Let’s talk about gun control
And, yes, we will argue again about guns, or, rather, about why our politicians are hardly even arguing about guns any more. There are those who will object, who will say gun policy has nothing to do with any single event, that tragedies should not be exploited for political purpose. We know many of our readers are among this group.
And then there will be others, ourselves included, who will say, whatever the facts of this case, that the country would be safer with fewer guns, that mass killings are more difficult with knives, that it is not the Second Amendment but political cowardice that precludes sensible regulation. That we are not supposed to exploit tragedy to talk about this issue, but that in the absence of tragedy it never gets talked about at all.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Ten deaths per year seems to be the result of these massacre type killings in American schools. I didn’t go through all the cases, but that number seems reasonable to me. Perhaps you have a more precise number?
As far as how many wouldn’t qualify… based just on the people I know who teach public school, I’m sure it would be a lot. But that doesn’t change the point… a certain amount of them would. And, if you want that as policy to deter and prevent these types of massacres, by definition, multiple teachers per school would have to. Which means you would have hundreds of thousands of teachers packing. That they are responsible for around 20 minor children each is a fact. That they face that exposure to minor children 180 days a year is a fact. That teachers make mistakes, get careless, are less than attentive from time to time, is a fact. That minor children are sometimes fascinated by, and get into trouble with guns, is a fact.
Now, given all of those facts, are you really going to try to sell me on the idea that all of that would add up to no accidental deaths involving teacher-carried firearms over the course of an average year?
My inner actuarial has alarm bells going off…
JohnGalt23 on December 15, 2012 at 9:44 AM
Sigh.
The point is to stop events like these from happening. So the facts of this case are very relevant. If you want more gun control, it has to at the very least achieve the goal of preventing these sorts of things. And then we can discuss if it’s infringing on law abiding citizens rights
Dash on December 15, 2012 at 9:45 AM
Agreed.
The question then becomes, if you want armed teachers as policy, how much of the associated costs are you willing to risk?
I am inclined to say that, outside of dedicated security forces in schools, given the Second Amendment and other constitutional rights, the occasional tragedy is simply the price you pay.
JohnGalt23 on December 15, 2012 at 9:52 AM
The federalist argument. I like it.
Fair enough…
JohnGalt23 on December 15, 2012 at 9:55 AM
It never ceases to amaze me that people have such a hard time understanding “the right of the people…shall not be infringed”.
Of course gun control laws infringe on a clearly enumerated right. You can’t restrict or control a right without infringing it.
single stack on December 15, 2012 at 9:57 AM
That certainly worked for Israel.
roy_batty on December 15, 2012 at 10:03 AM
Really? So I can shout “Fire!!” in a crowded theater, when there is no fire?
Or is my right to free speech being infringed?
JohnGalt23 on December 15, 2012 at 10:09 AM
Hey, WaPo, let’s outlaw gun-free zones, as they enable mass murderers by rendering everyone in these zones defenseless, thereby attracting the criminals they are designed to keep out.
Alternatively, gun-free zones should be required to have trained, professional, armed marshals on duty at all times.
Outlawing guns is an unserious approach. After all, there’s already a law against murder, and you see what good that has done.
petefrt on December 15, 2012 at 10:32 AM
You probably have a hard time with “the right of the people…shall not be infringed” too, don’t you?
To answer your question, yes, you can. There is no law anywhere in America forbidding it. There are, however, laws that would hold you responsible for any harm you cause by doing so.
Since there is no right to bring harm to others, being held responsible for the consequences of your actions is not an infringement of your rights.
Laws which restrict my right to carry a gun most definitely infringe the right, by definition. Holding me responsible for any harm I cause to others through negligence in handling it, or through intent, is not an infringement.
single stack on December 15, 2012 at 10:45 AM
Every time I see your name and then read your posts, I always wonder, what the F&cking hell were you thinking when you picked that name when you absolutely do not in any way shape or form appear to be anything like John Galt of the Ayn Rand books.
astonerii on December 15, 2012 at 11:01 AM
A good resource: Does Gun Control Equal Crime Control?
petefrt on December 15, 2012 at 11:03 AM
It seems to be working well where applied most strictly, e.g. in states like Connecticut. The rest of the States should be forced to enjoy similar results. Forward.
Kenosha Kid on December 15, 2012 at 11:06 AM
I ain’t gonna’ try to sell you on anything.
An armed society is a polite society.
cozmo on December 15, 2012 at 3:42 PM
Yeah because everyone is constantly terrified of offending everyone else…what a way to run a railroad.
MelonCollie on December 15, 2012 at 7:34 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2