Guns, Germs and Steel
It hasn’t taken long for the tragic events in Virginia to be politicized. The investigation into the motivations of Cho Seung-Hui is still in its early stages, and yet there are those who are clear as to the cause. Joseph Palermo blames the shootings on the NRA, and the Bush administration’s penchant for war:
Also, if David Brooks and the Rightwing can blame video games and the violent movies coming out of Hollywood for the school shootings, then I think it is also fair to place some of the blame on our political leaders who called for us to invade and occupy Iraq. The bloodbath and carnage daily reported out of Iraq, as well as our young people going in and out of that death trap, provide the background noise for the violence that pervades our society.
Others have called for much stricter gun control laws. For example, Cliff Schecter writes:
To those who say guns don’t kill, people kill.
Maybe, but guns sure do make it easier to mow down 22 innocent college students at a time.
WHERE THE HELL ARE THE GUN CONTROL ACTIVISTS?
On the other side of the fence, John Derbyshire blames the magnitude of the tragedy on the fact that nobody rushed the shooter:
Where was the spirit of self-defense here? Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn’t anyone rush the guy? It’s not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness’ sake—one of them reportedly a .22.
At the very least, count the shots and jump him reloading or changing hands. Better yet, just jump him. Handguns aren’t very accurate, even at close range. I shoot mine all the time at the range, and I still can’t hit squat. I doubt this guy was any better than I am. And even if hit, a .22 needs to find something important to do real damage—your chances aren’t bad.
Nathaneal Blake agrees that the problem is the fact that the men of Virginia Tech are cowards:
Something is clearly wrong with the men in our culture. Among the first rules of manliness are fighting bad guys and protecting others: in a word, courage. And not a one of the healthy young fellows in the classrooms seems to have done that.
Heading further to the fringe, creationist Ken Ham places the blame clearly on the teaching of science in schools, saying:
We live in an era when public high schools and colleges have all but banned God from science classes. In these classrooms, students are taught that the whole universe, including plants and animals—and humans—arose by natural processes. Naturalism (in essence, atheism) has become the religion of the day and has become the foundation of the education system (and Western culture as a whole). The more such a philosophy permeates the culture, the more we would expect to see a sense of purposelessness and hopelessness that pervades people’s thinking.
Of course even before Cho was identified, Debbie Schlussel was certain the shooter had to be a Muslim “Paki”.
Given the incendiary nature of many of these comments, there is one argument which sounds downright sane. Specifically it is the argument that much of this tragedy could have been averted if Virginia Tech was not a gun-free zone. The argument goes that if licensed gun owners were allowed to carry guns on campus Cho would have been stopped more quickly. This argument sounds so reasonable compared with the above statements. It is also completely wrong. Allowing guns on a college campus is a really bad idea.
Before I get labeled as a kum-ba-ya gun-hating liberal, let me give you a little background. I was raised in a rural farming community where gun ownership is a proud right. I do not own any guns, but I have friends and family who do. I understand the issues of gun safety and responsibility, and have used shotguns and rifles. My personal experience of gun owners is that they are upstanding and responsible American citizens, and I am opposed to the arguments that guns should be banned.
At the same time, I am also a university professor. So I understand the university culture and the type of stress students experience. I’ve had irate students in my office, and every time there is the small thought that maybe, just maybe, a particular student of mine could lose it, and I would be at the top of his list. You can’t make a career out of teaching college students without wondering if there is a bullet with your name on it from time to time.
That being said, let me re-iterate that allowing weapons on campus is a bad idea.
One of the clearest reasons is that dorms are not homes.
If I were to bring a gun into my home, I can ensure that my child understands the rules regarding the gun, and that my wife and I are trained in the proper handling and use of our gun. Most importantly, my wife and I control who may legitimately enter our home. We have exclusive control on access, and therefore can reasonably assure the security of any gun in our home.
Compare that to a dorm, where perfect strangers are placed together in the same close quarters. A gun-owning student may be placed with someone who has no experience with firearms. Since dorms are shared, a student does not have complete control over who enters the premises. There is therefore no way to ensure that a student’s gun could remain secure within their room. Even if the dorm room contained a secure lock-box, it never be reasonably secure. Currently computers and other pricey electronics are stolen on a regular basis to fund everything from drugs to tuition. Adding guns to the mix would simply provide another source of revenue.
This doesn’t even address the fact that the presence of guns significantly raises the risk of accidental shootings. Assuming the usual statistics, if students were allowed guns many more students would die from accidental shootings than would ever be murdered in tragedies such as Virginia Tech. Allowing guns on campus would put students at a higher risk, not a lower one.
If not students, then what about professors? Here, too, much of the same arguments apply. Faculty do not have control over who accesses their offices, for example. Even if faculty were to keep any gun on their person at all time, it is still a poor solution. For one thing, such an approach would invalidate the “concealed carry” argument. Attackers would know to attack faculty first, thus disarming a room. Such an approach would make targets of even unarmed faculty.
But perhaps the most important argument in favor of a weapons-free campus is the fact that universities work best as a protected space. The purpose of a university is to provide an environment where students can be challenged to learn both about the world, and about themselves. Adding weapons into the mix would simply add barriers between students and faculty. It would deeply hinder the learning environment, and we would gain nothing in return.
Despite this recent tragedy, universities are very good at creating a reasonably safe environment. Universities take the job of protecting their students very seriously. When you consider the population densities of most campuses, compounded by the fact that this population consists largely of fresh-from-home young adults placed in a high stress, competitive environment, the efforts of universities are commendable.
The incident at Virginia Tech is not evidence of a national problem which needs to be fixed, nor is it a referendum on gun control or the lack thereof. It is simply a terrible human tragedy.
With condolences to the Virginia Tech community and their families,
Brian
April 19th, 2007 08:09
I am looking at a passionate argument in favour of gun-free university campuses!! I am drop-jawed in amazement.
In Australia, it is simply not an issue. Of course, that doesn’t guarantee that our energy goes towards more productive debates. Unfortunately. But it could. Maybe it does. I discovered today that Australia leads the world in the proportion of people who are members of charitable organisations. [A sudden aghast thought crosses my mind as I wonder whether the NRA is a charitable organisation!!]
Given the circumstances you find yourselves in, you’d want to hope that the gun-free argument wins the day.
I can sign off as a fiercely proud kumbaya liberal. I would say that I’m gun hating, except that I don’t have to be, cos we don’t have an armed population.
Please, please, please don’t apologise for being a gun hating liberal. Somebody HAS to do the job. Though I think you are saying that it is OK to have guns, just not on University campuses …. yes? So that leaves it to me to be the gun hating liberal. So be it.
I think the Virginia Tech event IS evidence of a national problem that needs to be fixed - the US homicide by firearm rate is high. There are TWO issues that need to be aired — one is gun control and the other is mental health and its care. This event shows failures on both fronts.
What a loss of young lives, and families that will live with this loss for the rest of their lives. A terrible human tragedy, but not an inevitable one.
April 19th, 2007 09:46
But Virginia Tech was gun-free, or at least for those who were law-abiding. Gun restriction laws will take them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, even if relunctantly. A criminal will not be encumbered or give thought to these laws, because he is a criminal. If there was even one responsible student or teacher present on Monday with a legal permit to carry, maybe this tragedy could have been prevented or at least minimized.
Yes, it is ashamed that things like this can happen and even on school campuses. But what is the difference between a school campus and where I work or in my neighborhood? In any case, risk is the price we pay for freedom (as we do for love, or other great attainments). A so-called safe, but restricted society is not an alternative I am interested in. And it really will not yield safety, except for those in power or crime.
I quote this from Barb’s blog
:
“According to this page, “The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany’s, and New Zealand had one lower than Australia’s. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada’s. When one studies all countries rather than just a select few as is usually done, there is absolutely no relationship between gun ownership and murder.”"
I have read somewhere in news articles regarding previous campus or public shooting incidents where there were those present that had a permit to carry and prevented further bloodshed by taking down the shooter.
April 19th, 2007 10:07
Hi Jonathan,
It’s not the murder rate I worry about so much as the accidental injury and death rate. Lots of guns in the hands of minimally trained people leads to an increase in accidental shootings. You could argue that this would be less of an issue in a society in which gun use is an indoctrinated part of broader culture-We’d all know what stupid things not to do. This could be true, but I’m skeptical given the profoundly limited success we humans generally have in avoiding other stupid behavior in our lives. Either way the cultural transition to wide-scale weapons carrying would be difficult at best. In order to take this risk on a national scale I need to see lots of powerful evidence that widespread gun ownership CAUSES a decrease in crime and violence. Show me that and I’ll think about strapping on a handgun in the morning.
April 19th, 2007 10:41
Jonathan,
As you say, if only one person had a weapon, the tragedy may have been minimized. I’m not disputing that point. What I am disputing is the idea that allowing guns on a campus would prevent more problems that it created.
You mention that you don’t want to live in a “so-called safe, but restricted society”, and I would agree. I’m not advocating that the gun-free status of college campuses be applied to the United States at large. But there is a difference between your home or workplace and a campus, as I pointed out in the article.
We have in our society a number of gun-free zones. We are not allowed to carry concealed weapons onto planes or trains, nor into courtrooms or sporting events. My point is that the same should apply to schools and college campuses as well. These are protected spaces. That they exist (and largely work) should not be taken as a referendum on gun control for the general population. But neither should their occasional failure be taken as a referendum on the failure of gun control.
As you say, risk is the price we pay for freedom. I would completely agree with you. In this case, the risk of being unarmed is the price we pay for the freedom to engage in learning and intellectual discourse.
April 19th, 2007 11:08
I don’t disagree with you entirely, Brian. I can certainly live without having students come armed to campus. I also think that it would not be a problem, if faculty members who wanted to be and were properly trained, carried them. Your larger point about the risk being the price we pay for freedom is well taken, indeed.
That said, does the name Colin Ferguson ring a bell? If just one of the commuters in the car on the train he shot up had been armed, the outcome might have been quite different.
Having spent quite a long time in trains commuting to and from Cambridge (Mass) for 4 hours every day
I have seen my share of drunks and nut cases. Believe me, a gun would have made some of my commutes a lot less stressful. These places where one is absolutely a sitting duck may be precisely the venue where one should be able to carry a gun.
April 19th, 2007 13:21
Hi Lily,
Would this really make you feel safer? I’m not arguing with you, its just that we have such profoundly different reactions to the idea. If people could carry concealed in trapped kinds of environments like trains, I’d be scared because now I have to worry about maybe 8 or 10 guns every day vs. one gun on one day. Even if I carry myself, the chances of an accident, argument etc. escalating into something deadly just went up a whole lot.
April 19th, 2007 16:04
A slightly different approach - not about guns, but about why and how Cho was without support, leading to his rampage. He had a history of mental illness, and yet he somehow fell through the nets of support for individuals like him. If there were nets - I haven’t yet researched what VT has to offer in the area of psychological services.
Asian and Asian American males in U.S. universities are known to be at high risk for suicide and psychological breakdowns - the cultural pressure to succeed (read: anything below an A is just not good enough) among their communities and families is immense, the cultural isolation can be agonizing. If his isolation was compounded by a biochemical imbalance, where was the support and/or treatment he should have had? Did his high school know that he was at risk?
It’s also a fact that counseling and therapy are not considered acceptable in many Asian cultures, including Korea. All the more reason for a university to have aggressive outreach programs (such as Cornell Universitiy’s). Again, I don’t know what VT offers, but it is an area that needs to be examined.
I’ve worked with grads and undergrads of Asian heritage (Korean, Chinese, Taiwanese, Japanese, etc.) and I can tell you that whatever cultural pressures and/or marginalization he experienced were not unique to him. I hope this is a wakeup call to colleges and universities that cultural sensitivity and suicide prevention training are much-needed on college campuses today.
April 19th, 2007 19:33
Yes, Elena, I heartily support your comments.
Mental health issues are AT LEAST as important as gun ownership issues in destructive incidents like this.
Perhaps more so, as it is an area where some progress might be made, whereas the US seems entirely bogged down with respect to gun laws.
April 19th, 2007 21:08
We are not bogged down with respect to gun laws, at all. The citizens of this country have spoken loudly and clearly. We want law-abiding citizens to be able to own guns, if they choose to. While there are, of course, people who disagree, they are a minority.
Mental health and the existence of evil are far more important than gun ownership in cases like this one at VT. In fact, I, dare say, that those very same guns, in the hands of someone sane, would not have caused any deaths.
Grant: If I knew that every day I or some other law-abiding and trained citizen were armed, you are damned straight I would not only have felt safer but I would have been safer. Do you not know that there are already armed people riding public transportation?
Every single day the trains, subways and busses have thugs carrying guns on them. Are you unfamiliar with the incredible up turn in gang murders in Boston these last few years?? And this is a state with incredibly stringent and oppressive (to the law abiding) gun laws.
It is simply not one gun on rare occasions. Some subset of the recent spat of gang murders were carried out at bus and subway stops.
I find that the people who are most in favor of gun control are those who have never handled a gun. I get the impression that such as they think that there is some magic power possessed by the gun that makes its owner a helpless pawn unable to resist the lure to shoot someone.
Well, I have owned a gun and I can assure you, I never shot anyone. I only took it out and loaded it on one occasion, when there had been a spate of burglaries in my condo complex. I slept much better, thank you!
April 19th, 2007 21:29
Brian,
You said, “let me re-iterate that allowing weapons on campus is a bad idea.” The worse idea was for the university to proudly advertise it.
There is no such place as “holy ground” any more. Yes, I believe schools of all levels should be a safe haven, but that belief doesn’t make me stick my head in the sand when a problem arises. And it doesn’t make me more resolute that there is only one way to solve the problem.
You’re sly belittling of the CCW argument as “almost reasonable” was disappointing. It is a reasonable alternative - not falsely reasonable, as you pretty much declared it. Cho had reason to believe no one would confront him. He was right.
And your “I know how to shoot a gun, and I have friends who shoot guns” lead-in was pithy. Don’t patronize me like that. I have friends that are pro-choice, and I used to be a Democrat. So what? That doesn’t contribute to the discussion.
If guns would be prohibited (i.e. complete gun control), the black market would see to it that prohibition fails. Besides, when someone changes their weapon of choice from guns to IEDs, then where does your argument stand?
The reality is this: Disarm me, and I lose; arm me, and I have a fighting chance. “Beware of dog” signs advertise protection. VT advertises lack of protection. I trust my safety forces, but I don’t believe they can travel at the speed of light when trouble erupts.
Grant,
I understand your point about responsibility. I don’t know about the Virginia CCW law, but the Ohio law requires a minimum amount of gun training, a background check, and ongoing re-certification (3 yr cycle). You can also lose the permit for any variety of legal infractions…rights beget responsibilities, after all. I don’t think any of us are espousing rogue gun use bordering on anarchy or vigilantism; we are all condemning Cho’s actions.
When we start eliminating legal, viable alternatives from discussion, then we are not engaging in honest, sincere dialogue; we are campaigning.
April 19th, 2007 21:32
Lily,
You said, “I find that the people who are most in favor of gun control are those who have never handled a gun. I get the impression that such as they think that there is some magic power possessed by the gun that makes its owner a helpless pawn unable to resist the lure to shoot someone.”
Amen sister! I’ve had the same experiences.
April 20th, 2007 00:04
Lily, it seems to me that the ‘homicide by firearm’ rate in the US is a clear indication that gun ownership needs an overhaul. The US is bogged down because they have been unable to implement the overhaul needed.
At the very least, the country needs rigorous laws that ensure that mentally unstable people and ‘thugs’ cannot access firearms.
The research paper by Mark Duggan points out that the majority of firearms used in crime are obtained either from burglaries or from the secondhand market. The more guns there are in the community, the more are available for criminal use.
The argument that the baddies have got guns so the goodies should have more guns, is a downward spiral. You need to get unbogged and start an upward spiral.
It IS a viable alternative. It is an actual solution, not a bandaid to a system that is already broken.
Glad to hear you never shot anyone. Neither have I. And what is more, I don’t have to WORRY that someone is going to shoot me on the train to work in the morning - cos I know my fellow-travellers don’t have guns.
Rick… I can only shake my head and be glad that I live in a gun-free society. Now that the US is in this mess, it’s going to take major effort to bring about real change.
Ref
http://www.nber.org/digest/feb01/w7967.html
April 20th, 2007 01:45
Hey Rick,
You make quite a few points, so let me give you my thoughts on them.
College campuses which allow weapons of any kind are few and far between. Most also ban alcohol. Virginia Tech’s policy is simply standard fare. In this particular case, whether the university advertised it or not is irrelevant. Cho was a student, and would have been briefed on student policy regarding weapons.
This is an interesting idea. I assumed most people accept the idea that certain spaces merit stricter controls than general public and private spaces (airplanes and courtrooms, for example). Does your comment imply that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to carry loaded weapons on airplanes? Perhaps Denis has thoughts on this, being that he is a pilot, but that sounds a bit extreme to me.
Even more disappointing are the “if I were there, I would have fought back” statements made by so many pundits. It is too easy to criticize from the sidelines. It is also too easy to speculate on what might have been. If concealed weapons were allowed on campus, it is possible he would have been stopped sooner. But it is already clear that Cho did a great deal of planning on this. It is possible that he would have modified his approach to deal with concealed weapons.
One can make the argument that concealed weapons would have lessened the tragedy, and make a reasonable case for it. One can also argue that lax gun laws were to blame. Cho had been treated for mental illness, and yet his gun purchases were all legal. So one can make a reasonable case that lack of gun restrictions led to the tragedy.
Of course both of these arguments overlook the one clear fact. People who are determined to do evil will sometimes succeed.
I wasn’t patronizing you, Rick. I wasn’t even writing it with you specifically in mind.
The point of my comment was that I’m not afraid of guns, think they are evil, or think they are only used by bad people. It is relevant because my argument is not coming from a “guns are bad” position, but one of pros and cons.
My reading of your comments seems to assume I am arguing for a general ban on guns. I’m not. Quite frankly, my view on guns is not to ban them, but to simply have a multi-level licensing structure, based on their potential lethal-ness. We don’t have this debate on cars, though they can be equally deadly. Instead, we simply prevent children from operating vehicles, require training permits and supervised hours before getting a full license, and require higher levels of training and certification for tractor-trailers, hazardous material carriers and the like. We also require vehicles to be registered. Some people still drive without a license, and fatalities still occur, but we try to strike a balance between restriction and freedom. We can do the same for guns. License gun owners, register guns, and allow sane, law-abiding citizens to freely own guns.
That being said, I think the case can be made for gun-free zones in some cases. Mass transit systems such as planes, buses and trains, schools, courthouses, all seem reasonable to me. As do college campuses. If we allow students to carry guns, then we have to allow them in dorms and frat houses, and that is simply a really bad idea.
Umm…. pretty much the same? I’m opposed to IEDs on a college campus as well. Not quite sure what your point was here.
There are no easy answers, my friend.
April 20th, 2007 07:51
Gillian:
Duggan’s research is badly flawed. Even our pro gun control media has, on occasion, grudgingly conceded that crime has dropped in states with concealed carry laws. This makes plain old common sense and is supported by good research.
John Lott, who is probably, the best known of those who frequently write about their research on this issue criticises and corrects Duggan here: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_lott_duggan.html
As a side note– while there are those who long to ban guns outright, as a practical matter it couldn’t happen, even with outright confiscation. There are 194 million hand guns out there (latest estimate) and too many are in the hands of criminals.
Of course, since most of us would never willingly let the government disarm us, I guess they would all be in the hands of criminals, if a ban were ever passed in Congress.
April 20th, 2007 10:11
Hi Lily,
OK. CCW leads to a drop in crime rate. You’re right; this makes sense. But going back to my earlier stated concerns, what (if anything) does a significant increase in citizen gun ownership in a specific town, county, etc. do to incidences of accidental shooting, gun related aggression, stolen weapons, or intentional shootings that just go wrong?
I don’t know the answers to these questions. I’m asking.
April 20th, 2007 10:42
Grant:
I don’t know how to answer your question. I doubt that there will be a significant increase in gun ownership, since in most places anyone who wants one likely already has one. Keep in mind that the legal right to gun ownership does not mean that any given individual will necessarily buy one. I don’t own one now, for instance.
Clearly, in the hands of the untrained, guns are a danger. Anyone who buys one without making sure he (and anyone else who has access to it) knows how to use it (and secure it), is asking for trouble. However, I doubt we would see a statistically significant increase in accidental shootings, etc.
One of the great unanswered questions that has come up again, as it always does at times of horrible crimes like VT, is why country boys (usually) could come straight from hunting to school in the 40s, 50s, and even in the early 60s, bringing their rifles with them, put them in their lockers and … there were no shootings accidental or otherwise.
When I was in school, boys routinely carried pen knives and there were no stabbings. Now, a steak knife discovered in your car at school can get you expelled after you have been arrested and hauled off in handcuffs.
Well, I do think there are answers to these questions but not ones we are likely to want to hear in our time.
April 21st, 2007 16:06
Lily, thank you for pointing me toward John Lott’s comments — I appreciated his points.
I believe that the best solution is to remove guns from the general population. This COULD be achieved over time. As you say, a sudden ‘prohibition’ is not a good way to go about it. It would take generations. And the second amendment would need to be reinterpreted. After all, it is only a set of words that was written and agreed at a point in time. It’s time to renegotiate it. I can’t see that happening right away, but it is something to work towards.
[I’ve been reading about the Second Amendment on Wikipedia — and I see that the item is framed in terms of the need for a militia, not in terms of recreational sport, or personal defence in a civilian capacity. So it shouldn’t be used to defend carrying guns for THOSE purposes!]
After a 35-person massacre by a schizophrenic man here in Australia, the govt brought in tighter gun laws to restrict the ownership of automatic weapons. They had a buy-back period where owners could turn their guns in for a payment, and after that it was illegal to have them. This was funded by a 1.5% income tax levy. I was as cranky as hell that I got to pay for guns that I thought should never be there in the first place. Still, I paid, and I’m happy that these guns are not in the community now.
The US clearly needs to make it much harder for mentally unstable and criminals to get hold of guns. I would be prepared for legitimate gun owners to suffer some inconvenience along the way. It’s a pity that there are strong social elements in the US who seem to oppose ANY restriction or inconvenience of gun owners, and who misuse the Second Amendment as a rationale for their own purposes.
April 21st, 2007 20:12
I think you may have misunderstood me, Gillian. Neither criminals nor law abiding citizens will allow themselves to be disarmed in this country. They just have different reasons for that stance.
Wikipedia gets many things right but it gets things wrong too. If it is leading you to believe that the Bill of Rights is negotiable, it is badly misleading you. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights, it preserves and guards the rights free citizens have inherently (not quite the right word but I am tired…)
In this regard reading the founders is instructive. Then there are the early commentators to consider:
“Another jurist contemporaneous to the Founders, William Rawle, authored “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America” (1829). His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. In Chapter 10 he describes the scope of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms:
The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
This is another quote where it is obvious that “the people” refers to individuals since Rawle writes neither the states nor the national government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens. This passage also makes it clear (”the prohibition is general”) that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the scope of the right.
(In 1791 William Rawle was appointed United States Attorney for Pennsylvania by President George Washington, a post he held for more than eight years.) ”
A rather nice summary of the arguments made about the 2nd amendment can be found here:
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html
If you click on the link to the home page, you can find out just about anything you ever thought or didn’t think to ask about the 2nd amendment and guns, their defensive usage, etc.
April 21st, 2007 21:49
Gillian,
Just to jump in here, Lily is right about the fact that guns are unlikely to be banned in the U.S. For one thing, it would require a constitutional amendment to override the 2nd amendment. But on a more general level, the vast majority of Americans are okay with things like shotguns and rifles used in the context of hunting. The debate is really over things like handguns, automatic weapons, and issues of concealment.
One of the difficulties with the gun issue is that it is so strongly driven by the NRA, which takes a strong stance against regulation or limits of any kind. As a result, vocal gun opponents shift to the other extreme of eliminating guns from the general public. Kind of like the abortion issue, where you have one side advocating a total ban and the other side advocating late term abortions. Neither side wants to give an inch. Meanwhile the large majority of Americans would be happy with some kind of middle ground.
While the bill of rights is not negotiable, it is subject to interpretation. Just as free speech is interpreted to have certain limits (such as libel, or inciting to violence), limits on gun rights (such as fully automatic weapons) have been upheld as constitutional.
Just as a general comment, the second amendment is an interesting one. If you look at the bill of rights, every other one simply codifies rights. Freedom of religion, rights of property, etc. Ending with amendments 9 and 10 which clearly state that bill of rights are not to be seen as the only rights. But the 2nd amendment doesn’t simply state the right to bear arms, it does so in the context of maintaining a militia for the freedom of the state.
What this means is that while bearing arms is a constitutional right, it carries with it an obligation. Specifically to aid in the defense of the State. In the historical context, this clause is probably meant to protect the states from the federal government.
Gun opponents often like to interpret the 2nd amendment as declaring that guns rights should only be granted for the purpose of a militia, which is not so (particularly in light of amendment 9 and 10). Gun advocates often like to argue that the militia clause is merely historical wording and therefore irrelevant, which is also not true.
April 21st, 2007 22:10
Brian: That is simply not the founders’ understanding of the 2nd amendment nor the Supreme Court’s. You might want to look at the link I posted for a decent and readable overview.
April 22nd, 2007 01:55
Lily,
Citing a pro-gun rights site as a source of the founder’s intent is not the strongest case you could make. It would be like citing links from the Brady Campaign for an objective view of the second amendment. For goodness sake, people argue over the intended locations of the commas and their effect on the “intent.”
The general conclusion of your link is that the second amendment is intended as an individual right granted with the maintenance of a militia in mind, but not limited to that goal alone. That is exactly what I said in the last paragraph of my comment, so I’m not sure how your link contradicts me.
As for the supreme court, it has ruled that the right to bear arms is a right of the individual (1886), that is is granted in the context of maintaining a militia (1939), and that it restrains the federal government only, not states (1876), and that felons can be denied this right by Congress (1980). Again, pretty much what I said.
April 22nd, 2007 07:41
Brian, I don’t think I read your last couple of sentences carefully enough– so your point is well taken.
But this business of saying that because a site is pro this or that (pro gun rights) or against this or that (pro life) it is not to be trusted, is not a move I think we want to make. The issue is always the quality of the information provided.
April 22nd, 2007 18:18
I’m still following along, and hearing how hard it would be to reduce the prevalence of guns in the US. I agree that ‘hard’ is probably close to ‘impossible’.
By chance, there is an article in the Sydney Morning Herald today that reports on a recent study of gun death trends that measured the impact of the 1997 National Firearms Agreement that allowed the buyback of semi-automatic rifles, pump-action shotguns and other firearms. The agreement introduced some of the world’s toughest gun laws.
The Herald report says —
“Debunking a widely reported study to the contrary, their analysis suggests that removing 600,000 guns from circulation has sharply reduced suicide and murder rates.
Andrew Leigh, at the Australian National University, and Christine Neill of Canada’s Wilfrid Laurier University found a sharp, statistically significant reduction in murder and suicide.
“There were on average 250 fewer firearm deaths per year after the implementation of the National Firearms Agreement than would have been expected,” they said.”
The widely reported study that they discredited was commissioned by the Shooters Association and used less data and “very dubious statistical methodology”.
All in all, it makes me look closely at the sources of all kinds of evidence. So much of it is slanted. My trust of data is strongly influenced by the source of the data (noting that Lily differs on this point).
I suspect that Australia was able to remove 600,000 weapons from the community in 1997 largely because we don’t have an arms industry which means there are few commercial interests propping up the view that guns in the community are a good thing. The US doesn’t have that. So, perhaps you ARE stuck with the current situation.
The Herald report notes that in 2002-03, there were 0.27 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 Australians - about one-fifteenth of the US rate. If one accepts that guns have a role in the homicide by firearm rate, then it looks like the US will tolerate thousands of deaths a year in order to allow citizens to carry weapons, in order to support the commercial interests of the arms industry and in order to hold onto a dysfunctional interpretation of the second amendment.
Brian, yes, it’s not likely that there will be much change [that’s why I said ‘bogged down’ a while ago]. But I cling by a thread of hope that public opinion can be changed by major efforts over generations. When I was a child, it was inconceivable that office workers would HAVE to step outside the building, whatever the weather, if they wanted to smoke. That change came about through massive efforts over a generation. Efforts involving education and legislation, efforts that were (and are) hampered by the lobbying and lies of the tobacco industry.
Thanks for your info on the second amendment and the supreme court. I was confused when Lily started talking about the Bill of Rights, cos I didn’t realise that it is actually a set of amendments to the Constitution. So, it’s getting clearer for me.
I’ll end with a question — if the US can’t / won’t move towards removing guns from the community, what options are open for reducing the mis-use of the guns that are there? There is some evidence that better enforcement of current laws would remove a lot of illegal guns. Sounds like a good idea.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-laws-credited-as-lifesavers/2007/04/22/1177180487704.html
April 22nd, 2007 19:56
Gillian,
I like the question you pose on your last comment. Like the abortion issue, there are some things that won’t go away, no matter how ideal we want things to be. I disagree with you on the banning of guns, but I do believe there are ways to incrementally deal with your question.
In an earlier comment, I talked a bit about the Ohio CCW law. Law-abiding license holders will get their weapon taken away, and will likely lose their CCW license, if they aren’t responsible - this can mean anything from committing a crime to driving drunk. And if you get pulled over for a moving violation, are a CCW licensee, and don’t tell that to the officer as the first words out of your mouth, you will incur greater fines and could lose your license.
Secondarily, you do have to pass a background check to get your CCW license. If you have a prior record, you either can’t get a CCW license, or have to jump through extensive hoops to qualify.
Pro-gun proponents see gun “levels”, as Brian called them, as a slippery slope to first eliminating the most egregious weapons, then eliminating the next most egregious, etc., until all gun rights are eventually eliminated. This is a key reason why many politicians are infuriated about partial-birth abortion being outlawed - partial birth abortion is first, third trimester is second, etc. (The federal court infringing on states’ rights is another reason this case should raise concerns for everyone. Brian was correct regarding the 9th and 10th amendments.)
So, I don’t have an answer to your question, but I think it’s the correct position on dealing with the problem. If the media and politicians were honest, they’d be asking why the legal and medical professions failed Cho, since he was repeatedly seen as a problem.
Brian,
In response to your response on April 20 (I’ll end up grouping several items in places):
- I didn’t mean you were specifically talking to me, and I didn’t expect you to take it that way, but your premise in the post - that you know folks who use guns and are familiar with gun law, etc. - is a ruse. It’s like me saying, “I’m not racist, I have a friend who’s black.” The fact that I have a black friend does not mean I’m not racist. The fact that you have friends that own guns and that you know some of the gun law doesn’t mean that you are pro gun or ambivilant to gun use. What you did here was use a solid negotiating ploy to make it look like you were on the same side of the table as pro-gun proponents. If my use of satire in a prior post was deemed inappropriate, I see this as the same - it is manipulative.
- I think you misunderstood my “holy ground” comment. If I were to look at our institutions, and pick the type of institutions that I thought would be inherently safe from the type of violence we saw last week, I would put schools of all types at the top of the list. I would see government offices and even some religous buildings (and now, even politicians’ offices) at higher risk for threat. That’s all I meant. Sadly, as Chechnyans, Muslims, and crazies in our own country have all proven, that’s no longer true.
- I think if CCW were in place, it may have saved some lives. As you mention, there are no guarantees, and I’m not willing to guarantee that someone would have stopped Cho. The fact that the officers were in kevlar, stationed behind trees and cars while kids were inside getting shot, tells me that relying on safety forces is not enough. If there’s enough time to call 911, there’s enough time to be killed.
- Twice in your response, you basically avoided my main point, which was that CCW should be considered as an alternative. You say there are no easy answers, but you are trying to govern the constraints by saying that CCW is not a valid answer. This makes short shrift of the problem solving process. You are skipping brainstorming and going right to performing. This is akin to pulling everyone together, telling them you need help solving a problem, then leading them to the solution you thought was the right one in the first place. Everyone leaves happy: you get what you want (your favored solution), and everyone else feels like they participated. This looks like wonderful collaboration, but it’s really manipulation and groupthink. Only here, you don’t have a specific solution in mind, but you do have specific solutions that you don’t want.
From my take, Gillian is on target. The issue needs to be approached from all sides. If you don’t approach all sides, then the discussion is not open, and you don’t have the ability to evaluate risk and viability of all options. The constraint here is not political; it’s constitutional.
Off topic, but relevant to practically everything discussed here, in Congress, on the Sunday morning shows, etc.: The inability to effectively solve problems - that is, recognize a problem, identify alternatives, asses them, and select one (or two or more) for implementation - is one I’ve seen regularly throughout my professional career. Either it’s a problem of epidemic proportions, or most of the population just isn’t capable of doing it. The issue usually starts with inadequate problem definition and incomplete alternatives identification. I think we need to be wary of this here as we choose to address specific issues.
April 23rd, 2007 00:34
Rick, your point about background checks — I see the NYT reporting on moves to have mental health included in documentation for background checks for firearm purchase as a result of Virginia Tech. Some jurisdictions do it now, but it looks like it will be extended. Good thing, I reckon.
What a pity about the ’slippery slope’ nervousness. The first step could be a very good one, but it doesn’t get up because of fears for what could happen 10 steps away. I get grumpy about that kind of thinking. People who don’t want 20 storey apartment blocks reject applications for 5-storey buildings cos it might lead to 20 storey. It just makes me scratch my head.
As a kind of sad aside, of the deaths per year estimated to have been avoided in Australia since 1998 there were 35 fewer murders and 247 fewer suicides. We keep talking about murder, but suicide looks like a much bigger problem - here in Australia in any case.
That caused me to fossick around to find some comparative information on murder and suicide. I came across this…[link below].
Here’s a graph of the deaths-per-100,000 of children under 15 years for the years 1991-95 - showing murder, suicide, unintentional, and intentional. In the period, the US dominated the statistics of children killed by firearms in the 26 OECD countries — 86% of all child deaths occurred in the United States.
I get the impression that people who defend guns, just don’t get the magnitude of the problem. They think the US is kind of ‘normal’, or something.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm#00002255.htm
April 23rd, 2007 02:34
Rick,
My comments regarding my past experience with guns was not intended to be manipulative. It was intended to point out that I am not someone who’s only experience with guns is watching them in TVs and movies. That I don’t own any guns now is a matter of choice, not fear or inexperience. It doesn’t mean I hate guns. I don’t own a dog either, but that doesn’t mean I hate dogs.
Seriously, Rick, on many issues I am on the pro-gun side. I support the second amendment and think gun ownership in this country is a basic right. As I said, my general view is that guns should be registered, and gun owners licensed in a tiered level. Seriously, if someone wants to own a fully automatic military weapon, let them. Just require they have a really serious background check, require things like secure gun safes, etc. As you point out, there are already many of these regulations in place.
On the concealed carry issue, I’m not entirely convinced that in the grand scheme of things it is a crime deterrent, but so long as it is registered and requires a great deal of training, if it makes someone feel more comfortable packing heat, I see no real reason to ban them. Given that you have more experience with CCW, if you’d like to write a post supporting gun laws and CCW (even on college campuses) I’d be interested in hearing your views. I’m sure most other BraveHumans readers would be interested as well.
To specifically address your proposal regarding CCW, it basically breaks down into two parts. Is there ever a case to be made for “holy ground,” where weapons should be off limits? If so, should college campuses be among these? I think the answer to both of these is yes. I’ve stated in the post some of my thoughts regarding college campuses.
Carrying a concealed weapon is a last case scenario. Ideally it comes into play when every other safety protocol has failed. The case in Virginia is one case where this occurred. The security of the campus was compromised. If we take a problem solving approach, and look at how to prevent this again, why not concealed weapons as an option?
To begin with, on most campuses the number of CCW students would be very small, given the usual demographics of college students. Your typical suburban middle class child of professionals tends not to have a CCW license. Also, most out of state students maintain residency in their home state, and since more than half the states don’t issue CCW to non-residents, those students would be excluded. Wisconsin, Illinois, Nebraska and Kansas all deny CCW, Many other states have state or county regulations that prohibit weapons on school grounds, much less CCW. Just so you know, my particular campus falls under this last case. On a major chunk of college campuses, CCW can’t even be put on the table.
Of course, then there is the political side of things. Short version: college faculty are mostly liberals. Liberals hate guns. Faculty will generally be strongly opposed to allowing guns on campus. Case in point, a local campus just decided to allow campus police officers to carry guns on their person. Before this time campus police kept their guns locked in the trunks of their cars, and only accessed them when situations arose (I kid you not). Personally I think this is a no-brainer, but there are faculty and students who have voiced opposition to this change. Think about it, Rick, days after the shooting in Virginia some members of a similar campus are upset that the cops now carry guns on campus.
And you complain that I’ve taken CCW off the table?
The purpose of my post wasn’t to exclude options from discussion, but rather to express some of the reasons why I think keeping weapons off campus is a good idea. It is a statement of my opinion, not a dictate on what everyone must believe. Sure, there are down sides to weapons-free spaces, and we can discuss them. But I think the advantages of a protected learning environment are worth the risk. We can discuss that as well.
April 23rd, 2007 12:26
Hi Brian,
I almost choked on my lunch when I read your paragraph about universities where the officers aren’t permitted to carry guns. Amazing. I mean, they are called “safety” forces, right?
I think you hit my main concerns. This is a serious issue, and I didn’t want politics to bog down or filter out viable discussion points. Your point about lib academics is well-taken. The right has its own dichotomies which are just as perplexing, so no political groups have a monopoly on conflicting principles.
Thanks,
Rick
April 24th, 2007 16:53
Hello all,
I agree that University cops SHOULD carry their weapons at all times. However, on the other side of the coin, I just found out (apologies to those who knew this already) that it is legal to carry a concealed weapon on college campuses in Utah. This is the result of September 2006 ruling (4-1) by the Utah State Supreme Court that the University of Utah’s campus gun ban was in direct violation of the state’s CCW law. Students in Utah can now keep weapons in their dorm rooms and carry concealed weapons to class.
There are several links on this, but as a sample
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5715201
Interestingly, I ran across this story as a CNN Video clip for Paula Zahn’s show. I KNOW I saw the clip earlier today, and now couldn’t find it. It seems it was pulled, although I have no idea why.
April 24th, 2007 21:59
Just curious…. who here has read Jared Diamond’s book “Guns, Germs and Steel”?
What were your thoughts?
April 24th, 2007 23:43
Hi Gillian,
Have heard of the book, but have not read it.