Pittsburgh mass shooting: What gun laws would have helped?

[Kythas]

http://sensiblyprogressive.blogspot.com ... -club.html


As another mass shooting assaults us all, leaving us feeling less safe and acutely aware that an insane person can appear anywhere to do murder, we ponder what we can do to stop this kind of madness. George Sodini, 48, of Scott Township, Pa., outwardly a normal man, committed this massacre, but are there laws we could pass to keep us safe from such men in the future?

Now I realize that while anti-gun sites immediately scream for more gun laws after a mass murder, it's also true that pro-gun sites (such as mine) immediately "circle the wagons" and defend open access to guns for all. I would like this post to be different, and in this post I'd like to look at the details we have for this mass shooting, and for other notable ones, and honestly review what gun laws among those in consideration might help.

I do recognize that a mass murder like this is more heinous than statistics reveal. In a nation of 300 million people Sodini killed five and wounded others, which compared to the yearly murder rate isn't even a blip. But most of the violence in the US is between people involved in the drug trade and takes place in neighborhoods which have allowed drug trade violence to predominate, and the rest is directed and purposeful (rob a person, steal a car, etc.) and so is perceived as avoidable. Or at least with an understandable criminal motive.

But a mass murder is different, as it can happen even in the places we consider the most safe and wholesome, and if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time you can be killed in the blink of an eye. With no way to avoid it and no understandable reason for it. Because of this mass murders cause inordinately high terror in the general population, even though as individuals we are all many times more likely to be murdered for other reasons, to the extent we are likely to be murdered at all.

In the wake of the P.A. shooting anti-gun sites, such as Mikeb and gunguys, have made their normal generic appeal for more gunlaws/gun bans, holding up the bodies as reasons for them, without taking details into consideration to make a specific request.

Mike B(http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2009/08 ... t-gym.html):

... The only way I can see to improve things is through stricter and better enforced gun control laws. I realize this would inconvenience legitimate gun owners, but it would also prevent some of the nuts like this Pennsylvania shooter from getting their hands on guns.


gunguys.com(http://www.gunguys.com/?p=3465):


The gun lobby perpetuates the myth that "law-abiding" gun owners don't commit crimes -- until they massacre innocent people in a shooting rampage.

The madman who fatally shot three women in a fitness center outside Pittsburgh planned the massacre for months and "chickened out" on at least one other attempt, his venom-spewing journal reveals.



I can certainly live with an inconvenience that makes my family safer. I deal daily with such inconveniences, such as keeping my doors locked, keeping smoke detectors in the house, and on occasion carrying a firearm in case a madman like Sodini (or normal criminal) pops up. But I can only accept inconveniences that will actually do something worthwhile, not just make someone feel better about US gun laws or assuage their fear of firearms. I haven't seen all the details of this case, but the problem is that many of these mass murderers simply haven't done anything to stop them from being legitimate gun owners until they go off the deep end.

So what, of the current menu of gun control laws being pushed by anti-gun groups, would help?

1. One gun a month? No.
Sodini really only needed one gun to do what he did, though he had (UPDATE 3). But he planned this for more than 3 months in advance anyway.

2. Background check for all gun sales/end gun shows/universal gun registration? No.
This man apparently could pass a background check and purchased his guns legally, as have other mass murderers.

3. Limit rounds per magazine to 10? No.
It takes less than 3 seconds to change a magazine. People turn and run when a madman starts shooting, and the 3 second interval to change a mag neither gives them time to turn and attack or make an escape through a crowded exit (one of Cho's guns had a 10 round mag).

4. End legal concealed carry? No.
This man may have had a license (no details yet) but having it or not wouldn't have affected this pre-planned assault. If he's ready to commit murder/suicide, he's not worried about risking a concealed carry charge. And while it didn't help in this case, there are many situations where having someone who can fight back saves lives (i.e. the New Life Church assault in Colorado Springs).

5. Bullet serialization/microstamping/etc? No.
Mass Murderers generally intend suicide. They don't care if their guns are traced back to them after the fact.

6. Assault Weapons Ban? No.
It appears he used pistols only, but it doesn't matter. Even if all he'd had access to was a "normal hunting type" pump shotgun, that is a weapon proven to be most effective at killing a lot of people. Probably would have been more effective than what he did bring. Any kind of gun is very effective against an unarmed crowd.

7. Complete ban on ALL guns? Yes.
Although a complete ban on all guns wouldn't stop the serious criminal/drug trade person from getting guns, as they are already connected to a "black market" type pipeline to supply whatever they want, many mass killers are not originally criminals and wouldn't have easy access to this pipeline. But would he just have chosen another means(http://sensiblyprogressive.blogspot.com ... rders.html)? No one can say.

8. Some kind of system that only an owner can use his firearm? No.
This guy was the legal owner of his firearms, as are many mass murderers.

9. Safe storage/lost gun laws/etc. No.
For obvious reasons.

So out of all the gun laws I know of being presented for consideration, none would have affected Sodini at all except for a TOTAL gun ban, which even most anti-gun groups claim they are against (because they support the rights of hunters). And that's the biggest tragedy of mass murders ... there's nothing you can do with people like this but try to identify them ahead of time(was anybody reading his hateful Internet ramblings) and make sure that people are empowered to fight back when they appear. Which means mass murders are a reason to support expanding CCW, not limiting it, even though it's not a magic panacea that helps us out in every situation. But it has already saved lives in a few, and isn't saving a few lives better than saving none?

So when when the anti-gun groups trot out the relatives of victims of this massacre and others, heartlessly manipulating them to use their dead loved ones to push for laws that didn't affect their situation at all and other laws that possibly made the situation worse, please keep this in mind.

There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 90 million people in this country that have access to firearms, and citizens use their firearms 10's of thousandsof times a year (at least) to defend themselves and their families (a couple thousand stories here). So instead of throwing our hands up in defeat, or using the energy generated by this to debate gun laws that have no merit to help avoid another attack, let's honestly look for laws to affect the mass murderers without leaving the other 89,999,997 civilians disarmed. Because the gun control mentioned would also leave our society at risk over the long term, as we have seen what can happen to disarmed societies elsewhere in the world.

The concept of an armed society is one which reasonable and intelligent people can debate and disagree upon. But there is no question the current mantra of gun laws being pushed for would not have affect Sodini or many of the other mass murderers we have seen pop up in recent years.

What laws would help? I don't have the answer here either. But I know I'd rather see some positive discusions, rather than just another heated, distracting debate over gun control that won't affect the next shooter at all.

[Purplehood]

There is no valid answer.

You can follow every law in the book and still come up with a way to produce a lethal weapon that can be used to kill others. That could be a firearm or it could be your car. A determined individual is always going to find a method to accomplish what they desire.

Your points regarding existing and suggested gun-control measures are all valid. Enforcing any kind of law, whether it already exists or not is going to be an exercise in futility. My argument is that you cannot stop a determined individual from committing a crime such as this with any sort of weapon, let alone firearms.

There is not much that society in general can do about the determined sociopath with a homicidal bent. Even if you can identify them, it is exceedingly difficult to legally restrain them unless they have previously displayed an intent to harm themselves or others. Until then, you are simply at their mercy.

[frazzled]

*Here's one. Psychos that post on a blog that they are going to shoot up a place should be, I don't know, checked out?

*Open carry should be required of all adults of voting age without history of mental illness, criminal background, or predisposition to cut in front of me in the parking lot.

*Due to the current economic environement, and in order to foster a greener, more energy efficient America, a land of change that I can believe in, there will be a bullet budget bailout announcement shortly.

[Kythas]

True, Purple. As I saw on another blog:

"Take the gun away from a person who has made the decision to commit murder, and you still have a person who has made the decision to commit murder. Only the tool he uses is in question."

[Captain Matt]

7. Complete ban on ALL guns? Yes.

Only if it really included ALL guns, including the government.

[mr surveyor]

7. Complete ban on ALL guns? Yes.

Only if it really included ALL guns, including the government.

my pointy stick is sharper than yours!


surv

[KD5NRH]

7. Complete ban on ALL guns? Yes.

Only if it really included ALL guns, including the government.

And all metalworking equipment.

[nitrogen]

FYI:

Lifetime fitness bans guns at all their locations.

[jimlongley]

7. Complete ban on ALL guns? Yes.

Only if it really included ALL guns, including the government.

And all metalworking equipment.

And all knowledge that guns ever existed and how to make gunpowder - when I was a kid we used to make "zip guns" without much in the way of tools.

[Excaliber]

7. Complete ban on ALL guns? Yes.

Only if it really included ALL guns, including the government.

And all other nations' government's guns.

[wheelgun1958]

And all other nations' government's guns.

And pointy sticks. And fresh fruit.

[MoJo]

Let's suffice it to say there are enough laws on the books that could have prevented what happened. Murder in any form, the last time I checked, was against the law in every civilized nation in the world. Not to mention against the teachings of all mainstream religions Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, etc murder is wrong.

More laws isn't the answer. I don't know what the answer is, or if there even is an answer. There are too many stupid laws already and another knee jerk reaction by some elected jerk won't solve the problem.

[bdickens]

Short answer: no.

Long answer: No law can possibly prevent crime. At best, laws define what is and is not a crime. At worst, laws actually create crime by creating a new criminal class out of heretofore law-abiding citizens.

[XDgal]

What gun laws would have helped? None. Not a single one. Laws don't prevent crime, they punish crime. That's the flaw in the logic of trying to prevent crime with laws. It's the punishment that prevents crime, but, if you know you won't be caught, or, as in this case, where the perp shoots himself at the end, the threat of punishment has no effect at all. The only way to prevent all crime, is by removing every human from the earth. As long as there are more than two people on this planet (there are 6.8 billion now), there will be crime. If victims refuse to be victims that will mitigate the problem, but, even that doesn't really prevent crime, just maybe changes the outcome. Bdickens said it well.( and was typing at the same time as I) Crime, by definition, is what the law says it is, and is always after the fact.

[Frost]

Words on paper cant stop evil.