Customer Reviews

Lethal Passage: The Story of a Gun

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Lethal Passage: The Story of a Gun is the story of American gun culture told through the story of bullied schoolboy Nicholas Elliot, who plots his revenge by acquiring a handgun and then opening up on his teachers and classmates in a private Christian school in Virginia in December, 1988. Larson traces the history of the Cobray M-11/9 from its creation to its arrival in the hand of an angry young man in the context of (deliberately) lax legislation that makes it easier to get a gun than to get a driver's license in the United States.

Larson challenges the myths that suggest that gun ownership is part and parcel of the American character by citing statistics that show how our permissive gun culture undermines the safety and security we crave.

Larson does his research and tells one compelling story.

When I read Erik Larson, I know I'm in for a treat, and this was no exception. This book not only tells the story of how a bullied boy takes his anger out using a gun at school, but the story of the inadequicies of gun legislation and the winding road the NRA has taken interpreting the 2nd Amendment. The one irony I found that Larson points out is that it's harder to get a driver's license than it is to get a gun in the United States. What I like most about the book is that Larson provides a solution to the gun problem and outlines a very reasonable and comprehensive bill regarding the use and regulations of guns. But I have to agree it would be impossible to get through legislation, not because it's unworthy, but because our current government is a messy monolith of a bureacracy where nothing gets done due to poor representation, egos, and political shortsightedness--in my humble opinion. Our forefathers would roll over in their graves if they could see what has become of our sacred 2nd Amendment. Excellent book by an author who does his homework.

Larson does show that straw purchasers of handguns contribute to crime. He spends little or no time on the contributing factors for such gun purchases. He does not address guns obtained by theft, or illegal sales or the lending of firearms within extended families, gangs or circles of acquaintances.

If your mind is already made up, you'll like this book.

after loving Devil in the White City thought this would be a good choice. reading dry percentages of statistics put me to sleep..

Most of the reviews I have read of this book seem to indicate that the reviewer had a certain bias to begin with and decided early on that he or she didn't agree with Erik Larson's views and facts. Just the fact that he points out that the two camps, supposedly so far apart, are actually in close agreement with one another was a refresher. As he points out, the extremists on both side of the issue have taken control of the debate and started an all-out pissing match that no one can win. Ultimately, society and all of its gunshot victims lose because the moronic leadershp of the NRA is completely intransigent and will allow for no compromise in the fight. "Far left" liberal Americans who actually believe in banning all guns as a reasonable solution to the problem are not very numerous. On the other side of the issue, the equally-nutty proponents of no controls whatsoever, the idiots who are so naive as to believe every gun owner is 100% resposnible all the time and would never use his or her weapon for nefarious purposes, contribute little to the discussion. Neither of those two extremes will ever see eye to eye and they will most certainly never produce reasonable and effective legislation regarding firearms.

More reasonable folks share a viewpoint but with caveats. I don't believe historically that the 2nd Amendment even allows for private gun ownership, particularly not lethal doorstops like the Cobray M-11. When the Fouhding Fathers wrote that into the bill of rights, they were thinking of the tyrannical English government from which they had just won their independence along with the cumbersome muzzle loaders and cannons that were employed to secure that freedom. Gun technology has come a long way since then, and contrary to what the NRA accepts as divinely-inspired truth, not all guns are created equal, and not all guns are capable of being used an equal amount of destruction, all things being considered. Jared Loughner, for one, would never have been able to take out so many victims in Tucson if he had employed a semi-automatic pistol with an 8-round capacity.

Like the abortion issue, I don't believe this issue will ever be resolved in this country. I happen to share Larson's admitted biases: I don't care to see a disarmed public left to the mercy of an armed and all-powerful government, and I support private gun ownership. You don't have to go all the way back to the Revolutionary War to see the dangers inherent in that situation. I don't think the Founding Fathers intended to create a nation where inner-city kids are gunning each down in school hallways on a regular basis. On the other hand, I support the notion of a well-armed populace, even though I'm convinced that a majority of those individuals are most likely irresponsible knuckleheads that shouldn't be allowed near any loaded firearm, period. Unfortunately, that's not my call, or the government's, to make.

I also respect hunting traditions in our rural counties and towns. I live in Colorado where hunting season is a huge deal for many of the inhabitants here, but I don't know anyone who employs a machine pistol in the field to take down an elk. I both own guns and enjoy shooting them at the range or in the field.

Unfortunately, no pun intended, you can't put the bullet back in the gun. You can't un-invent an Uzi or MAC-10. For the purposes for which such a gun was designed (close urban combat), it is a most appropriate tool. Why they aren't issued to our soldiers in Iraq instead of those unwieldy M-16's is beyond me. But it most definitely was not designed for the mass consumer or for sporting or hunting purposes. Never mind the other discussion that curbing our propensity to resort to firearms and explosives to settle our differences with others might be a worthwhile goal for humanity.

Americans have a long and proud tradition of killing anything that gets in their way or bothers them, whether its insects or human beings, and I suppose this will continue until we completely eliminate any trust upon which civilized society must be based. The main thing you need to know about Larson's book is that it is a worthy voice in the gun control debate, and extremists on both sides of the issue would do well to listen.

This is a reasonably well written, but undeniably biased tale. The statistics are slanted and untrustworthy, and the rhetoric is tough to wade through for anyone on the pro-rights side of this issue.

Erik Larson wrote this 1994 book to study the commerce in guns. He picked the worst case example where a sixteen-year old boy shot a teacher at school. In December 1988 Nicholas Elliot brought a gun to school to scare the teenage boy who was tormenting him (p.55). This true crime book lacks photographs of the people and places, as if it was a work of fiction. The flaw is its blame of an inanimate object for the problem, and totally disregards the political and economic situation where these crimes occur. Gun Prohibition is a form of political oppression that leads to higher taxes and lower wages. The resulting poverty causes crime. Larson is aware of this (p.2), but ignores it!

Larson telegraphs his bias by his choice of subject matter for this story. Choosing a gun used in a crime is like a loaded question. What if he studied a gun that was not used in a crime? The corporations that oppress people pay for biased studies against your right to keep and bear arms. Is Larson being honest when he claims gun laws "could be fixed to the increased satisfaction of gun owners and gun opponents alike" (p.3)? Who believes that? Note that gun owners are real people unlike the paid lobbyists for Gun Control Inc. Larson can't help "begging the question": why is it so easy for the bad guys to get guns" (p.3). Is it really easy to get a Federal gun-dealer license (p.4)? [You can try to do this at home.] If not, why say so? Larson writes well but this book skips around a lot. Larson's complaint about "no federal agency is empowered to oversee ... and investigate safety defects" (p.4) is an attempt to attack people's rights. Does he want the FDA to get involved? Knowledgable buyers are the best safeguard for product safety.

Why are there "profoundly dangerous conditions in urban public schools" (p.7)? Is that part of the policy of `dumbing down' the students? Why didn't the teachers control the classrooms (Chapter 2). Was Nicholas helped in school (p.13)? Was he ready to explode when pushed far enough? Larson ignores the reality of students who need help but don't get it. What happens to thousands more like Nicholas? Larson uses a bad example to argue for the oppression of the many who do no harm. But he doesn't explain why. Larson finally acknowledges his bias against guns (p.15). "I am not opposed to guns" but all of his words say differently. [This lie is also used by Gun Control Inc.] Is it an attempt to appear neutral and unbiased? They're not fooling those who know. Larson says a gun owner should go through a licensing process like a driver's license (p.16). But you can buy a car without any driver's license. You can even operate them without a license as long as you don't use a public road. In the past you did not need a license to operate a motor vehicle anymore than you needed a license to buy arms and ammunition. Driving licenses do not prevent accidents and deaths. You might as well ask for a license for buying and consuming alcohol!

Those statistics about the UCLA Medical Center (p.22) shows the bad effects that followed the 1968 Gun Control law. Deaths by firearms skyrocketed from 7,000 a year to over 22,000 a year! Larson seems quite wrong in claiming there are no statistics on gunshot injuries. All have to be reported to the police! The rates of violent death are higher in Japan, and slightly lower in Canada (p.20). Can he be more accurate? How many errors can you find in this chapter (p.21)? This shows the bias of this book. Larson may do better in the future by writing about century old history where people don't know any more than what they read in his books. Those stories about the "Wild West" were likely just attempts to reduce migration to the free western lands (p.42).

Those statistics on page 211 are suspect, given the drop in population in 1977 Washington. That "wild surge of homicides" deserves research not a simple-minded assumption. If guns were readily available before 1977 what cause this surge? Surely Larson should know that polls are designed to get the results the sponsor wants (p.215)! Why does Larson ignore the fact that cities with the most gun control have the highest homicide rates (p.217)? Areas with the highest rates of gun ownership have the lowest homicide rates. These are the sparsely populated rural areas with more democracy, small businesses, and less corporate control.

Being aware of the real life events of the book, I can say that Lethal Passage is accurate and honest. Mr. Larson exposes the cracks in the gun control system and shows the ease with which a boy could purchase an automatic weapon and murder in cold blood. The murder story can make one cry in sorrow and in anger. His purpose in writing was to make a point in order to keep similar tragedies from occurring again. Unfortunately, up to this point, no one has listened.

This is a very well written and researched account of a tragic event of the nature we encounter too often in the daily news. At the same time, it illuminates the tragic and absurd situation in which the country has placed itself on the subject of gun control.