An ANTI Editorial

[larrymeyer]

http://www.delcotimes.com/WebApp/app..._Story_1239169



Monday, December 10, 2007

Posted on Sun, Dec 9, 2007
Editorial: Write stricter laws to disarm mentally ill
In April, when an apparently psychotic student named Seung-Hui Cho opened fire with two pistols at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, killing 32 people then himself, the scenario sounded sickeningly familiar to many Delaware County residents.

Twenty-two years ago, 25-year-old Sylvia Seegrist opened fire with a semi-automatic rifle at the Springfield Mall, killing two people and seriously injuring six. A third person died a month later as a result of the injuries inflicted on him by Seegrist, a diagnosed schizophrenic with a history of violence.

In both cases, it was apparent that the shooters fell through the cracks in the mental health care system and that they should not have had access to firearms.

The same tragic plot was replayed last week when 19-year-old Robert A. Hawkins opened fire with an AK-47 inside the Von Maur department store at the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Neb., killing eight people and then himself.

Advertisement

He reportedly had a history of depression, had just broken-up with his girlfriend, had been fired from his job and had a troubled past including a criminal record. Authorities said, after threatening to kill his stepmother in 2002, Hawkins lived in foster care as well as in treatment centers and group homes for youths with substance abuse, mental or behavioral problems.

His history is not unlike that of Sylvia Seegrist and Seung-Hui Cho.

Cho was once pronounced an imminent danger to himself at a psychiatric hospital. Virginia Tech professors pleaded with him to get counseling, especially after he was evicted from one English class for the violent nature of his writing.

Seegrist had been hospitalized 12 times for schizophrenia in the 10 years before she committed the mall murders and was known to local law enforcement authorities for her violent behavior.

And yet, both shooters were easily able to purchase assault weapons, in part, because there was no waiting period for background checks and because the federal assault weapons ban was no longer in effect.

The ban had not yet been enacted when, for $104 at Best Products in Marple, Seegrist purchased the Ruger .22-caliber semi-automatic rifle she used to mow down her victims at Springfield Mall. If the 1994 federal assault weapons ban had not been allowed by Congress to expire in 2004, the Virginia Tech tragedy, the largest shooting rampage in modern U.S. history, may have been averted.

Under the federal assault weapons ban, ammunition magazines were limited to 10 rounds.

The Glock 19 Cho wielded at Virginia Tech had a magazine capacity of 15 rounds with magazines available for up to 33 rounds. Most likely Cho utilized a high-capacity magazine, considering how rapidly he executed fellow students and faculty members.

If the federal assault weapons ban was still in effect, Hawkins also may have not been able to rapidly gun down eight people in a department store. He reportedly stole the AK-47 from his stepfather. When his stepfather purchased it, is not clear.

Of course, gun manufacturers did find ways to circumvent the assault weapons ban when it was in effect by making slight cosmetic changes or changing the names of the guns. One of those guns was used by the two teenage boys who killed 13 students and one teacher before killing themselves in the 1999 Columbine High School massacre in Colorado.

But just because unscrupulous individuals find ways around a law doesn’t negate the value of it. Common sense dictates that the less guns available to society, either legally or illegally, the less chance they will be used to kill and maim people.

Even more apparent is the senselessness of assault weapons available to the general public. However, legislators on both sides of the aisle allowed the federal assault weapons ban to expire in 2004.

Even on a state level, legislators can’t seem to get their acts together to pass the simplest form of gun control legislation. That point was brought home in Harrisburg when members of the Legislative Black Caucus walked off the floor of the state House to protest the lack of any gun control laws, ironically on Wednesday, the same day Hawkins was slaughtering shoppers with an AK-47 in Omaha.

Not surprising, the walk-out was led by State Rep. Thaddeus Kirkland, D-159, who lives in Chester where 25 homicides have occurred this year, most, from guns.

While gun control opponents like to blame such massacres as those that were committed at Virginia Tech, Westroads Mall and Springfield Mall on the unbalanced people who wielded the weapons, the fact remains, the killers never would have been able to produce such carnage with knives or baseball bats.

The lives lost in all of these tragedies should far outweigh any influence gun lobbyists have on legislators in Harrisburg and in Washington, D.C. As long as they fail to produce meaningful gun control laws, all Americans will continue to be sitting ducks for shooters.
================================================== ========

Maybe we should start a write in to the paper.

[KeithPA]

The ban had not yet been enacted when, for $104 at Best Products in Marple, Seegrist purchased the Ruger .22-caliber semi-automatic rifle she used to mow down her victims at Springfield Mall.

Never seen someone get mow'd down by a .22 lol

[D-FENS]

Gonna piggy-back this thread for this Op-Ed.

The print version states that Editorials are the collective opinion of the Editorial Staff. The same fucktard that brought you the Op-Ed in my signature. Seems he's too much of a pussy to sign his name to his work now.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07341/839837-192.stm

Friday, December 07, 2007
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

As far as guns are concerned, the news in America is on a loop. One week it will be an emergency at a bullet-pocked school, another week it will be an attack on a workplace. And every day it will be a drive-by shooting or some other bloody incident involving a sick person with ample ammunition but little or no conscience.

This week it was the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Neb., where a troubled 19-year-old who had lost his job and his girlfriend but not his high-powered rifle went on a shooting spree that left eight people dead before he killed himself.

We will not name him in this space -- instead, we exercise a prerogative that news reporters do not have because the killer said in a suicide note that he wanted to be famous. Even if he didn't know the difference between fame and infamy, this space today is for grieving the innocent dead. To be sure, the only difference in this killing spree was the number killed and the location.

It is hard to ignore eight people murdered at once, despite the fact that many more people will die in gun violence every day across America. For 2004, the most recent figures available, Centers for Disease Control statistics report that the United States saw 28,685 violence-related firearm deaths -- the population of a small city.

It is even harder to ignore an attack in a mall. Unlike many deaths that are out of sight and so out of mind, a shopping mall is a potent symbol of American prosperity and, indeed, the commercial side of Christmas celebrations. Occurring as they did amid holiday decorations, these gunshots ring in the consciousness of Americans far away. The constant equation of our culture -- loser plus gun equals death -- has been played out again, inviting more soul-searching for an answer.

To some, that answer will be what it always has been: more guns, more armed guards and citizens who can leap up and stop would-be assailants. But if the problem is the widespread availability of guns, more guns is the illogical answer. It doesn't encourage a non-violent culture where people can go about their business without fearing for their lives.

Culture is the key. It is too early to say whether new gun-control laws would have prevented this massacre or existing ones should have been better enforced, although it is obvious that someone with a criminal record should never have had a high-powered rifle. Gun-control laws, however, are a necessary step to changing the culture. Uncompromising resistance to them is a guarantee that the culture of firearm idolatry will never change.

Pennsylvanians got the latest bitter taste of that last month when the state House Judiciary Committee, under the usual pressure from the National Rifle Association, voted down two reasonable gun-control measures and tabled a third. This came despite a rare move by the governor to argue for the bills in testimony before the panel.

The Second Amendment right to bear arms is not absolute -- no rights are. One person's right stops at the point when it intrudes on other people's rights. In Nebraska, eight people have been senselessly shot down and deprived of their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- and few seem to grasp the greater tragedy. Another massacre, the TV anchors report. Isn't it sad? Now for the weather report ...

Reasonable? LOL

NRA? Maybe I am missing something but I really don't see the NRA doing much of anything with the grassroots... I see them announcing "agreements" and "compromises" but I don't see them out here trying to reach firearm owners. I see them playing chess with politicians.

/Fuck the NRA. Just my .02. There's no doubt in my mind that the denial of the 2 bills and the shelving of the third were purely grassroots efforts of small, local, organizations, teh INTERNETS and The People!

[Atomic Dog]

/Fuck the NRA. Just my .02. There's no doubt in my mind that the denial of the 2 bills and the shelving of the third were purely grassroots efforts of small, local, organizations, teh INTERNETS and The People!

Yep, these bills were shot down by the people of this state, not the NRA...

[billamj]

What I find astounding about the delco times editorial is that there is no type accreditation on it. No name for whomever it was who wrote that piece of drivel. I would love to send a reply but since whoever wrote it is hiding behind his "rights" by making it entirely anonymous it would be useless. I love people who hide behind the 1st to slam the 2nd.

ETA: I notice that the same happened with the other editorial. "There should be restrictions on YOUR second amendment rights but none on MY first amendment rights. I get to hide, your name should be publicized like they were in Virginia." I hate people like that.

[P-11 shooter]

While I don't know that everyone that goes on a killing spree is crazy, It does seem as if there is serious copy-catting going on. I just found out yesterday that a guy in colorado shot several people in 2 churches before he was taken down by an armed gaurd. I have pretty thick skin when it comes to violence, however I am getting pretty sick of these cowardly fucks who go and shoot as many innocent people as they can. This last asshole shot two teenage girls in the face. This has to stop!!! I will be carrying constantly from now on.

[roland]

While gun control opponents like to blame such massacres as those that were committed at Virginia Tech, Westroads Mall and Springfield Mall on the unbalanced people who wielded the weapons, the fact remains, the killers never would have been able to produce such carnage with knives or baseball bats.

I really wouldn't dismiss someone with a knife. Then again when there's a will there's a way, don't they remember the Oklahoma bombing? I tell ya, I'm getting more and more disgusted with the politicians and retoric.

[thirtyonebravo]

first the idiot goes on to rant about the main problem is the loopholes in the system that allowed them to buy the weapons, then mentioning that the Nebraska shooter just stole the AK from his step-father.

[Longshot]

Don't worry, After we are disarmed they will make sure to have us register our bats and eventually ban them as well.

[wboggs]

I stumbled upon this thread and couldnt help myself; here's my letter to the editor:

Dear Editor,

Re: "Write stricter laws to disarm mentally ill"

Interesting article and a bit typical. I am a gun owner but I hope to not really sound like the typical gun owner here.

It boggles my mind that in the wake of any shooting, gun control is in every news story for days after the hype is over. In order for people not being able to purchase guns to ever be effective, you first must retrieve every gun ever made from everybody (then of course you will see what replaces the gun for killers). Why people think that gun control will stop criminals from using guns just wrecks my mind. Someone of the mind to take a life for sometimes as little as $20.00 could care less about gun laws; wouldn’t you agree? Every mass shooting in America of recent years has been either in a gun free zone or in the wake of stricter gun laws. Rather than make stricter gun laws, why don’t you start a campaign to write laws that makes is a serious crime to kill someone with a gun? And if that sound sarcastic to you, imagine how stricter gun laws sounds to gun owners that even carry a gun to protect themselves, and others from the ones who couldn’t care less about gun laws or laws pertaining to murder.

Why haven’t any news reporters taken the position of what a blessing it was that a private citizen quite literally saved as many as a hundred lives or more in Colorado because they carried a gun legally and used it to protect others? Doesn’t anybody ever see the other side? What if every person in that Mall in Omaha had a gun strapped to their side? How many people would that guy have killed then? I’ll answer that for you; absolutely none, he wouldn’t have killed even one person because he would have never gone there with a gun to kill people. He went to a gun free building knowing he was the only person there with the power to kill; it was the perfect stage for him. If everybody had had a gun, he would have exposed his weapon and instantly been taken out by a law biding citizen who would have had the legal right to save his and the lives of those around him or her.

For a moment, if you can; clear you mind of your current views of guns and gun ownership and imagine for a moment that everybody everywhere had a gun strapped to their side. Can you even imagine how nice everybody would be to one and another? Or can you only see that if everybody had a gun strapped to their sides that within an hour everybody in the World would be shot dead? Can you see the value of gun ownership?

I don’t for a moment suggest we give mentally disturbed, out of control people guns. Though I don’t agree with the back door control some law makers are considering in denying any child drugged by their school to make them more compliant as being mentally disturbed and ineligible for gun ownership for life. There are plenty of people with depression that is controlled and those people function as healthily as any normal person and shouldn’t be denied a gun. Unfortunately as bad as the government has proven they view this subject, they can’t be trusted with any infringement.

I would ask you to please read the booklet (PDF file) at this address: http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/...s4-2-Print.pdf it’s not a radical gun slinging propaganda piece, it is a compilation of facts all of which have their source listed. I think you might find it very surprising to see that just the opposite of what anti gun people think is true, is true. No place in the entire World has stiffer gun control netted in anything but criminals being alerted that “here is where to commit violent crime with no risk” and violent crime goes up sharply. Why our law makers don’t see that is beyond my understanding, they seem to be educated people.

Imagine this; you are an armed criminal and before you are two houses, each has a million dollars cash stacked in the living room. One house is a gun free zone so there are no guns there; the other is an NRA Member with a gun in every room and one on his side ready to protect himself and his family from intruders. Which house are you going to rob? So if your community decides to announce they are cracking down on gun ownership; the best thing you could do is move immediately to an area where you can own a gun and criminals know it.

I hope this helps and I hope I didn’t sound like a radical gun owner. Hopefully this and the booklet I suggest reading will show you why we (law biding gun owners) sound so frustrated with the dialog of anti gun people. Just like everything else, you don’t have to own one, just don’t take mine especially since mine is just as much a protector of you and your family and my family. The criminals don’t know if it’s you or me that have the gun unless gun laws tell them. And besides if you and your family are standing in line with me in a store where some crazed man starts shooting, I will protect you as I protect myself. Wouldn’t that be nice?

Bill