iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Gun Permits: What The Latest Mass Killings Have In Common

DEBORAH HASTINGS   04/ 7/09 08:43 PM ET   AP

Gun Permits

They had more in common than unleashing carnage _ nearly every gunman in this monthlong series of mass killings was legally entitled to fire his weapons.

So what does that say about the state of gun control laws in this country? One thing appears certain: the regulations aren't getting stricter. Many recent efforts to change weapons laws have been about easing them.

Despite eight rampages that have claimed 57 lives since March 10, "it hasn't sparked any national goal to deal with this epidemic. In fact, it's going the other way," said Scott Vogel of the Freedom States Alliance, a gun control activist group.

Even President Barack Obama has felt that sway. Last month, 65 House Democrats said they would block any attempt to resurrect an expired federal ban against assault weapons.

The pro-gun Democrats, led by Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas, wrote Attorney General Eric Holder saying they opposed not only a ban on military-style guns, but also efforts "to pass any similar law."

Gun control issues would only produce "a long and divisive fight," they said, at a time when Congress should be focused on the roiling economy.

A few states are trying to loosen gun restrictions. In the Texas Capitol _ where legislators can carry guns _ bills easily passed the Senate in recent weeks that would allow employees to bring weapons to work as long as they leave them locked in their cars, and let those packing heat off the legal hook if they walked into a bar that didn't have signs saying guns weren't allowed inside.

The state also is considering allowing students licensed to carry a concealed weapon _ there are about 300,000 such adults in Texas _ to bring guns on campus.

Kansas plans to put a measure on its 2010 ballot that would rewrite the state constitution to make gun ownership a personal, rather than collective, right. In Tennessee, lawmakers made progress this month toward allowing guns to be carried in state and local parks.

"I think you're seeing a continuing change of culture," Vogel said. "I think the gun lobby wants to take away any stigma to gun ownership. I think they feel emboldened, like who's going to stop them?"

The National Rifle Association, the country's most powerful gun lobbying group, declined to comment this week on gun control laws. "Now is not the time to debate politics or discuss policy. It is time for families and communities to grieve and to heal," it said in a prepared statement.

Groups such as Vogel's, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, say existing laws are already too weak _ just look at the men who received gun permits, legally bought high-powered weapons, and then mowed down family, friends and total strangers in these past few weeks, they say.

Joining their outrage was the U.S. Conference of Mayors. "How many more gun-related acts of violence must we experience before the nation's leaders will decide that it is time to act?" asked president Manuel Diaz, mayor of Miami.

Gun enthusiasts say there is no way to prevent human beings from committing insane acts _ whether they have a gun permit or not. And studies conflict on whether stricter gun laws lessen gun violence.

On Friday, a depressed and angry Jiverly Wong used a 9 mm and .45-caliber handgun to kill 13 immigrants and service center employees in Binghamton, N.Y., police said. Earlier that day, the ethnic Chinese immigrant from Vietnam mailed an envelope to a Syracuse television station. In it were his gun permit, photos of him smiling while hoisting shiny, big handguns, and his driver's license.

Questions have been raised over the upstate New York gun permit issued to Wong in 1997. Two years later, he was reported to state police by an informer who claimed Wong was planning a bank heist to feed a crack-cocaine habit. Unlike other areas of the state, including New York City, Wong's Broome County permit did not have to be renewed.

Local authorities, however, have broad discretion in reviewing and revoking such permits, according to legal experts. Especially when it comes to drug use, criminal behavior and violence.

"In retrospect, this is probably not a guy who should have had a gun," said attorney Jeffrey Chamberlain, a former Rochester prosecutor and chief counsel to the New York State Police. "No one likes to see things fall through the cracks and it looks like this guy fell through the cracks."

Binghamton police chief Joseph Zikuski said Tuesday that no robbery occurred and there was no merit to review Wong's gun permit.

In New York City, gun permits are reissued every three years.

Yet, regulations differ only slightly between states, Chamberlain said. "They're fairly typical _ don't be a felon, don't be a drunk, don't beat your kids or your wife. Don't be so mentally unbalanced that you need be in an institution."

To Chamberlain, the answer to gun violence lies not in stricter regulations, but in answering the question, "Why are we so tolerant of having guns in this country? The answer to that is historical. We've had guns for a very long time.

"I can't think of any sweeping law change that would address that."

To Vogel, the answer to why atrocities happen in places such as Binghamton, and before that Washington state and Santa Clara, Calif., lies in sheer numbers.

The number 280 million, to be precise, the estimated total of every gun in this country.

"When you have that many guns, those guns are going to be used in horrific ways," Vogel said. "There's just too many. Inevitably, somehow, some way, those weapons are going to be used in an egregious way."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

They had more in common than unleashing carnage _ nearly every gunman in this monthlong series of mass killings was legally entitled to fire his weapons. So what does that say about the state of gun ...
They had more in common than unleashing carnage _ nearly every gunman in this monthlong series of mass killings was legally entitled to fire his weapons. So what does that say about the state of gun ...
Filed by Nick Graham  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,796
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (41 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Hobay
Refuse addictive oxycodone pain meds
11:57 AM on 04/10/2009
With legal gun shows, who needs a black market?
photo
OdinsEye
Korean-Latino cop and retired military combat vet
12:13 PM on 04/10/2009
Legal gun shows are nothing more than gatherings primarily of private citizens (not dealers) making private sales/transfers. Private sales/transfers can be done at a kitchen table, garage sale, via newpaper classifieds, etc.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:46 PM on 04/16/2009
The difference between a typical private sale and a gun show is at a gun show you can buy many guns at one time w/ no background check. On 20/20 they showed a man w/ $5,000 who was able to get dozens of rifles and semiautomatic handguns at one time with no questions asked. He could have very easily just driven straight to a campus and used those to commit another college massacre. I'm sorry, but that should NOT be legal. If a man wants to get that many guns, the only legal way he should be able to do so at a gun store w/ background checks. I'm not saying this would prevent mass shootings, but our laws shouldn't make the process easier either.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dimensio
I just don't know what went wrong!
03:32 PM on 04/10/2009
Can you please explain your inquiry?
07:24 PM on 04/08/2009
I don't think gun ownership should be completely illegal.

But I also don't think increased regulation of firearms is an infringement of rights.

Who honestly thinks that all armaments should be completely unregulated? Should it be legal to carry concealed grenades? Should I be allowed to have nuclear weapons in my home? I think most people will agree that restrictions and regulations of weapons is a reasonable necessity in our society.

And yet I also think it's perfectly reasonable for an individual to own a hunting rifle. Though I don't hunt myself and find the idea kind of nauseating, I don't think it's reasonable to make sport hunting completely illegal.

But what about fully automatic long-range assault rifles? Or semi-automatic pistols? Where should we draw the line?

I haven't the foggiest idea.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
BruceHNV
07:31 PM on 04/08/2009
Fully automatic and long-range are mutually exclusive ideas - unless you are talking about .50 cal machine guns or 20 mm cannons. If you can hold it in your hands on full auto, forget about long-range.

Full auto weapons are illegal for civilians to own unless acquired before 1986.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
HisXLNC
No.
07:47 PM on 04/08/2009
If the police can have it, I can carry have it.

That's the line we have now and that's where the line should stay.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
bubbuh
03:07 AM on 04/09/2009
The police can carry and use weapons which are illegal for the general population already. They don't normally and most police forces don't stock them because of the huge initial and maintenance costs; but, they can borrow them from the FBI or the National Guard. In fact, both of the latter organizations will supply the weapons and shooters thse days because they don't want to chance untrained police using those weapons. However, that wasn't always the case.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
kareemachan
watashi ha tororu ga oroka da to omoi masu。
06:53 PM on 04/08/2009
Another good reason to not live in Texas...
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
bubbuh
03:08 AM on 04/09/2009
It's everyone problem.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
gino618
05:21 PM on 04/08/2009
Very simply - someone please tell me how, if all the gun regulation & licensing & oversight laws were passed that you all want passed, what difference that would make to any gang bangers, illegal aliens, drug merchants, or any other criminals who currently, or intend to, own weapons?

Perhaps more should be focused on dealing with those who truly do own automatic weapons & machine guns and far worse - the criminals.

Canada, Great Britian, etc. with all the gun laws some tout on here, don't have the same criminal problems that we here in the US do. If they did, they'd be clamoring for the same freedom to own weapons that we enjoy.
05:51 PM on 04/08/2009
Gangs are the biggest gun-magnets!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
bubbuh
03:17 AM on 04/09/2009
With the NRA claiming there are 290,000,000 firearms in the USA. I don't think we can call it a gang problem and forget about it. Were any gang memers involved in the mass murders of the past two months?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
elizlucinda
a mind is a terrible thing to waste
10:30 PM on 04/08/2009
One of the reason we don't have the same criminal problems is because we restrict the number and kind of guns that people can have.

Yes..the criminals can get guns but we don't have as many "spree killings where 10 people are shot at a time by people with mental health problems
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dimensio
I just don't know what went wrong!
08:52 AM on 04/09/2009
Have you considered that perhaps it is improved access to mental health care, rather than reduced access to firearms, that affects the quantity of "spree killings" in the country in which you reside?
photo
OdinsEye
Korean-Latino cop and retired military combat vet
05:33 PM on 04/09/2009
They did not have a problem to begin with even prior to the restrictive laws. The cultural norms are quite different for each country.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
verbalvoodoo
05:16 PM on 04/08/2009
There should be no restrictions on owning any weapons that existed at the time the 2nd amendment was written.

If some psycho goes on a shooting spree with a musket....odds are they will only kill one person and EVEN that is debatable considering the lethality of late 1700's ball and powder technology.

Note to Republicans: George Washington was not a deity with supernatural powers. HE DIDN'T ANTICIPATE HANDGUNS! Or hand grenades. Or bazookas. Or Nuclear weapons.

So this appeal to the intent of the Founding Fathers are unquestionable god-like beings needs to stop. You're embarrassing yourselves.

Self-defense is a right....but owning military grade firearms, tanks or attack helicopters IS NOT a right.

Please stop watching "Death Wish" over and over again. It's rotting your brain.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dimensio
I just don't know what went wrong!
08:52 AM on 04/09/2009
Who has advocated ownership of military-grade firearms, tanks or attack helicopters as a "right"?
04:19 PM on 04/09/2009
primarily gun banners
11:48 AM on 04/09/2009
Handguns did exist when the constitution was written.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
BruceHNV
12:57 PM on 04/09/2009
Yes, they did. They were called pistols, and they were flintlock or matchlock, just like muskets.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Aranxa
Have fun storming the castle!
05:05 PM on 04/08/2009
The hunting excuse does not legitimize gun ownership. Killing squirrels and raccoons because it is "fun" does not change the fact that it is killing. Acceptance of killing for sport degrades the value of all life.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TFlint
04:57 PM on 04/08/2009
The Constitution does not protect your right to drive a car because there were no cars in 1788. The Constitution does not protect your right to fly an airplane because there were no airplanes in 1788. None of the weapons you claim to have the right to own existed in 1788. Therefore the Constitution does not protect your right to own them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
returnofthejedi
Trolls have no chance!
04:58 PM on 04/08/2009
So this generation has alot of important work to do.......would you agree?
05:02 PM on 04/08/2009
And that work does not include more gun bans only affecting the law abiding
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
gino618
05:11 PM on 04/08/2009
Well then - Abortion issue resolved - since the general practice of abortion on demand was most likely not around in 1788, there is no Constitutional right to it.

Simple!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
bubbuh
03:24 AM on 04/09/2009
What makes you think abortion wasn't available. Abortion has been around since the Bronza Age. Read, why doncha?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TFlint
04:47 PM on 04/08/2009
People should have a right to bear any arms that existed in 1788, when the Constitution was signed. They should have no right to own any weapons invented since.
04:52 PM on 04/08/2009
Then you would be ok with your computer and telephone being taken away since they did not exist in 1788
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
BruceHNV
04:59 PM on 04/08/2009
Is it your belief that everything not guaranteed you in the constitution is going to be taken away from you?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:13 PM on 04/08/2009
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

My copy of the constitution doesn't say you have a right to bear museum pieces. Only a willfully ignorant reader of the constitution could conclude that the right to bear arms means the right to bear obsolete museum pieces that could not be used to defend. It specifically mentions the militia and the security of the state. How could any honest person not conclude that they meant military style arms?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:20 PM on 04/08/2009
The founders could have easily written "a flintlock Brown Bess loaded with black powder and a round lead ball" instead of "arms" if that's what they intended us to have.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TFlint
04:44 PM on 04/08/2009
Does the right to bear arms include swords?
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
BruceHNV
04:48 PM on 04/08/2009
Arguably, arms are arms.

Which is why concealable blades longer than 4" are illegal. Heh, heh.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
bubbuh
04:00 AM on 04/09/2009
Now you've done it. The National Edge and Point Association is right around the corner. Followed by the National Taser Association. Followed by the National Acid Squirting Association. Followed by the .....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
verbalvoodoo
04:32 PM on 04/08/2009
The 2nd Amendment was written with MUSKETS in mind.

If we want to outlaw all weapons except MUSKETS then I have no problem with that.

But trying to take a law written for muskets in 1776 and applying it to machine guns in 2009 makes no sense.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
BruceHNV
04:49 PM on 04/08/2009
To be fair, it doesn't apply to machine guns. They are illegal for civilians to own.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:29 PM on 04/08/2009
WRONG. Machine guns are perfectly legal in some states. And yet the only recent crime I know of in which machine guns were used was the LA bankrobber shootout a few years ago (where full auto guns are illegal).

With at least four fully automatic real live ASSAULT RIFLES to commit their crimes with, the score was 2 dead robbers, no dead civilians or cops.

Remember too the DC snipers, who brought the region to its knees by firing no more than one shot at a time. They could have used a flintlock rifle and accomplished the same thing.
04:53 PM on 04/08/2009
Voodoo--machineguns have been severely restricted since 1934--you have been drinking too much Brady Campaign KOolaid
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tom Payned
Informed opinions take effort. Try it sometime.
04:23 PM on 04/08/2009
I'm a life long liberal, opposed gun ownership, but moderated my view when I moved to a rural Oregon, where many people hunt. The majority for the meat, as work is seasonal.

Most of my life I rejected the bumper sticker: when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. I work as an indigent defense investigator in Oregon. Done so over 20 years. In Oregon, anyone not convicted of a felony can carry a handgun or rifle anytime, almost anywhere, as long as it isn't concealed. Two years ago, we started requiring background checks before purchasing a handgun.

Despite a lot of contact with thousands of felons over the years,I didn't get a CWP & start til last year. But meth has gotten more potent & more users & dealers are packing. Druggies do break into homes & steal guns which they trade for drugs. Now the odds of people I contact being dangerous & armed has increased.

I enjoy my profession as I do make certain the State doesn't trample over the rights of people charged with crimes. I intend to do the job as long I can. However, I promised my mother she would never have to bury another child before she died, my dog I'd always come home to him, my girlfriend, that she'd go before me.

In a perfect world, would I prefer no need for concealed weapon? Absolutely. But we do not live in a perfect world.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TFlint
04:37 PM on 04/08/2009
Do your neighbors hunt with AK47's? With machine pistols? Are these weaposn part of your perfect world?
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
BruceHNV
04:50 PM on 04/08/2009
an AK 47, properly outfitted and sighted, would be pretty good for hunting - but many if not all jurisdicttions won't let you use a semi-auto to hunt.

Machine pistols are illegal. Period.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tom Payned
Informed opinions take effort. Try it sometime.
02:02 PM on 04/11/2009
Whether or not my neighbors hunt with auto or semi automatic weapons is not the issue here. The issue is more complex. The Bush administration, for the first time in my lifetime, made me reassess the armed militia clause.

A single shot rifle would not protect me, my family, neighbors, city, or state from an attack ordered by King George as our rights were eroded as occurred after 9/11. Imagine a world where Bush was replaced by Cheney, who declared Marshall law, suspended the majority of the rights contained in the Bill of Rights. And hired Black Water to uphold that Marshall law.

It was for this type of situation that the people were granted the right to maintain an armed militia.

For me, it was solely an intellectual exercise for 44 years. 9/11 changed that. Not because I feared an enemy invasion, as I beleive our armed services would enlist us to turn back the enemy. But because of the arrogance and certainty the last administration had.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
BruceHNV
04:47 PM on 04/08/2009
I'm a life long liberal, NOT opposed to gun ownership - nor to common sense regulation. I've had guns and done target shooting all my life. I'm an expert shot with the ones I own (several at this point). I haven't killed anything since I was about 14 (squirrels), as I've neither the need nor the appetite to hunt.

What I keep on hand is what I feel is appropriate to my family's defense, keeping in mind that all of my practice and experience may mean little if confronted with the (however unlikely) real life-or-death situation which gets the adrenaline pumping. So, I want to be able to keep pulling the trigger until a lethal round connects, without having to pull back a hammer or reload, and I want my rounds to dissipate their energy in the target and stop, not pass through.

Since I favor rural living and being self-sustaining, then if supply chains were to break down, I would become a hunter again.

But in no way, shape or form do I support the idea that more lethal instrumentalities in more people's hands makes the society safer.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
elizlucinda
a mind is a terrible thing to waste
04:00 PM on 04/08/2009
Can someone please give me a quick civics lesson because I am a Canadian and I may have a knowledge gap. Is it the Bill of Rights or the Constitution that supposedly gives a person the right to bear arms. I am reading both on here.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
BruceHNV
04:05 PM on 04/08/2009
Bill of Rights, Amendment 2

If I recall correctly,

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dan-o
04:06 PM on 04/08/2009
The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the constitution.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
LHoney
REINSTATE GLASS STEAGALL!!!
03:42 PM on 04/08/2009
Rick Sanchezzzz on CNNNN just announced the killlller of the 3 kops in Pittsburgh was as a result of him listening to Faux Newz and Rosh L....
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
elizlucinda
a mind is a terrible thing to waste
03:58 PM on 04/08/2009
Nice try......but I doubt it....
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
BruceHNV
04:06 PM on 04/08/2009
Well, Rick did say essentially that.

If you doubt Rick is correct, then I submit you have no basis to either believe or disbelieve him as you know nothing of the killer's mind.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TFlint
04:40 PM on 04/08/2009
He was a "well regulated militia," therefore he had a Constitutional right to kill police.
05:11 PM on 04/08/2009
Roadapples--the BOR does not protect criminal activity try again
03:31 PM on 04/08/2009
The only logical conclusion that can be made here is that GUN CONTROL LAWS DON'T WORK!

The only illogical conclusion is to call for more of what already doesn't work. Isn't the very definition of stupidity is for one to continue to do the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result?

How many of shooting victims were unable to defend themselves because of the gun laws and policies in place? Truth be told, it is those very policies and laws that continue to contribute to the tragedy of these mass killings. The blood rests not only on illegal gun use , but on the hands of all who continue to deny people their right to defend themselves.

In this era of Hope and Change, let us end the stupidity, let us wash our hands of the blood of these tragedies and effect real Change by putting our HOPE and trust in our fellow citizen and neighbors to be peace loving, law-abiding, and responsible gun carrying defenders of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness like our founding fathers intended.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
elizlucinda
a mind is a terrible thing to waste
03:41 PM on 04/08/2009
No thanks....I don't want my next door neighbour with an anger issue problem to be a gun carrying defender of my life and liberty.
04:01 PM on 04/08/2009
What are your issues with the rights of Americans?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tom Payned
Informed opinions take effort. Try it sometime.
02:12 PM on 04/11/2009
None of us want our neighbors as described by you. However, persons with anger issues can buy guns illegally, so passing a law restricting that right only restricts you from defending yourself, your family, your children.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
bubbuh
03:42 PM on 04/08/2009
Properly written gun control laws work fine. One need only look to Canada or the other developed countries to see. that. Our laws are poorly written and ineffective as is your logic.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
elizlucinda
a mind is a terrible thing to waste
03:52 PM on 04/08/2009
You are right bubbah...but don't let any facts get in the way of a rant on why you can't restrict the right to bear arms.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dan-o
04:03 PM on 04/08/2009
New York has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dan-o
03:18 PM on 04/08/2009
Here in Michigan the has the state police collect data on concealed pistol license holders. CPL holders commit fewer crimes than any category of people in the state. They commit less crime than Police, Judges Politicians or any other group of citizens or residents. Only one case has occured of a CPL holder using his or her gun illegally and that person was a police officer firing into the ceiling of a bar while drunk. The people in this story were mentally ill and their families knew it and did nothing about it.

Do the opponents of individual gun rights think our nations founders would put a amendment into the Bill of Rights to protect the right to deer hunt? It was considered a right that was needed to protect yourself against a tyrannical government.

My political views go from liberal to moderate and I am a gun rights supporter and a gun owner. If one right in the Bill of Rights is ignored by government then others will be ignored also.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
BruceHNV
03:23 PM on 04/08/2009
How is a "well-rgulated militia" a defense against a tyrranical government?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:29 PM on 04/08/2009
It seems the folks so eager to label the 2nd Am. as "archaic" can't wrap their minds around the archaic meaning of "well-regulated" as it was commonly used in the 1700s. It meant "properly equipped and trained," and there are oodles of contemporary examples of it being used that way. Look it up.

While this country has long ago abdicated its obligation to "train" the militia, at least the militia is still fairly well equipped. It's not as good a defense as it would be with proper training, but it's all we have left if peaceful efforts fail.
03:24 PM on 04/08/2009
Gun ownership is NOT in the Bill of Rights!!!! Whoa, so incorrect!

The right to raise a militia is in the Constitution. But that has nothing to do with gun owner "rights." Recent politics has made it synonymous along with a highly flawed SCOTUS ruling, but civilized minds will win out in the end.