A man apparently angry over a poor performance evaluation entered an Ohio State University maintenance building early Tuesday and opened fire, killing a manager before turning the gun on himself, police said.Larry Wallington, 48, a building services manager at the OSU Maintenance Building, was pronounced dead at the scene of the 3:30 a.m. ET shooting, Ohio State University Police Chief Paul Denton said. Wallington was a 10-year university employee, he said.
Authorities found suspect Nathaniel Brown, 51, a custodial worker, suffering from a self-inflicted gunshot at the scene, Denton said. He was transported to the Ohio State University Medical Center, where he was dead on arrival.
Gun rights advocates often say the problem is that Universities are gun-free zones and when someone decides to do this there's no one to stop them. I've always had a problem with the image of armed teachers and University employees carrying guns as a deterrent or a solution. It seems to me that would escalate the problem and there'd be more bloodshed not less.
My solution, on the other hand, is to make it harder, much harder for guys like Nathaniel Brown to get guns. In order to accomplish this legitimate gun owners would have to pay a price in inconvenience, but it would be well worth it.
Which response do you think makes most sense? Please leave a comment.
What kind of "inconvenience" do you want, and what are you willing to lose to get it?
ReplyDeleteSerious question. Are you interested in equivalent and fair exchange in terms of what the other readers term "anti-gun legislation"?
I think most of them would be willing to at least consider your proposals if you agreed to consider removing restrictions in another place as an exchange.
What sort of gun control do you think would work?
ReplyDeleteAlso, who is responsible for the "gun free" zone's failure?
I'll choose the Jade Gold approach:
ReplyDeleteGuns are forbidden there, no one would break that law. Myth, urban legend, didn't happen.
Kevin:
ReplyDelete"Also, who is responsible for the "gun free" zone's failure?"
Isn't it obvious? Gun owners are responsible for gun related events, so antis are responsible for the gun free zones they demand.
Only fair.
My solution, on the other hand, is to make it harder, much harder for guys like Nathaniel Brown to get guns. In order to accomplish this legitimate gun owners would have to pay a price in inconvenience, but it would be well worth it.
ReplyDeleteI ask this quite frequently but never get a response: what gun proposed gun law would have stopped this incident? Seriously Mike, if you're going to be putting all of the blame on gun owners, the least you can do is tell us what gun law we should be supporting. If you can't do that, I assume that you don't have any real solutions and are just using this as an excuse to push more gun control.
Guy - MikeB and his ilk want to restrict our rights, they want to ban guns.
ReplyDeleteCompromise? They don't know the meaning of the word. They just want us to give up our rights. They give up nothing.
Mikeb: "My solution, on the other hand, is to make it harder, much harder for guys like Nathaniel Brown to get guns. In order to accomplish this legitimate gun owners would have to pay a price in inconvenience, but it would be well worth it."
ReplyDelete1) What RuffRidr said.
2) And when you have made it "harder, much harder" for people to own guns, and guys like Nathaniel Brown STILL get guns, then what?
"My solution, on the other hand, is to make it harder, much harder for guys like Nathaniel Brown to get guns."
ReplyDeleteThere's only a few ways to make that happen Mikeb, and most of them are not rooted in reality.
1) Un-invent the firearm. (Good luck with that. I'll fire up the Delorean for ya.)
2) Ban all guns, everywhere around the world, and destroy them, along with all knowledge of them -- otherwise, they'll get made again. (Good luck with this one, too.)
3) Draconian super-long sentencing for all crimes. In some cases, this will be completely without merit (such as petty larceny, or cheating on your taxes) and in other cases (rape, murder) it will be perfectly justified. (This one could actually work, but good luck getting judges to do it.)
Somehow, none of those seem realistic to me. How about you?
Now, as RuffRidr has asked, I too would like to hear what you propose. If you have something, let's hear it.
As usual, though, you are focusing on the object. Do you really think he wouldn't have carried out this crime with a different weapon if he couldn't gain access to a gun? I don't.
In fact, as unmotivated and lazy as he seemed, I suspect he would have chosen to run them over with his car, if he couldn't get a gun. That's just an opinion, of course, but maybe we could ban everyone from having cars, just in case.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteMy solution, on the other hand, is to make it harder, much harder for guys like Nathaniel Brown to get guns.
Has there been any indication that Brown had a history that would have made it possible to deny his right to armed self-defense, without a blanket prohibition on everybody? If not, the only thing that could have prevented him from arming himself--even ignoring illegal sources of guns--would be to make it "harder, much harder" for everyone to get guns--that sounds like more than "inconvenience."
And "harder, much harder" isn't impossible. If making it impossible to get guns is your goal, have the integrity to come out and say it. If not, you have to acknowledge that unless he was somehow a "prohibited person," there is no way he could have been prevented from legally getting a firearm, if he were willing to jump through your "harder, much harder" hoops.
If he was a "prohibited person," you have a new problem--the fact that he got the gun anyway, despite all laws against it.
I really don't get this trading business. This is not a bartering session. We're talking about what's right and what's best. You guys who want to know what are we willing to give up sound like 10-year-olds in the school yard trading marbles.
ReplyDeleteFirst we need to have background checks on all gun transfers. That's the main thing that's missing.
Why is it childish? Yes, the arguement is what's right and what's best: the gun owners and what's right against the antis and their opinions of "what's best".
ReplyDeleteI only propose exchange because most anti-gun folk refer to getting what they want as a "compromise", when it's nothing of the sort.
Heck, look at here: After Dunblane, we "compromised" and banned everything but .22 target pistols.
Then we banned them a year later.
All I'm trying to point out is if a suggestion is truly sensible, it will give as much as it takes away.
My counterproposal: require background checks, but open NICS to everyone, not just FFLs.
MikeB, before we have bacground checks on all transfers, we need to get the NICS system upgraded to a point that it can work for those not "in the buisiness" with an FFL. Better yet, implement the BIDS system, and scrap NICS.
ReplyDeleteHow's that sound?
"I really don't get this trading business. This is not a bartering session."
ReplyDeleteNo, it's not. It's an attempt by you and yours to further infringe upon our individual right to keep and bear arms. But, we're playing nice and listening to your ideas, if you've actually got any.
"You guys who want to know what are we willing to give up sound like 10-year-olds in the school yard trading marbles."
Or, sort of like Congress debating how to screw over the entire country with Obamacare....
Actually, it's called compromise. You want us to further give in to infringements upon our rights, but you are not willing to concede anything? I think Mike W. nailed it. You want us to do all the giving and you to do all the getting. Not very sportsmanlike.
"First we need to have background checks on all gun transfers. That's the main thing that's missing.
Like California, and New Jersey, and New York. And Illinois, and a few others, unless I'm mistaken.
Okay, and when that fails...? What's next?
MikeB: “First we need to have background checks on all gun transfers. That's the main thing that's missing.”
ReplyDeleteSure, I’m all for that. I support that so long as private transfers are still legal. There would have to be a system in place for private parties to use the instant background check system, and the logistics would have to be worked out so as not to be an invasion of privacy (I shouldn’t be able to see which one of my friends has had a felony conviction or been prescribed Prosac for a deep depression). Are you for a system like that, or are you only interested in banning private transfers? Including myself, I have seen many other gun-rights advocates support such a measure. Will you stop saying we fight every inconvenience to gun owners?
Now what's second?
-TS
Mikeb: "I really don't get this trading business. This is not a bartering session. We're talking about what's right and what's best. You guys who want to know what are we willing to give up sound like 10-year-olds in the school yard trading marbles."
ReplyDeleteThere are many who DON'T agree that what you want is what's right and what's best, BUT some of us may nonetheless be willing to compromise -- but you won't compromise.
Mikeb: "First we need to have background checks on all gun transfers."
ReplyDeleteOnce again, your wording reveals the problem.
If a doctor tells me that my headache might be relieved by a series of painful shots "first," I might consider it but only after I ask:
"Before I agree to what's FIRST, I want to know what's NEXT."
Mikeb302000, I'm not asking to barter. I just want you to answer my question: what proposed gun law would have prevented this incident? If you continue to dodge the question, then we assume the answer is none. If that's the case, I really don't see how you can blame this on gun owners. I will fully consider your proposed solution, if it actually exists.
ReplyDeleteDo pro-gun folks really consider opening up the NICS to everyone a trade-off? I don't see the benefit to you guys in that.
ReplyDeleteBackground checks on all transfers might require that, but they could alse require a trip to an FFL guy who for a small fee does the deal.
To the question of what would have prevented this particular shooting, obviously I couldn't know that. But by tightening up the laws and enforcing them properly, I can see a situation in which only the really determined crooks or the rich ones will bother to get guns. Of course the same inconvenience will affect lawful gun owners, so only the really passionate or the ones who live in places where their lives depend on armed self defense will get guns. It would be a better world.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteBut by tightening up the laws and enforcing them properly, I can see a situation in which only the really determined crooks or the rich ones will bother to get guns. Of course the same inconvenience will affect lawful gun owners, so only the really passionate or the ones who live in places where their lives depend on armed self defense will get guns.
I notice that you left out the "or the rich ones" in reference to lawful gun owners, but I assume that you would acknowledge that the barriers you wish to impose on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms (you know--the right that shall not be infringed) include increased expense.
You would, in other words, impose a wealth test on gun ownership. Given the economic disparity between whites and African-Americans, that's kinda racist, isn't it? Roy Innis (Chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality for over 40 years) thinks so:
To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you're putting a money test on getting a gun. It's racism in its worst form.
What's next, Mikeb--a poll tax?
To the question of what would have prevented this particular shooting, obviously I couldn't know that.
ReplyDeleteYet, we're still to blame because we don't support implementing whatever it is that won't prevent these types of shootings in the first place. Got it.
It would be a better world.
Clearly. As Britain (no longer Great) shows us, once guns are out of the equation, the violent crime rate will go down. Oh wait.
Turns out the shooter, that took a gun illegally into the University, to commit illegal criminal acts was already a criminal and obtained his gun illegally. Who would have thunk it?
ReplyDeleteCriminals break laws.
Another example of gun control FAIL.
MikeB: “Background checks on all transfers might require that, but they could alse require a trip to an FFL guy who for a small fee does the deal.”
ReplyDeleteWhy? If it can be done in the home with private access to the NCIS, why make the FFL trip? You see, we’ve offered a perfect example of a compromise where we are willing to accept the inconvenience, but it seems that you are more interested in the increased inconvenience than results. And I don’t consider $75 a “small fee”.
-TS
RuffRidr sarcastically said, "Clearly. As Britain (no longer Great) shows us, once guns are out of the equation, the violent crime rate will go down. Oh wait."
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Britain, aren't they supposed to be suffering under out-and-out tyranny by now? Shouldn't the dissidents have been rounded up by now and put in concentration camps? All communications should be monitored too I guess. "Step outa line, the man co-ome and take you away," as the old Crosby, Stills and Nash song said.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Britain, aren't they supposed to be suffering under out-and-out tyranny by now? Shouldn't the dissidents have been rounded up by now and put in concentration camps? All communications should be monitored too I guess. "Step outa line, the man co-ome and take you away," as the old Crosby, Stills and Nash song said.
The UK is probably still months, or even years, away from sending cattle cars full of the politically incorrigible to the camps, but it's not a place for liberty lovers. The most surveilled industrialized Western nation, where new laws are added more than daily (some of them bizarre), and where a woman who waves a knife in the window at peeping-Toms is told she committed a crime--that's the kind of Orwellian nightmare the U.S. is headed for, if the collectivists aren't stopped.
TS, Is there another advantage to opening up the NICS to everyone besides the convenience and savings you mentioned?
ReplyDeleteTS, Is there another advantage to opening up the NICS to everyone besides the convenience and savings you mentioned?
ReplyDeleteYeah, the advantage would be that all sales legally would require a background check so that a private seller would know that they are not selling to a criminal. There is no convenience or savings over the current situation which is no federal requirement for background checks on private sales.
-TS