or particular indiviuals as opposed to making a political statement or attempting to intimidate a particular society through mass murder. As I said, overall mass murder is not a huge problem in our society (it's a little behind accidental airplane crashes in terms of numbers, so it's a blip on the screen, really), and my suggestions will not prevent these incidents, merely cut down on the amount of carnage when they do occur.
Ah yes but my second point about D.C. is relevant. Guns were against the law in D.C. until struck down by the court recently, yet gun murders remained high. People simply ignored the law, and continued shooting each other. A law is not enough. You would have to round up every gun out there in order for a gun ban to actually work. And of course, as the NRA is fond of pointing out, only the law abiding will turn in their guns. I'll take my chances with my own gun rather than letting the bad guys know I'm unarmed and an easy target.
Tom Ashworth
p.s. I am an immigrant (and former green card holder) and I didn't think you were being racist, that was a bit over the top.
Tom Ashowrth,
How worried are you really that you'll be in a situation where you need to squeeze off 15 rounds and be able to reload with another 15 in one second? Puhleeze.
Your argument (basically a variation on the old "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" argument) has some merit, but two points need to be made. One, do you honestly feel less safe because you can't legally own a machine gun? For example, an M-16? (I know that the "Jamming Jenny" is not the best weapon of this genre, but it's the one most people are familiar with.)
Secondly, I'll grant you that I don't expect a massive turn in of weapons by criminals just because a law is passed, but in twenty-five years or so it will be effective, much the same way machine guns are rarely used in crimes these days do to laws passed many years ago.
Your original post advocted banning only some weapons, but the elimination of gun crime by attrition, over years, will only occur if you ban all guns not just ones that hold a lot of bullets. But if you only ban some guns and not others you'll still have Lee Harvey Oswald (bolt action rifle) and Charles Whitman who armed himself with multiple weapons to boost his firepower. We could go round and round with this forever. Only a complete ban will reach your desired result, and only after many years. That should only be carried out through a constitutional amendment banning the right to bear arms.
My favorite solution is to require a license, background check, and training classes (just like concealed carry laws) for all gun ownership. Anyone lacking a license has his guns confiscated. I realize that 2nd Amendment purists won't like this but we do limit other Constitutional rights (free speech for instance -- difference between politcal speech and commercial speech). That way the right still exists but with reasonable responsibility attached to the right. We can never really make society safe from determined bad guys or the mentally ill. But as long as you are advocating for the ban of only some weapons you will never see a society completely devoid of bad guys with guns.
Yeah that was Ashworth again, sorry forgot my name (usually only happens when I'm drunk).
I wasn't trying to (nor would I) ban all guns or suggesting that that should be done. Whitman proves every rule has an exception. He was a hell of a shot (Marine and all that). His closest victims must have been at least 100 yards out, his furthest over 150 yards. I didn't intend for my comments to be taken as some sort of grandiose solution to all gun crime.
Hi Tom,
This is just a note to let you know how much I've appreciated reading your cancer blog in the last few weeks. I've recently been diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma and my wife and I have been frantically researching the disease and trying to understand exactly what it all means. Your blog was one of the first on-line cancer discussions I came across.
Lymphoma is treatable with modern chemotherapy, and the Hodgkin's varieties, in particular, have high cure rates. I can only imagine how you feel with lung and brain cancer, but your writings are clear enough to give me at least some idea. I can't explain exactly how, but reading your posts has helped me deal with my own situation, and I thank you for that.
This post has shown an odd connection between us too. I was an undergraduate at the University of Iowa on-and-off between 1985 and 1995, and during the Gang Lu shootings I was sitting in the Deadwood with friends (one of the reasons it took me 10 years to get through undergraduate school, of course), watching the events unfold on the TVs behind the bar. Maybe we ran across one another in Iowa City? Small world. I'm glad you're in it.
So, you pull the definitive list of mass murders from Wikipedia and start cherry picking.
Are you absolutely sure you picked up all killings with 5 or more victims since 1991? Isn't it odd that one of the murders you 'added' to the list just happed to be committed by a foreign-national? Would that slant your calculation slightly? And what percentage of grad students in America are green card holders?
Might I point out that if you want to reduce the number of killings you might simply restrict the sale of weapons to women? They seem disproportionally represented in your list. But somehow that solutuion doesn't occur to you. Why not?
Gregory,
Thanks for the compliments. Glad to have you aboard.
Tom
Ben,
Well, I was there when it occurred. I couldn't very well leave it out could I? If I had left it out, and you had remembered the John Q. Smith murders at the U of I in '91, weren't you going to accuse me of cherry picking then?
If you have a better list, I'm willing to take a look. Interestingly, the couple of sites I have found with worldwide type lists indicate there are probably more incidents of school related violence in foreign countries on a per capita basis than in the U.S., but they didn't make the Wikipedia list because they were less "successful" in actually killing people. Check out this list:
http://www.columbine-angels.com/Shootings-1980-2000.htm
Anyway, let's throw out gang lu for the sake of argument: 2/15 * 300million = 40 Million. I'd say the mrgin of error is rather easily on my side on this one.
As to restricting the sales to just women, well as Jordening would say, now you are just being stupid. The only ground that you seem to object to in non-citizens not being allowed access to firearms, and now you're the one throwing out half the citizens? I also don't think non-citizens should be allowed to vote. Does that make me a bad person, too?
FYI
Here's another list which has a lot of different school shootings but didn't meet the "four dead requirement" of the Wikipedia list that I previously used:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html
Ah, hell,. Forgot to add that you can have last word on this one Ben.
Just for the record, and no reflection on the gentleman that apparently shares my name, the individual currently debating this topic with you is not the same "Ben" that went to Ireland with you. As you know, my client base from my earlier employment gives me a certain perspective on this topic, and I will soon have the good fortune to be able to personally debate this topic with you over a glass of Crown, J.W. Green, Macallan or Paddy.
You choose.
Ireland Ben
Oh, and since you are going to give "me" the last word, I just want state to the others on this blog that I have known you for years. I have debated hundreds of social issues with you over that time. I have faced you across a courtroom and I have watched you zealously and brilliantly represent clients of all races, both genders, all social standings and all beliefs. You have repeatedly proven that you truly believe that all people are entitled to be treated equally under the law, and you have frequently (and successfully) taken this stance against odds that would have sent a lesser man scurrying for cover.
You definitely are not a racist.
(Ireland) Ben
Hi - I'm leaving a comment vicariously for my boss:
What was this kid's GPA? how on earth did a kid who never spoke a complete sentence in class and wrote poorly (according to his professors) not get kicked out of the English program? Why was he still on campus in the first place?
First I’d point you to the first chapter of “More Damned Lies and Statistics.”
Although it might seem that statistics appear in every discussion of every social issue, in some cases—such as the media’s coverage of school shootings—relevant, readily available statistics are ignored. We might think of these as missing numbers.
You might look here at the research done by Grant Duwe,
Over the past twenty years, claimsmakers have asserted that the mid-1960s marked the beginning of an unprecedented and ever-growing mass murder wave in the United States. Recent research has shown, however, that mass murder was just as common during the 1920s and 30s as it has been since the mid-1960s. Using the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) and newspaper, network television news, and newsweekly magazine coverage as sources of data, this study examines why and how mass murder was constructed as a new crime problem. I suggest that the news media have figured prominently in the social construction of mass murder by heavily influencing which cases claimsmakers have selected as landmark narratives and, more generally, as typifying examples. Because claimsmakers have relied almost exclusively on national news coverage as a source of data, they have made a number of questionable claims about the prevalence and nature of mass murder since the high-profile cases represent the most sensational and least representative mass killings. And the news media have completed the circle of distortion by disseminating the bulk of the claims that have been made, leading to policies that have targeted the rarest aspects about mass murder. But not all of the solutions offered by claimsmakers have been accepted by policymakers. As a result, this study also looks at why claimsmakers tasted only modest success in constructing mass murder.
He is looking at mass murder and not spree killings but the idea is the same.
Thus, I would say YOU CAN’T MAKE a determination. You can’t say anything. You could research it or point me to research. But to make a gut reaction that green card holders are a problem is simply not justified. It might well be right, but unless you can point me to a single study that has looked at this, I will stand by my comment. And no – I doubt you are personally racist, you have racist blinders. You assume a problem based on media coverage and don’t ask whether the media isn’t reporting very fairly.
Your comment, “Well, I was there when it occurred. I couldn't very well leave it out could I?” You would leave it out if it isn’t in the data set, yes. My problem is finding a better list. Without a better list, your comment is racist. You have to define the limits – spree killings, 4+ victims?, 5+ victims? During what time period.
Duwe found 495 mass killings between 1976 and 1996 based on data from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR). So all your lists look short.
Now in order to even make a statement, you would have to go back to the data and figure out the immigration status of the people involved. Want to start? Here you can find some data. (Note: you can sign in anonymously)
Now as far as I can tell, the FBI – ignorant fools that they apparently are – list race but not immigration status in the reports. (Something I find odd if your obvious conclusion would hold. They handle the cases, remember?) Now, having the data, we could then look at how media stories and follow the paper trail. Thus justify your hypothesis.
I just grabbed the numbers for the following filter (1995-2002; 4+ victims; murder and with the weapon used being a firearm, handgun, rifle, shotgun or other guns.) According to that data we have around 200 different offenses. In order to figure out the immigration status, you would have to refilter the data and go to the various media reports.
According to my data we have White (108), Black(83), American Indian(1), Asian & Islander(9) offenders. That doesn’t give us much. Hispanics are considered White. But we don’t have a huge black green card percentage. Now, to show you are right, go and check the immigration status. Have a ball. You could publish the results.
So I can give you a target, the list has to have 200 entries.
You had a gut reaction, based on incomplete knowledge and I called you on it. You want a better list and so would I. I’d love one. You can’t get there from here without a lot of work. Someone could probably write a doctorate on the subject.
“As to restricting the sales to just women, well as Jordening would say, now you are just being stupid”
My snark about only selling to women was exactly that – snark. It was hyperbole to show that a simple hypothesis does lead to simple results. Results that are simply wrong.
At the risk of taking the last word away from "bad" ben... I don't think the issue is whether or not immigrants commit gun murder sprees in a higher proportion than the rest of the population of the United States. Forget statistics. The issue is: too many people have very easy access to very lethal weapons. The right to bear arms was given to the people, as in "We the people of the United States of America" -- why should we give it to anyone else, especially in this day and age?
Immigration and immigrant status is about a whole lot more than race. A racist comment would be to suggest that we should take guns away from anyone of Asian (or Korean) descent.
This is directed to Bad Ben:
You give some people an inch, and they take a mile.
You know, I seriously was going to let you have last word, but you chose to not only call me a racist (for the second time), but also to write a bunch of condescending bullshit to try to justify your own laziness. I told you to find a better list, and I would be happy to consider it, and revise my opinion accordingly. Not only were either too lazy or unable to find another, more inclusive list, you chose to insult me for your unwillingness and/or inability to do so.
As for the remainder of your comment, I would make the following observations:
1.It is obvious you have not actually read Grant Duwe’s writings but only summaries of them from other sources. The definition Duwe uses for “mass killings” is the same as list I used: “[F]our or more victims killed within a 24 period.” Grant Duwe, A Circle of Distortion: The Social Construction of Mass Murder in the United States, Western Criminology Review 6(1), 59, 62 (2005).
2.The FBI does not handle the cases. Unless a federal crime has been committed (such as someone, say a felon (or maybe a non-citizen, perhaps) being in possession of a weapon), the Agency merely takes the data and reports it. That’s it. Period. End of sentence.
3.Mass murder is vastly underreported before 1980. Id. at 65.
4.“Mass public shootings” is what we’re concerned with here. Quite frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn if some crazy S.O.B. decides to shoot up his family. It’s only the random shooting I’m concerned about.
5.According to Duwe (remember him?), there were a grand total of 95 mass public shootings (which is what we’re concerned with for the purposes of my blog entry) from 1966-1999. Id. at 72 and 75 (endnote 9). So, yes, it does appear my list is incomplete. No, not nearly so incomplete as you would have people believe, but incomplete. If you can compile the list of 95 (plus the post- 2000 list (and after calling me a racist twice you better not leave out even one)), get back to me.
6.I have no idea what nationality you are and don’t really care. But FYI, for the non-combat firearms homicides (which total roughly 200,000/year), 14% are from Southeast Asia, 20% from Africa, and 42% are from Latin America and the Caribbean. 6% are from North America. Small Arms Survey 2004, Chapter 6, 173, 174-176 (2004). Frankly, I’m most concerned about Middle Eastern immigrants, which comprise a relatively minimal total of (reported) homicides, but it should be readily apparently why I think banning Green Card holders from owning weapons is a bad idea.
Do your own research next time, you lazy S.O.B., before you start name calling.
All my best,
Tom
Tom,
Mea Culpa.
[Please feel free to delete this. I'd prefer you get the last word here.]
Post a Comment