Columbine stuff
Hedi Yewman, pondering the Columbine tragedy, lists things that have not happened that she finds shocking in light of Columbine:
Colorado and Oregon immediately passed initiatives requiring background checks at gun shows. Today 32 states still do not require background checks on gun purchases at gun shows including Washington.
The weapons used by the Columbine shooters were obtained through straw purchases. Such a measre would have made no difference.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 1994 and was not renewed, putting guns like Tech-9s back on the streets.
Actually, it expired in 2004. The company that makes Tec-9s has gone out of business and a Tec-9 functions identically to, say, a Glock. And the Columbine incident happened in 1999, while the ban was in effect.
In 2005 Congress passed and the president signed into law a measure that, astonishingly, provides immunity from prosecution for gun manufacturers and sellers.
And this would have prevented Columbine?
The National Rifle Association is pushing hard to pass “take-your-guns-to-work” laws in all 50 states that would turn companies into criminals if they barred guns on their private property. So far the legislation has been introduced in 11 states.
And this would have prevented Columbine?
Seven states have passed legislation that eliminates a citizen’s duty to avoid a threat, and allow the use of deadly force before other options when a gun user simply feels threatened.
That is a gross misrepresentation of the bill. And would not have prevented Columbine.
April 17th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Wow…don’t these people even fact check?
The most glaring is the bit about “providing immunity from prosecution for gun manufacturers and sellers.’
Prosecution is something that is done by the state. Criminal charges. Meaning the manufacturer/seller broke the law. The law does nothing of the sort ( that manufacturers and wholesalers almost never break the law, because they’re always selling to FFLs is beside the point.)
The law shields makers and sellers from civil suits over criminal misuse of something they sold legally.
What might have prevented Columbine? How about if the school were like schools in Israel, with armed teachers, many, if not most, of whom have been in the military, and who probably have training on what to do with those guns if there are shooters in the school? Notice that the PLO (and its descendants) don’t target Israeli schools, despite having access to much better stuff than Dylan and Kleibold.
April 17th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
It needs repeating, over and over, that a large majority of these mass murders take place in “gun free zones”.
Just imagine the scenario; Two murderes are walking into a school, bent on some mass killing. The see a sign over the door saying “Gun Free Zone”, so they say to one another, “Dang, I guess we have to go somewhere else, ’cause we can’t come in here with our guns – sign says so”.
RRRIIIGGGHHHTTT! Yet that is what we are to believe would actually happen if we are to accept the gun free zone concept.
We should also consider that fact that the local police sat hunkered down outside the school for hours while the killings were taking place inside. Not to blame the police – it’s not in their charter to protect you. The point is that self defense, aside from being a protectd right, is the best and most reliable crime stopper.
April 18th, 2006 at 1:07 am
I think Columbine really opened a lot of LEO eyes on the whole ‘active shooter’ scenario. It just wasn’t something they’d ever considered before that-shooters who were there just to kill people, who weren’t trying to achieve any other end.
One thing that the cops did do right here a few months back during the Tacoma Mall shooting-once the first cops on scene had a quorum, they moved in. Not SWAT team guys either-just the occupants of the first few patrol cruisers to arrive on scene.
April 18th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
The weapons used by the Columbine shooters were obtained through straw purchases. Such a measre [sic] would have made no difference.
That does not, in and of itself, make such checks a bad idea. In fact, I’ve long argued that gun rights activists ought to concede this one, since they lose virtually nothing as a result, and would be able to point to it as evidence that they are, in fact, willing to submit to common sense measures in deed as well as in word.
As to the immunity bills, those are idiotic for reasons having nothing to do with gun laws or gun control.