Editorial from the Wall Street Journal

[kid1911]

This was sent to me and thought everyone here might like to read this. It is real long but worth the read.

Kevin



An editorial and related article from today's, 4/21/07, Wall St.
Journal. You need a paid subscription to access the links.

The editorial is the best I've read on the shootings thus far. I
was particularly struck by this comment:

"One irony of this is that law-enforcement types have long been a
major pro-gun-control force, even though it would seem that how
their job is defined and performed has much more to do with crime
levels than whether guns are available legally."

This editorial writer "gets it"



REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Guns, Politics and the Law
April 21, 2007; Page A8
That the Virginia Tech massacre did not occasion a widespread round
of political hand-wringing over gun control is, as one newspaper
put it, a silent testimony to how far the gun-control debate has
shifted in the past decade and a half.

Yes, the usual suspects have attempted to use the murder spree on
campus as evidence of the danger of guns in America. But as
unlikely a combination of leaders from Harry Reid to George Bush
has been as one in warning we should avoid a "rush to judgment" in
the wake of the killings.

That's progress of a sort, even if the Democrats' abandonment of
the issue flows more from political calculation than principle.
Political calculation, after all, is based on something beyond mere
politics. The Democratic Party may have decided that gun control
became a political liability in the 1994 and 2000 elections, but
that doesn't go far toward explaining why that is so.

First, as we noted earlier this week, what happened in Blacksburg
was evidence more than anything of the fact that there are sick and
evil people in the world willing to do harm to others for no
earthly reason. Pushing much beyond that point is political
opportunism.

But over the past decade and a half, evidence of another sort has
been accumulating. Violent-crime rates peaked in 1991, according to
the Justice Department, and have fallen steeply since. Over the
same period, gun-control laws in many states have been relaxed.
Correlation does not equal causation, but it does make it difficult
to argue that greater legal access to guns drives up levels of
violent crime.

Whether concealed-carry laws and the like have held down crime
rates remains a hotly debated subject. Certainly, more aggressive
and effective policing, especially in big cities, has been a major
force in driving down crime. One irony of this is that law-
enforcement types have long been a major pro-gun-control force,
even though it would seem that how their job is defined and
performed has much more to do with crime levels than whether guns
are available legally.

When violent-crime rates were rising, as they did steadily from the
mid-1960s through the 1980s, it was easy to get political traction
with calls to "do something" about gun control. This was true
whether legally available guns had anything to do with those crime
rates. But with crime rates falling even as legal gun access
expanded, the argument has lost much of its plausibility, and so
its force.

Which isn't to say no one makes the argument any more. The nearly
uniform reaction in Europe to the Virginia Tech shootings has been
to pin it on America's gun culture. Related to this is the charge
that America is prevented from taking sensible steps to prevent gun
violence by the invidious influence of groups such as the National
Rifle Association. Quite apart from the fact that this implies
American politicians and voters alike are dupes of the "gun lobby,"
it ignores the evidence, noted above, that violent crime and legal
gun access either have nothing to do with one another or are, if
anything, inversely correlated.

As this political debate evolves, it appears that the Supreme Court
may finally get a case in which to weigh in on the Constitutional
question of the right to bear arms. Last month, Judge Laurence
Silberman on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of
plaintiffs who claimed that their Second Amendment rights were
violated by Washington's strict gun-control laws. The Supreme Court
has not heard a Second Amendment case in decades, but federal
appeals courts have generally taken a very restricted view of
citizens' rights under the Second Amendment. The D.C. Circuit's 2-1
decision sets up a direct conflict with other circuits, and could
wind up at the Supreme Court.

This could be a defining moment for gun control, as Judge
Silberman's ruling unequivocally declares that "the right to keep
and bear arms" under the Second Amendment belongs to individuals
and not, as some have argued, only to National Guardsmen or members
of government-organized "militias." "The phrase 'the right of the
people,'" Judge Silberman wrote, ". . . leads us to conclude that
the right in question is individual." He added: "The wording . . .
also indicates that the right to keep and bear arms was not created
by government, but rather preserved by it." In all, the decision is
as clear a statement of the right to keep and bear arms as one
could want. The mayor of D.C. has requested a rehearing of the case
by the full D.C. Circuit. If that is denied, or if the full court
sides with Judge Silberman, the next stop would be the Supremes.

A Supreme Court decision on what the Second Amendment means could
transform the gun-control debate in this country. For now, the
relatively muted political response to the Virginia Tech killings
may be taken as a sign that, on this issue at least, our politics
have become a little less reactive and a little more rational.

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117712092587377645.html


Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117711790471077589.html
(2) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117711790471077589.html


Copyright 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved This
copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution
and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement
and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple
copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or
visit www.djreprints.com.


HOT TOPIC
Shooting Highlights Gun Divisions
By NICK TIMIRAOS
April 21, 2007; Page A7

The fatal shooting of 32 students and staff at Virginia Tech this
past week, by a gunman who then killed himself, rekindled the
nation's gun-control debate and highlighted growing differences in
state gun laws.

The prospects for any kind of federal action appear slim, in part
because public support for gun control has dimmed along with the
political will to challenge the gun lobby.

Over the past decade, the Democratic Party has concluded that
supporting controls hurt some candidates, especially in rural swing
states like Tennessee, Ohio and West Virginia, where the National
Rifle Association, the nation's largest gun lobby, holds sway.

Introducing new gun laws also risks splitting Democrats who favor
more gun restrictions from those who support gun rights, a divide
deepened by the last election. The NRA reassured its members last
fall that, despite the Republican rout in the midterm elections, 11
of the 42 new House Democrats and all 13 new Republicans were "pro-
gun" candidates. Polls show support for stricter gun laws has
fallen steadily in recent years, from highs of 78% in 1990 to 56%
last year. And a Pew Research Center poll taken earlier this month
found that a 52%-to-32% majority of respondents have a favorable
opinion of the NRA, the first time since 1994 its favorability
rating has risen above 50%.

Even after the Columbine High School killings in Colorado in 1999
left 15 dead, lawmakers were unsuccessful in winning further
restrictions. Gun-control advocates failed to secure votes on laws
limiting gun purchases by minors, calling for safer gun designs and
requiring background checks on firearms bought at gun shows.

The Bush administration and Republican Congress shepherded a series
of measures earlier this decade that strengthened the rights of gun
owners and manufacturers. In 2005, 59 Democrats joined 223
Republicans in the House to limit gun makers' legal liability. And
in 2004, the ban on assault weapons expired, which included a
provision banning the high-capacity ammunition clips that police
believe Monday's shooter used in the Virginia Tech rampage.

States Chart Their Own Course: Although the issue has been muted at
the national level, many states have taken action. Some have moved
to limit gun use, generally in urban areas, while others have
strengthened gun-owner rights, generally in more rural areas.

Missouri became the 13th state this past week to pass a law that,
inspired by events during Hurricane Katrina, would bar state and
local law enforcement from seizing guns during a state of
emergency. Texas joined 15 other states that have passed "castle
doctrine" laws in the past two years, allowing citizens to use
force against anyone who intrudes into their homes, cars or places
of business, and replacing laws that required citizens to retreat
first and use force as a last resort.

Maryland and New York, meanwhile, passed laws in 2000 to create a
ballistic fingerprint database for each handgun sold in the state.
Massachusetts passed an assault weapons ban to replace the expiring
federal law in 2004, joining six other states that had passed
similar provisions in the 1990s. In 2005, California became the
first state to ban .50-caliber rifles.

Earlier this month, a coalition of mayors launched a campaign, led
by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, to call on Congress to
loosen strict rules on the release of gun-trace data so that cities
can share information about the source of guns used in crimes. The
NRA persuaded lawmakers in 2003 to limit the data's release.

Supreme Court May Get Involved: Gun-control advocates faced a
setback in March when a three-judge panel on the federal appeals
court struck down the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun
ban, citing the Second Amendment, which protects the right to bear
arms.

The city has asked the full appeals court to review the decision,
and the case could wind up before the Supreme Court. If the court
takes up the case, it would be the first high-court case in nearly
70 years to address the reach of the Second Amendment.

* * *
"To those who want to try to make this into some little crusade, I
say take that elsewhere."

--Governor Tim Kaine (D., Va.)

"I believe this will reignite the dormant effort to pass common-
sense gun regulations in this nation."

--Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.)

* * *
Between 2000 and 2005, the number of states that restricted gun
sales to people with some type of mental illness grew from 19 to 43.

Nearly twice as many people commit suicide in the 15 states with
the highest gun ownership rates than in the six states with the
lowest rates, according to a Harvard School of Public Health study.

The town of Kennesaw, Ga., has required its citizens to own a
firearm and ammunition since 1982.

At 90 weapons per 100 civilians, the U.S. has the world's highest
rate of gun ownership, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007. It
is followed by Yemen at 61 weapons per 100 civilians, Finland at
56, Switzerland at 46 and Iraq at 39.

The number of Americans who reported having any guns in their home
dropped from a high of 54% in 1977 to 34.5% last year, according to
the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.

Write to Nick Timiraos at nick.timiraos@wsj.com3

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117711790471077589.html


Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117712092587377645.html
(2) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117712092587377645.html

Copyright 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved This
copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution
and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement
and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple
copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or
visit www.djreprints.com.

[xflyboy]

very interesting it's good to see how some people do understand and don't buy into all the media hype.

[Turbinesaint]

This is a good editorial. Unfortunately, many people buy into the media hype, sensationalism, and hysteria. Groups of people have a propensity for hysteria since we've had a modern type of media. Think back to when Orson Welles read "The War of the Worlds" on the radio and the panic it caused. I just don't understand why so many people (antis especially) want so badly for us to become victims?

[Frenchy]

In the past weeks, we have seen a few scenarios of suicide by proxy or suicide by cops.

This happens when some one usually very depressed has a very strong value against suicide and decides in his warped mind that if some one else was to snuff his life, it would then not be a suicide. They forget all of the other morals they have and become focused on this one issue. Generally when these persons take their own life at the end, it is only because no one was able to snuff their life and they have run out of options. Live or take the last few bullets they have or what ever measures they have left at their disposition and end it all themselves.

Seung-Hui Cho is a classic example, here is some one who planned his suicide to the point of actually having time to mail out the information he wanted the public to see. From the very first shootings at or around 7:15 am to the time he finally took his own life, his mind was intent on one thing, having someone stop his action with more fire power then he himself had.

Knowing he was walking into a gun free zone, he knew he would cause a stir in many lives and probably become infamous for it. Has he been shot at 7:20 I suppose the letters and videos we all now know might have been found in his own room.
As no one had stopped him, he had the options of hiding and being caught without harm, or continuing his rage until some one shot him to stop the threat. Taking the time to deliver the videos and letters only shows he was not hiding but intent on being out in the open for some one to stop him.

This is known as assisted suicide. When some one knowingly does harm or threatens others with the intent to get shot, this is a premeditated event. Being captured alive was not an option to this person. And the only reason he ended his life in the end was that there where only 2 options left, causing his own suicide, or live capture.

As for soccer moms who now think pistols and guns in general caused this, there is little anyone can do to stop your line of thought. Politicians obviously have thought the scenario over and over and mulled it to death, and very few actually came out with the thought that a ban on guns would have stopped this event. And they are very right; actually, the ban on guns in school areas caused this event. Seung-Hui Cho knew that there would be no students or teachers to stop him, and that by the time some one would attempt to stop him, death would be the only option. This is why he chose shooting in a school over any other area.

We are taking of a population of 25K here, that is more then many cities have in population. Knowing 25K students are unarmed made it an easy target for Seung-Hui Cho and his plan.
Would having no guns at his disposal have made the difference? No, we all know he would have found weapons elsewhere had he needed them; one could even go as far as to say he could have poisoned the food / beverage supply in the school atriums had he just wanted to harm people, this was a person intent on gaining a public stature and blaming others for his actions. One can even say that in his death he spoke out and blamed every one for the way he was.
Killer's Note: 'You Caused Me to do this’ http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3048108&page=1

It is very obvious this person believes the world was his enemy, and that we where all against him. The main problem is, there are many out there like him and they are not easily identified in public. There will be copy cats out there, there always are, and as long as the media makes them front page news, they will strive to do worst then the last one.

On a lighter note, this gave MSNBC, FOX and CNN some thing else to talk about then Anna Nicole Smith…