On The McLaughlin Group this morning they were discussing the shootings at Virginia Tech, and MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell seemed on the verge of violence of his own, as he made shooting motions with his hands, literally frothed at the mouth, and shouted down Pat Buchanan to say:
O'Donnell: It was a high-tech killing because the magazines he was using in his automatic weapon were illegal during the Clinton administration. He would not have been able to buy them if George Bush and the Republican Congress did not allow them to become sold to mentally ill people like this... There were kids on that campus who were brave enough and big enough to stop one person with a gun unless it was an automatic weapon that could spray the bullets, just spray them, Pat. That's why they couldn't stop him.
Buchanan: He didn't spray them. Who stopped him? Men with guns came on the campus. The good guys. If they'd been on campus there wouldn't have been that problem.
O'Donnell: If he'd had to squeeze one bullet at a time he wouldn't...
Buchanan: He did.
O'Donnell: No he didn't. You hold that trigger and it sprays. That's what he was doing. He was spraying the bullets.
Buchanan: You don't know anything about guns. That was a semi-automatic weapon.
That brief exchange told me something about the left's support of gun control that I had never realized before. They fear guns. They even hate guns. But they don't know a damned thing about them. Their crusade against guns is born primarily out of the kind of ignorance, misinformation, and unreasoning fear which Lawrence O'Donnell showed this morning.
I suppose that to make my point I have to catalog O'Donnell's factual errors.
1. The two guns Cho used in his killings did not have magazines which were banned during the Clinton administration. The Glock can take a larger magazine, but in Cho's video it is shown with the standard one which was never banned.
2. The Bush administration and the Republican Congress didn't pass any law to make selling guns to crazy people legal. The assault weapons ban expiration was built into the original bill by the Democrat congress which passed it. Plus the existing background check law precludes selling guns to people who are documented to be mentally ill.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Arch Conservative
Semi-automatic? Automatic? Spraying bullets?
I think you and I are pretty much in the same camp with regard to gun ownership and control Dave but I don't see why it is absolutely necessary to know the technical details of guns such as automatic vs. semiautomatic, caliber, clip count etc.....to formulate a reasoned argument on either side of the issue. Isn't it enough to know that all guns may provide an easy method for one to kill or harm another person if they so choose?
When I have children, which will most likely be in the next several years, I do not intend to have guns in my home. I believe that the only reason I would ever have one would be for protection if someone broke in. However I would fear that one of my children might find the gun, no matter how well hidden and secure, and have an unfortunate accident. So I choose never to have guns in my home. That's my personal choice.
However, I do believe that other law abiding responsible Americans should have the right to own and bear arms in their own homes as a method of protection or enjoyment if one pursues target shooting or something along those lines. I do believe in background checks and waiting periods
I also believe it is incumbent upon all of us as a society to encourage, promote and facilitate the proper education of those seeking to become gun owners. Just because you buy a gun doesn't mean you know how to use it. Indeed it is even more so incumbent upon the individual to ensure that they educate themselves.
Many on the left oppose gun ownership because they truly believe it would lead to less gun related fatalities in this country. While I can respect the desire to reduce gun fatalities I am completely at a loss to understand how any reasonable intelligent person would think that repealing the 2nd amendment would actually do so.
As the saying goes"whens gun's are outlawed only outlaws will own guns."
The only thing that repealing the 2nd amendment would do would be to make it more difficult for the peaceful law abiding citizens to protect themselves from those amongst us who are violent, anti scoial and have no respect for the lives of others.
And that is downright stupid no matter how you look at it.
2 - Lumpy
If you're going to talk about guns u ought to at least know the difference between a simple automatically fed pistol and a fucking machinegun. Spraying bullets from a p38 my ass. More liberal buffoonery on parade.
3 - RJ
"Lawrence O'Donnell and much of the left are in an irrational panic when it comes to guns. They want to ban them and control them because they don't understand them."
This is so very true. Pretty much anyone who has had any real-world experience with guns supports the Second Amendment and the right of law-abiding people to bear arms. Unfortunately, leftist media types usually don't have any real-world experience with guns, so they ignorantly think they are inherently evil.
Lawrence O'Donnell has zero credibility when it comes to firearms, or really anything else given his pathetic track record...
4 - RJ
"I want to stop by and renew my NRA membership while I still can."
Amen! I'm probably going to renew my membership in the NRA now as well. Our Constitutional gun rights are under assault, and all American gun owners need to stand up and defend their rights.
5 - Dave Nalle
Plus I got into the gun show for free by renewing my membership while I was there.
Dave
6 - Louis Orlando
As a retired law enforcement officer I can tell you that the police cannot protect you against an assault of any kind. Police react to crimes, they are not a preemptive force. If two thugs broke into Mr. Odonnell's home armed with a baseball bat and a tire iron, I'm sure Mr. O'Donnell could appeal to them on humanitarian grounds, but I'm also fairly certain he'd rather have a Colt .45 in his when he did it.
7 - MCH
Re #4;
You own a gun? Trying to compensate for something, are we?
8 - Dave Nalle
Technically he didn't say he owned a gun. He said he belonged to the NRA. Plenty of NRA members don't own guns.
And Louis, you echo what I've heard from every police officer I've ever discussed this issue with. There's a reason why police support concealed carry and castle laws.
Dave
9 - MCH
"When I have children...I do not intend to have guns in my home. I believe that the only reason I would ever have one would be for protection if someone broke in. However I would fear that one of my children might find the gun, no matter how well hidden and secure, and have an unfortunate accident. So I choose never to have guns in my home."
- Arch/Bing
Yeah, I mean, why would a guy leave a loaded hunting rifle by the back door, for the purpose of killing stray dogs and mountain lions, with a young daughter in the house?
10 - Dave Nalle
I believe your question answers itself, Emmy.
And AC, if you don't have guns in the house and don't teach your kids about guns, what happens when they go over to a friend's house and unbeknownst to you encounter a gun?
It makes more sense to me to teach kids about guns from an early age. Teach them to stay away from them and eventually how to use them. That works and it's for the best for them.
And again, it's the person who's the danger, not the gun. Teach the person to respect the gun and be responsible and there's no danger.
Dave
11 - Christopher Rose
This is one of those cases where your ideals are let down by the reality of the world, Dave. I can't imagine what kind of a country the USA would be if every single citizen was armed, but it would be a country I would never visit. I'd rather go to current day Iraq!
12 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Chris,
It sticks in my craw to do this (defend American society), but I feel I have to say this: you were once a soldier, and you certainly know one gun from another, but you seem to have forgotten that. An armed citizenry is not dangerous. A culture of violence is. There is a world of difference between the two.
What America suffers from is a culture of violence, and its media push this culture all the time. In addition, Americans drink too damned much. Americans are no more violent than Israelis are - except that Americans are more likely to let an argument escalate into a shooting incident than Israelis. In addition, the freer flowing alcohol in American society raises the level of violence there. Add the alcohol to the guns and a culture of violence, and you have a dangerous place.
For all this, if more Americans were armed as a matter of course, and if more Americans knew one weapon from another, instead of condemning them sight unseen, America would be a less violent and safer country. The irresponsible use of a gun would be more likely met with a bullet - and stopped. Think about Switzerland - where nearly all the men own guns and shooting is the national sport.
13 - Dave Nalle
Chris, see Ruvy's response. I certainly could not have said it better. And keep in mind that he comes from a society where everyone is armed. For that matter, everyone in Iraq is armed. You might want to consider a different vacation destination.
Dave
14 - Christopher Rose
Ruvy and Dave, when people are entirely rational beings, your ideas might possibly be worth considering. As it is, they simply sound like unworkable social engineering fantasies to me.
15 - mi
right on the money. i just read a great column on this revisionist spin on current events. looks like they aren't even waiting for it to be history.
16 - zingzing
ruvy: "An armed citizenry is not dangerous. A culture of violence is. There is a world of difference between the two."
how about when the armed citizenry and the culture of violence exist in the same world? in the same country even...
there may be a difference between the two, but they don't exist seperately. in fact, they feed off each other, don't they?
17 - ss
2/13/07 Teen Gunman Kills 5 in Utah Mall
4/16/07 32 Killed in Virginia Tech Massacre
Name one country with strict gun control where a shooting spree that killd five people was followed 8 weeks later by a shooting spree that 32 people.
18 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Zingzing,
"ruvy: 'An armed citizenry is not dangerous. A culture of violence is. There is a world of difference between the two.'
there may be a difference between the two, but they don't exist separately. in fact, they feed off each other, don't they?"
Not necessarily. In America, the citizenry is sort of armed, with a lot of wannabes, and the culture of violence in the media feeds off of the desires of the wannabes and the lack of discipline of the ones who are armed, who drink or otherwise abuse their minds, and who therefore lack self control, passing easily into violence.
In Israel, the citizenry is armed, but there is a tacit understanding amongst the population that the arms are to kill the enemy. There are violent fights, even between armed men, but the firearms are not used. Screaming, fists and pushing are.
19 - RJ
"You own a gun? Trying to compensate for something, are we?"
So asks the high school girls' volleyball writer for the Helena Independent Record...
Anyway, you certainly had no use for a firearms during your "Vietnam-era" service in ... wait for it ... HAWAII ...
20 - RJ
"I can't imagine what kind of a country the USA would be if every single citizen was armed"
Most are.
"but it would be a country I would never visit."
That's fine.
21 - alessandro Nicolo
I don't get comments like #4. MCH, where did (unless I misinterpeted then I apologize) the "compensation" theory come from? It reminds me of when I played organized sports. The overly intense, competitive and win at all cost athletes were always deemed to be compensating for something. Rubbish. They were winners. They wanted to win and they used to shake your hand after they lost. I know I was one of them. It's no different with guns. I used to skeet shoot with a nine-guage. I used to love taking dead-aim at something. It was for sport. Was I compensating for a small wee-wee?
Dave, what was Eleonore Clift saying? Did she shriek?
The only one who makes sense on a regular basis is Buchanan. That guy gives the others on the panel a LESSON. It may come as a surprise to some but he's actually written some pretty intelligent, balanced stuff about politics. Blankley is not bad either. Go figure. I don't sit on either side of the political pendelum but it's the conservatives who seem far more sharp. With Clift it becomes so boring and predictable with what she'll say. Less so with the Bukes and Blanks. I actually learn something from them. The liberals remind me of my high school history teachers.
22 - sr
To bad we dont have a hunting season for liberals.
23 - ss
Hey RJ
Can you name one country with strict gun control where a shooting spree that killed five people was followed 8 weeks later by a shooting spree that killed 32 people.
No?
You just gonna ignore that?
How about you Ruvy?
Dave?
Arch?
Lumpy?
You gonna pass on your big chance to show up a liberl, sr?
All you have to do is provide a factual answer.
24 - Clavos
ss,
Do you think you could implement "strict gun control" successfully in a country with an estimated 250-300 million guns already in circulation, and in which fully 41% of the electorate lives in a household with guns?
A country where despite stringent, vigorously enforced laws, illegal drugs are available in most schools and on street corners everywhere?
Good luck with that.
25 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
ss,
Try re-reading my comments. Let's try this ONE MORE TIME. Slowly. The United States is in the thrall of a culture of violence. You see it all around you - in the media, the schools and everywhere else you look.
In addition, let's make the following points. A weapon on a table is a piece of metal with a tube, a storage compartment, a firing (really a throwing) mechanism and a trigger. This is true either for a pistol or a rifle. An unarmed weapon on a table is a danger to nobody unless used to hit someone over the head.
For the weapon to become a danger in the accepted sense of the word, it requires a person to load the storage compartment with a clip of bullets (projectiles to be thrown), first of all. At that point, unless the firing pin is locked, the weapon can fire by accident, possibly killing somebody. That is an issue of weapon safety. If the loaded weapon does, G-d forbid, go off and does indeed, G-d forbid, kill somebody, the person whose negligence allowed for this event to occur is guilty of "manslaughter." His actions were not done intentionally, but he did not have sufficient respect for his weapon.
Any accident beyond an accidental firing of an unlocked weapon requires a person to pull the trigger of the weapon, causing the firing mechanism to throw a projectile. One of Ariel Sharon's sons was reputed to have been killed many years ago in just such an accident - where either the son or his friend pulled the trigger.
Finally, you have people acting out the cult of violence that has seized your nation like a fit seizes an epileptic. The shooting a few weeks ago was certainly an example of this. The shooting a few days ago at VT may have been an example of this. The shooter was not an American by culture, but may well have been influenced by its culture...