"Guns are incapable of obeying the law and psychopaths are disinclined"-GoSlash27
Last night I requested proposals for legislation from the gun-control crowd. I was seeking a specific course of action that could result in less bloodshed in the future.
Somewhere in all the noise I did manage to receive some signal.
(edit: five comments in four hours? Five?!? If I didn't know any better, I might think that the gun control folks have no idea what to do!)
And flip...
My proposed solution was simple and direct:
Permit concealed carry on campus. I propose it because:
#1) It has worked in the past.
#2) These massacres always occur where guns are prohibited (hence why you never hear about this sort of thing going on at gun shows or NRA conventions despite all the guns)
#3) It would have an immediate and decisive impact. The gunman wanted notoriety. He wanted his manifesto published. He wanted to kill as many people as possible before he died. He didn't want to attempt his slaughter where he could have been stopped.
The indisputable fact is that over the course of the last ten years, the only school shootings that have been successfully stopped have been stopped by armed private citizens.
Naturally, this proposal was met with hostility by the gun control crowd. The idea is to reduce the presence of guns, not increase it. Which...you know...I understand. I really do. I know it seems counter-intuitive that adding weapons can increase stability, but I don't think it's inappropriate to ask for proof that the situation would turn into the "O.K. Corral" if such a claim is made. Especially in light of the fact that this very situation exists on other campuses in this country (see Utah) and they seem to do just fine.
Nevertheless, I'm willing to table my proposal in order to discuss the pro-gun control alternatives.
I didn't get anything concrete in return (aside from snark, insult, and derision), but a few broad ideas were defined:
- Strengthen the Brady background checks
I got no specifics on how exactly they'd "strengthen the background checks", but it would seem straightforward that such a solution could help. Let's see if we can flesh it out and figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable without violating strict scrutiny . As it stands now, I think we can all agree that the current system is clearly ineffective.
- Ban certain classes of firearms (or all firearms)
I'm highly skeptical of this one. According to the Virginia Maxim, a ban wouldn't actually cause semiautomatic firearms to spontaneously disappear in a puff of logic. Therefore it wouldn't guarantee that people like Cho could (or indeed would) no longer acquire them. It would, otoh, ensure that the law-abiding citizens wouldn't have them. That is, if you could ever actually pass the ban and not have it overturned.
Nevertheless, it's open for discussion.
- Reinstate the ban on high-capacity magazines
I'm not actually certain that the gunman employed them, but let's say for the sake of discussion that he did. The Virginia Maxim applies here also, but more importantly I don't see how such a ban would materially affect a future Virginia Tech. He'd be forced to reload more often. It would slow the pace of the killings. And?
What? He'd be vulnerable more often while reloading? Vulnerable to whom? The police outside? The student body who (as far as I know) made no attempt to subdue him?
Maybe the idea is that he'd simply run out of ammo sooner, thus saving a few lives at the end of his rampage.
(edit: The point was raised after writing this that it would allow more time for the students to escape out a window while the gunman is reloading. Yeah, I suppose. But a little cursory math reveals that it's not very much time we're talking about here, and by extension not very many lives saved if any)
Let's talk about it.
- Make the manufacturers liable for criminal behavior involving their products
I have no idea how this would be a disincentive to a suicidal psychopath. I don't think that what's going through the shooter's (or criminal's) mind is "I'd better not do this. I'd sure hate to see Glock sued". Sure, it'd immediately stop the production of all firearms, but it wouldn't have any effect whatsoever on the already existing ones.
This also appears to me to be incredibly unfair. Do the proponents of this course of action hold Boeing responsible for September 11th or Ford responsible for drunk drivers?
And how would our police and armed forces continue to acquire their firearms if all the manufacturers are out of business? And if they continue to have access to firearms, doesn't that make it possible for criminals to get ahold of them too? So many questions...
Anyway, if I missed any proposals I sincerely apologise. Please restate them in the discussion thread and I'll add them to the diary entry.
In the meantime, I'd like to discuss these proposals.