The violence was, after all, the fourth shooting at a U.S. school in the last week.
From NYTimes:
Do people know of good resources where I can learn about the pro-gun lobby? What are the contemporary rational arguments-- aside from the 2nd Amendment-- that people make for allowing private gun ownership as it is in the US today?On Feb. 8, a woman shot two fellow students to death before committing suicide at Louisiana Technical College in Baton Rouge. In Memphis, Tenn., a 17-year-old is accused of shooting and critically wounding a fellow student Monday during a high school gym class, and the 15-year-old victim of a shooting at an Oxnard, Calif., junior high school has been declared brain dead.
As for the Constitutional argument: I think it's time we get serious about an amendment. Four school shootings in the last week!
6 comments:
This is one of those issues where everyone can find *evidence* to support what they already believe. To be honest, I would be very skeptical of almost any data on the topic. The whole debate turns on how effective a policy will ultimately be at improving safety. But I seriously doubt anyone knows the answer--especially those who claim to know.
A fear of mine that this highlights is the very real danger of slipping to the assumption that major government action would or could save lives. Legislating in the aftermath of a tragedy very often has the consequence of making people feel good about taking action without actually producing results--or worse.
In matters like this Bryan Caplan often cites his fallacy of government intervention: (1)Something ought to be done, (2)this is something, (3)therefore, let's do this.
I am pro-"people not getting shot in schools", but I'm also pro-"government not infringing on on the right's of law abiding citizens". Ultimately, the first trumps, but I would hate to sacrifice the latter without accomplishing anything.
My personal beliefs are that limited gun control could improve the situation...slightly, maybe. As I see it, these tragic events are more a result of social epidemics and cycles or trends in youth culture/psychology and less a function of broken gun control policy. Whether I'm right or not, we should not shrug off killings like this as acceptable, inevitable or unpreventable.
PS- I suspect JDB has some strong opinions on this topic. I'm anxious to here what you have to say, JD.
You didn't have to wait long, did you KLR!
I'm a very outspoken gun rights supporter. What you said in your opening paragraph is exactly true. I could point MCC to some sources of accurate information, but those sources would be extremely biased toward what I already believe. I can't answer why I "already believe" those things--culture, parents, in-laws, very limited personal experiences...I don't know.
Where I attend university, students and faculty are not restricted from carrying weapons on campus. State law restricts school campuses to only those with Concealed Weapons Permits, so it is somewhat limited to who may legally carry on campus. The university just lost a case in Federal district court regarding a rule that restricted students and faculty from carrying, although it did not restrict non students or non faculty from carrying on campus. The university's argument: students would feel unsafe if others were allowed to carry guns on campus, and that would be a violation of 1st and 14th amendment rights.
I contemplated last night on why people are doing these shootings and why the increase in frequency. Gun laws haven't gotten looser over the years, so that can't explain the increase. Nor will I say that more restrictive gun laws are the cause--maybe, maybe a factor contributing to the increase, but maybe not. This is very general and idealistic, but I think it is caused by a general break down in the morals of our society. The family structure is changing, pornography is more easily available, the federal government is getting larger and larger, special interest groups are getting bigger and bigger...oh, and the earth is getting warmer...so, in other words, can it be pinned down to a few things? I don't think so.
How do we change the problem? How do we stop the shootings? Do we focus on changing the incentive payoffs shooters receive? Or, are these shooters irrational; would changing the incentives work?
Restricting gun owners from carrying legally on campus is not my idea of a fix to the problem. If that were the case, some students would probably quit school 7 classes shy of a degree. I agree with KLR that reactionary policy is probably worse than doing nothing.
After reading this, I realize I said basically what KLR said. Great minds think alike--too bad we can't come up with a great solution! JDB
Would people really dropout of school if they weren't able to carry a gun on campus?!?! I kind of doubt it.
I'm not convinced you should even have a right to carry a gun on campus. If I'm 18 and in high school I can't legally take a gun to school--and rightfully so. I can't take a gun to the Senate office buildings down the street from where I live. I think it you can logically and reasonable restrict where people can carry weapons without infringing on their right to own a weapon.
In my state, only those with a CWP (must be above 21 years old) can carry in a school zone. You cannot carry a gun into the Heart building because they have armed security guards. Those security guards make it unnecessary for you to have your own protection. I'm not saying that is the main purpose of the security guards, but it is one of them.
On my campus, they have set up "gun free zones" during disciplinary councils. They are held in a room that can only be entered through a metal detector. Also, I could reasonably see the school issuing a temporary ban when government and international officials are visiting. It would be enforced the same way as a permanent ban--expulsion for violators. I think this is a very reasonable suggestion, if the school offers an equally reasonable way to ensure protection. And by equally reasonable, I don't mean they have to set up fences, have the SWAT team out, etc.
I don't see why it is more necessary to ban guns from a campus than it is to ban them from a mall, or the grocery store, or a movie theater, or a restaurant. When the schools are not doing a good enough job at protecting its students/faculty, shouldn't the students/faculty be able to exercise their right to protect themselves? An owner of a business can declare that guns are not allowed on his property, but a school is everyone's property. Can everyone (citizens of that state) pass a law banning guns from public property? Possibly, I'm not sure how that would hold up in the supreme court. Maybe the current case regarding Washington DC will tell us. However, a rule banning guns made by the administration of my university was removed by the Federal District court. The federal court was not going to let a university make a rule that trumps state law.
Would less people graduate if guns are permitted on campus or if guns are restricted from campus? A majority of gun carrying students would not quit school, but there might be a couple that would. (But I'm not going to claim that we can come up with the perfect solution to satisfy EVERYONE.) How many students would stop going to their college if a restrictive gun rule was removed? Would students be more scared than they are right now, less scared, or would if have no net change effect?
I also agree that laws should restrict places where guns can be carried. I think the only places that should be are:
On private property where the owner chooses to restrict it.
In businesses where the owners choose to restrict it.
On public property where there is a secured perimeter--metal detectors, armed guards, etc (like the Heart).
What is the reasoning behind restricting a citizen from carrying a weapon into a national park? What makes a college campus any safer than a park in the middle of town? Should we ban guns from all publicly owned areas?
Post a Comment