Gun Control is not the Issue – It’s Anti-Depressants
April 18, 2007I just commented on a post I saw on The Good Democrat, regarding Cho Seung-Hui. A ton of comments on this post centered around the whole gun-control issue, which honestly could not be further from the point in this case.
Gun control honestly isn’t the problem which, if addressed, would open the door to a handling (known in investigation circles as a “Wrong Why”) – just as much as curbing people’s ability to buy cars would stop them from being involved in a car accident.
A few things are at hand right now, though:
a) There are some extremely distraught, grieving people there in Blacksburg who need some help. There are simple things that anyone can do which can help in situations such as this, outlined on the Volunteer Ministers website. Most people would like to comment and spectate on things like this, but there’s honestly things that the average person can do which will help. Don’t know if you’ve ever had anyone shot or killed around you, but it tends to make one very disturbed and upset. You can help with this.
b) Cho Seung-Hui was on psychiatric drugs. Every other school shooting incident to date involved a kid who had been put on psychiatric drugs and then wigged out. See the facts on the kids involved here – it’s fully documented.
Now, reason I bring up (b) is that psychiatrists are there on the ground right now, trying to give people antidepressants to calm them down, right after a drugged madman shot up the school. It is going to do nothing for the grief these people are feeling right now, and will instead drug them and make them potential candidates for the next mishap. Drugs are NOT the answer.
So, if you know anyone at VT – make sure they stay off drugs, and use something more conventional – like a good friend, so as to get through this and then get back to life.
There are Salvation Army and Volunteer Ministers on the ground right now, and they need help, and they will give help. So whichever boat you’re in, you can contact them.
How about we admit they’re BOTH a problem?
[Written in 2004] “In the five year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990-1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law’s enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime — a drop of 66% from the pre-ban rate. Moreover, ATF trace data show a steady year-by-year decline in the percentage of assault weapons traced, suggesting that the longer the statute has been in effect, the less available these guns have become for criminal misuse.
Indeed, the absolute number of assault weapons traced has also declined. This decline is extremely significant to law enforcement and has clearly enhanced public safety, especially since these military-style weapons are among the deadliest ever sold on the civilian market. For example, if the Act had not been passed and the banned assault weapons continued to make up the same percentage of crime gun traces as before the Act’s passage, approximately 60,000 additional assault weapons would have been traced to crime in the last 10 years — an average of 6,000 additional assault weapons traced to crime each year.”
Cho’s Glock was covered by the ban, which was allowed to lapse in a Republican-controlled congress three years ago. Do you honestly think he could have killed as many people with a lesser gun?