I've had a chance to calm myself and get some information in order. The cries for gun control, that the NRA needs to be stopped, that Virginia's gun laws are too lax and need to be tightened and so on are circulating. The unwashed masses are coming out and crying to the skies.
The problem is they are completely clueless about what they are talking about.
It is time to start countering this before it can get some traction. I wish to address two things that are flying.
"High Capacity Clips"
First, ABC News has been reporting, with a little "help" from Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign that "high capacity ammo clips" were part of why this massacre could occur and about how they need to be restricted, how Congress failed to renew the "assault weapon" ban that also banned these "evil" devices.
One, they are "magazines", not "clips". Hollywood and the media is to blame for not knowing the distinction. A "clip" holds ammunition together. A "magazine" is what feeds the ammunition into the chamber of a firearm. Not many firearms (the M1 Garand being a notable exception) use both.
Second, the lapsed ban on high capacity ammunition feeding devices did not "ban" their possession or sale, only their manufacture. They were available for sale during the entire period the ban was in effect. Not that this matters at all but I state this so you understand what the law really did rather than have things being spun by those with an agenda.
The two pistols used by the VA Tech shooter were both magazine-fed.
The .22 pistol he used, a Walther P22 uses 10 round magazines. I do not know if higher capacity magazines are available. Doubtful. The .22LR round has feeding problems as you increase the number of rounds without careful magazine design. And the standard P22 magazines are not cheap and they work well. I know. I own a P22.
The Glock 19 9mm pistol has a variety of magazine sizes available for it. 10 round, 15 round and more. Even assuming the shooter had 15 round magazines (pretty standard for 9mm), so what? The information about the shooting has made it clear he had several magazines on a vest while he was carrying out his rampage. Magazine capacity in this instance made no difference and I'm going to tell you why.
This guy went in prepared. It is obvious to me, an experienced shooter, that he had practice in handling pistols. The presence of visible magazines on a vest is the key. That indicated this killer was prepared and able to do fast magazine changes.
To those of you who don't understand, let me explain. It is called a combat or tactical reload.
In the Glock and P22 (like most semi-automatic pistols), the slide moves and feeds a round into the chamber after the previous one is fired. When the last round is fired and the slide moves back, a catch causes the slide to lock in an open position. At this point, the user hits the magazine release with the trigger hand and allows the empty magazine to fall away to the floor. At the same moment, the free hand is pulling a loaded magazine free and sliding it into the gun. As soon as it is locked into place, the trigger hand hits the slide release causing it to fly forward and chamber a fresh round. The gun is ready to fire again.
Done properly, this whole process takes about 2-3 seconds. To do so effectively, it requires you to know where the extra magazines are and are able to reach them quickly and easily. Placing them on a vest and being able to do it by feel is one way. I know. I've done it.
This cold analysis is why whether this person used standard or high capacity magazines is irrelevant. With a little practice (a few hours with a shooter comfortable with a pistol is all it takes), this guy could have fired a magazine empty and be reloaded, for all intents and purposes, instantly from the perspective of someone unfamiliar with what he was doing.
Five, ten or fifty rounds per magazine would have made no difference. As long as this murderer had brought along enough magazines to carry the ammunition he figured he needed for his plan, their capacity would not have mattered. 4x15 would have made no difference over 6x10 or 1x50.
What might have made a difference was the fact probably none of these students were aware or were able to observe these magazine changes. With some knowledge, maybe someone in the know could have charged this madman in those few seconds while he was empty and tackled him down. Perhaps not. We don't know if someone did or not.
But it would have been a chance and one that might have been worth taking.
"Non-Citizens and Lax Gun Laws"
Now, folks are beginning to wail about Virginia's lax gun laws, about how "easy" it was for this disturbed individual to get guns when he should have, how was it possible for a non-citizen to get guns and so on.
Let me lay out the facts for you as they are known as of this morning.
The problem is they are completely clueless about what they are talking about.
It is time to start countering this before it can get some traction. I wish to address two things that are flying.
"High Capacity Clips"
First, ABC News has been reporting, with a little "help" from Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign that "high capacity ammo clips" were part of why this massacre could occur and about how they need to be restricted, how Congress failed to renew the "assault weapon" ban that also banned these "evil" devices.
One, they are "magazines", not "clips". Hollywood and the media is to blame for not knowing the distinction. A "clip" holds ammunition together. A "magazine" is what feeds the ammunition into the chamber of a firearm. Not many firearms (the M1 Garand being a notable exception) use both.
Second, the lapsed ban on high capacity ammunition feeding devices did not "ban" their possession or sale, only their manufacture. They were available for sale during the entire period the ban was in effect. Not that this matters at all but I state this so you understand what the law really did rather than have things being spun by those with an agenda.
The two pistols used by the VA Tech shooter were both magazine-fed.
The .22 pistol he used, a Walther P22 uses 10 round magazines. I do not know if higher capacity magazines are available. Doubtful. The .22LR round has feeding problems as you increase the number of rounds without careful magazine design. And the standard P22 magazines are not cheap and they work well. I know. I own a P22.
The Glock 19 9mm pistol has a variety of magazine sizes available for it. 10 round, 15 round and more. Even assuming the shooter had 15 round magazines (pretty standard for 9mm), so what? The information about the shooting has made it clear he had several magazines on a vest while he was carrying out his rampage. Magazine capacity in this instance made no difference and I'm going to tell you why.
This guy went in prepared. It is obvious to me, an experienced shooter, that he had practice in handling pistols. The presence of visible magazines on a vest is the key. That indicated this killer was prepared and able to do fast magazine changes.
To those of you who don't understand, let me explain. It is called a combat or tactical reload.
In the Glock and P22 (like most semi-automatic pistols), the slide moves and feeds a round into the chamber after the previous one is fired. When the last round is fired and the slide moves back, a catch causes the slide to lock in an open position. At this point, the user hits the magazine release with the trigger hand and allows the empty magazine to fall away to the floor. At the same moment, the free hand is pulling a loaded magazine free and sliding it into the gun. As soon as it is locked into place, the trigger hand hits the slide release causing it to fly forward and chamber a fresh round. The gun is ready to fire again.
Done properly, this whole process takes about 2-3 seconds. To do so effectively, it requires you to know where the extra magazines are and are able to reach them quickly and easily. Placing them on a vest and being able to do it by feel is one way. I know. I've done it.
This cold analysis is why whether this person used standard or high capacity magazines is irrelevant. With a little practice (a few hours with a shooter comfortable with a pistol is all it takes), this guy could have fired a magazine empty and be reloaded, for all intents and purposes, instantly from the perspective of someone unfamiliar with what he was doing.
Five, ten or fifty rounds per magazine would have made no difference. As long as this murderer had brought along enough magazines to carry the ammunition he figured he needed for his plan, their capacity would not have mattered. 4x15 would have made no difference over 6x10 or 1x50.
What might have made a difference was the fact probably none of these students were aware or were able to observe these magazine changes. With some knowledge, maybe someone in the know could have charged this madman in those few seconds while he was empty and tackled him down. Perhaps not. We don't know if someone did or not.
But it would have been a chance and one that might have been worth taking.
"Non-Citizens and Lax Gun Laws"
Now, folks are beginning to wail about Virginia's lax gun laws, about how "easy" it was for this disturbed individual to get guns when he should have, how was it possible for a non-citizen to get guns and so on.
Let me lay out the facts for you as they are known as of this morning.
- The shooter was 23 years old. He was a lawful permanent resident (meaning he had a Green Card) of the United States.
- Both of his guns were purchased legally at a gun shop.
- Both of his guns were purchased more than 30 days apart in compliance with Virginia's "one gun a month" law.
- The shooter had no record of involuntary treatment for mental health disorders by the State.
What these facts mean, quite simply, is that there was absolutely nothing that could have been done to prevent this from happening until the moment he drew a gun and pulled the trigger.
Why? Because he did everything in accordance with the law up until that moment.
Yes, this man was a non-citizen. But he was a Permanent Resident. This means he had a "Green Card". Under the law, a permanent resident has more or less the same rights as a US citizen. Permanent residency is the last step in the path to US citizenship. It is a form of "citizenship probation". You get most of the rights and responsibilities of a citizen. The right to bear arms is one of these.
I am also a Permanent Resident and I own guns too.
Like a citizen, a permanent resident can buy guns if they submit to the process. We fill out the same background check form, provide ID and get the background check performed like anyone else. The only difference is we need to provide an additional proof of state residency and we must show we've resided in that state for 90 days (rather than 30 days for citizens). Otherwise, the background check is the same.
So, the shooter did exactly what was required of him. How are Virginia's gun laws lax? These are the same laws that are in place everywhere else in the country! In fact, Virginia does a state background check in addition to the required Federal background check. If anything, Virginia is stricter! Only 12 states do state-level background checks separate from the Federal check.
As a result, our non-citizen followed the law and bought his guns perfectly legally.
In the same vein, he had two handguns and all indications are he followed the required 30 day period between handgun purchases in Virginia. The "one gun a month" law so widely touted by gun control advocates as a solution to gun violence. He followed it to the letter.
As a result, he followed the law including the gun control laws in place. How were they lax?
The last issue that a lot of people are crying about is his signs of mental instability and why was he allowed to buy a gun?!? This goes to his legal purchases, bear with me.
This is a very common misconception that the media is doing nothing to correct. The idea that is you are mentally ill, have mental issues, being treated for problems, etc means you cannot buy a gun. This is not true.
You can only be denied a gun purchase for reasons of mental health if you have been committed involuntarily by the State! The background check form on this is clear. The State does not keep a database of everyone who is getting treated for depression by their family doctor, bi-polar disorder, etc. The only information the State can keep on your mental health history is if you have somehow managed to come to their attention for mental health disorders. Like attempted suicide and the Police investigate. That would be a possible disqualifier to get a gun. If you are committed to a State institution for this, you would be unable to own a gun in the future.
But you have be treated or processed by the State in order for this happen!
Acting disturbed, deranged writings, etc, although of deep concern are not grounds to deny a gun purchase. That is not the law. If this man was acting normally and quietly during the purchases, the dealer would have had no reason to suspect anything is wrong. A gun dealer does have the right as a business operator to deny sales to anyone they feel shouldn't be buying. But it is a business decision, not a legal requirement.
For those of you thinking the current process is lacking, be very careful of where you tread with this. They are already the ideas that you should have someone vouch for your mental stability as part of owning a gun. Like the guarantor of a passport. Such thinking is very dangerous because it vests power over you into an unelected group of people. There are lots of problems with such things. Like liability for those who would issue such guarantees. It takes away the impartiality and equality that the law is supposed to preserve. The potential for abuse is vast. And you must ask, would such requirements prevent this from happening again? All the laws and procedures in the world are impotent once a criminal gets a gun and chooses to act.
I look at this and I don't see failures in our existing gun laws. The laws were all complied with. Believe me, I would have preferred this madman to have gotten his guns illegally. That would have made it easier. But the facts are what they are and I won't hide or distort them. The shooter followed the law. The law did not fail us here.
The failures go deeper and are in many areas. The policies of Virginia Tech. The police responses. Our cultural conditioning to not to resist. This tragedy had its heroes. The Holocaust survivor who barricaded a door with his body to give his students time to jump out the windows.
But the failures that will be scrutinized and analyzed, debated and criticized had nothing to do with the law. More gun control will not be the answer here.
If you feel otherwise, I would like to know what changes in the law would have stopped this. But your answer has to take into account how you deal with such deranged people without violating the privacy or rights of others. Creating a mental health database from private medical records is not justifiable under any circumstance in a free society. Nor must it be simply "Let just get rid of all handguns!". Any suggestion must come with an explanation of how you plan to enforce such an act and prevent criminals for getting them after the fact.
I wish you luck because I have no solution for this. There is no way this could have predicted.
Whether it could have been stopped is another post.
But today's truth is the fact that the law did not fail us. I would advise the media to not fail us either.
But I don't expect it. Truth and journalism are two things long-detached from each other.
Why? Because he did everything in accordance with the law up until that moment.
Yes, this man was a non-citizen. But he was a Permanent Resident. This means he had a "Green Card". Under the law, a permanent resident has more or less the same rights as a US citizen. Permanent residency is the last step in the path to US citizenship. It is a form of "citizenship probation". You get most of the rights and responsibilities of a citizen. The right to bear arms is one of these.
I am also a Permanent Resident and I own guns too.
Like a citizen, a permanent resident can buy guns if they submit to the process. We fill out the same background check form, provide ID and get the background check performed like anyone else. The only difference is we need to provide an additional proof of state residency and we must show we've resided in that state for 90 days (rather than 30 days for citizens). Otherwise, the background check is the same.
So, the shooter did exactly what was required of him. How are Virginia's gun laws lax? These are the same laws that are in place everywhere else in the country! In fact, Virginia does a state background check in addition to the required Federal background check. If anything, Virginia is stricter! Only 12 states do state-level background checks separate from the Federal check.
As a result, our non-citizen followed the law and bought his guns perfectly legally.
In the same vein, he had two handguns and all indications are he followed the required 30 day period between handgun purchases in Virginia. The "one gun a month" law so widely touted by gun control advocates as a solution to gun violence. He followed it to the letter.
As a result, he followed the law including the gun control laws in place. How were they lax?
The last issue that a lot of people are crying about is his signs of mental instability and why was he allowed to buy a gun?!? This goes to his legal purchases, bear with me.
This is a very common misconception that the media is doing nothing to correct. The idea that is you are mentally ill, have mental issues, being treated for problems, etc means you cannot buy a gun. This is not true.
You can only be denied a gun purchase for reasons of mental health if you have been committed involuntarily by the State! The background check form on this is clear. The State does not keep a database of everyone who is getting treated for depression by their family doctor, bi-polar disorder, etc. The only information the State can keep on your mental health history is if you have somehow managed to come to their attention for mental health disorders. Like attempted suicide and the Police investigate. That would be a possible disqualifier to get a gun. If you are committed to a State institution for this, you would be unable to own a gun in the future.
But you have be treated or processed by the State in order for this happen!
Acting disturbed, deranged writings, etc, although of deep concern are not grounds to deny a gun purchase. That is not the law. If this man was acting normally and quietly during the purchases, the dealer would have had no reason to suspect anything is wrong. A gun dealer does have the right as a business operator to deny sales to anyone they feel shouldn't be buying. But it is a business decision, not a legal requirement.
For those of you thinking the current process is lacking, be very careful of where you tread with this. They are already the ideas that you should have someone vouch for your mental stability as part of owning a gun. Like the guarantor of a passport. Such thinking is very dangerous because it vests power over you into an unelected group of people. There are lots of problems with such things. Like liability for those who would issue such guarantees. It takes away the impartiality and equality that the law is supposed to preserve. The potential for abuse is vast. And you must ask, would such requirements prevent this from happening again? All the laws and procedures in the world are impotent once a criminal gets a gun and chooses to act.
I look at this and I don't see failures in our existing gun laws. The laws were all complied with. Believe me, I would have preferred this madman to have gotten his guns illegally. That would have made it easier. But the facts are what they are and I won't hide or distort them. The shooter followed the law. The law did not fail us here.
The failures go deeper and are in many areas. The policies of Virginia Tech. The police responses. Our cultural conditioning to not to resist. This tragedy had its heroes. The Holocaust survivor who barricaded a door with his body to give his students time to jump out the windows.
But the failures that will be scrutinized and analyzed, debated and criticized had nothing to do with the law. More gun control will not be the answer here.
If you feel otherwise, I would like to know what changes in the law would have stopped this. But your answer has to take into account how you deal with such deranged people without violating the privacy or rights of others. Creating a mental health database from private medical records is not justifiable under any circumstance in a free society. Nor must it be simply "Let just get rid of all handguns!". Any suggestion must come with an explanation of how you plan to enforce such an act and prevent criminals for getting them after the fact.
I wish you luck because I have no solution for this. There is no way this could have predicted.
Whether it could have been stopped is another post.
But today's truth is the fact that the law did not fail us. I would advise the media to not fail us either.
But I don't expect it. Truth and journalism are two things long-detached from each other.
2 comments:
Do you wonder if any of the victims had concealed weapon permits? How about anyone in the same buildings?
Suppose there were some who managed to get the warning of a murderer on the loose in the 2-hour interval between the first and second murder zones.
Ironic we can't check the list published by the Roanoke newpaper now. Notwithstanding the legislation to disallow victims to protect themselves, if any of what I have entered here has merit then a significant nail in the coffin of gun control could rationally be argued.
Is it 10 dollars per inquiry or per person?
I hope there wasn't a CHP holder among the victoms. That would be the worst for me.
And if there was a CHP holder who had warning, he would have been violating school policies by setting foot on campus with a gun.
Believe me, I wish there was someone like that around with the will and the good fortune to have encountered this guy. I can only use the benefit of hindsight and what I might have done under those circumstances. Much of what to do in events like this depends on your personal mental conditioning. It is hard to be sheepdog among sheep.
I have heard the cost is $10 and it is per person. You would have to call the Virginia Circuit Court and ask. I may make an inquiry to the Virginia State Police regarding if any of the victims possessed a valid CHP. But that would be a political act on my part in furtherance of an agenda. For now, that can wait.
Given the current political climate in Virginia over what the Roanoke Times did, I wouldn't wager on having much luck. If the shooter had a CHP, the VSP would have told us by now along with the other information about his purchases. They didn't which means he didn't have a permit. Be thankful for that at least.
If it comes out in the next few weeks or months that one or more the victims had a carry permit and was denied by VT policy from exercising their rights, that should create a firestorm. Because it would mean the tragedy might have been prevented or at least greater reduced. People should hang if that is the case.
Post a Comment