Comments on: Gun ban assists gunman

By: Chuck

Chuck — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:31:35 +0000

Fair enough, philosopher. Still, it’s difficult for me not to engage in armchair reasoning at times like this, if only to try to make some sense of senselessness.
It is probably not entirely fair to say that rates of gun ownership are directly correlated with gun violence, but it is fair to say that most crimes like this are committed by young males.

By: philosopher

philosopher — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:25:21 +0000

“So it seems to me that if you increase the number of young men carrying guns, you increase the number of incidents like this that occur.”
This is exactly the sort of armchair reasoning I was advocating against, above.
“Considering your point that there is an “absence of actual data about the consequences of such policies,” I would think it would be germane to hear from the law enforcement professsionals who would have to develop strategies to address those consequences, nevertheless.”
Maybe. But I don’t see why we should expect them to have any particular insights as to these sorts of policy issues, any more than a physician who has no training in epidemiology will have any special insights into policy questions about immunization. They might understand what to do with someone who’s got a disease, but the larger questions about social programs to prevent their spread will draw on a different type of expertise.

By: JohnS

JohnS — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:57:59 +0000

Eric,
Thank you. And Va law says you must be 21 or older to get such a permit.

By: Eric Seymour

Eric Seymour — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:35:21 +0000

JohnS–actually, HB1572 was specifically tailored to allow students *with concealed handgun permits* to carry their weapons on campus. Additionally, it allowed colleges to prohibit storage of weapons in dormitories.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=061&typ=bil&val=hb1572

By: Chuck

Chuck — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:25:13 +0000

The problem is that we don’t always know who has intermittent explosive disorder or antisocial personality disorder. It seems that people who are trained in the use of firearms are as likely to be burdened by these disorders are anyone else, more needs to be done to screen people with such disorders before they’re allowed to join the military forces or buy a gun. In fact, families with a history of these disorders should be banned from carrying guns. The general phenomenon of “going postal” has not had a mental disorder universally associated with it, so there are no good risk factors for being prone to such behavior, other than being a young male and having a very bad day.
So it seems to me that if you increase the number of young men carrying guns, you increase the number of incidents like this that occur.
Unfortunately, the old psychology consisting of “some people are good, some are bad, arm the good guys because they outnumber the bad guys” is just to simplistic to effectively apply.
To me, the public health issue very much outweighs the civil liberties issue. The Second Amendment was meant as a right of “the people” – as opposed to government – to bear arms (bear arms has a distinctly military connontation), and it is the one amendment that simply went out of date as technology and society changed. It’s time to reform that part of the Constitution.

By: T

Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:19:01 +0000

And from the “no new laws… enforce the ones we have” department… Maybe he stole the gun. If not, is there any restriction on selling guns to non-citizens? If so, punish the seller. If not, why not?

By: Doug

Doug — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:53:21 +0000

Couldn’t this just as easily be designated a public health issue? I certainly see the logic in answering the question “What do we do when crazy people get guns” with the answer “Have citizens with more guns kill the crazy person.”
But, seems to me that a better solution (if potentially infeasible) is to stop or contain the crazy in the first place.

By: T

Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:46:08 +0000

In arguments like this, you can usually throw out the extremes on either side. The outright ban is ridiculous. Someone adequately practiced in marksmanship and armed would have come in really handy down there yesterday. On the other extreme, you can toss aside the “everyone should be armed” argument that was flying around some of the talk shows yesterday. Having some percentage of the crowd, grimacing and eyes closed, squeezing off rounds, wouldn’t have been very helpful. Remember, people who shoot for a living (soldiers) kill their own sometimes by mistake in the heat of battle. Even a lifelong shooter can mistake a buddy’s face for a bird. So yes–allow concealed carry. But only for those who can show competence.

By: John Sicoransa

John Sicoransa — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:45:40 +0000

that should have read:
so some here may be arguing for allowing students to keep them in their dorm rooms, I’m not sure.
Sister Mauriella would roll over in her grave if she saw that…

By: JohnS

JohnS — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:43:09 +0000

Eric
Virginia’s House Bill 1572, the one referenced in Josh’s post, would have given college students and employees the right to “carry handguns on campus,” so some here may be arguing for allowing students to keep one in his dorm room, I’m not sure.
philosopher
Considering your point that there is an “absence of actual data about the consequences of such policies,” I would think it would be germane to hear from the law enforcement professsionals who would have to develop strategies to address those consequences, nevertheless.