The Natural Response

It seems to me that the basic situation comes down to this:

Q: Why do you want to own/carry gun? A: To give yourself a sense of security so that you can go about your business.

By restricting a person's ability to own/carry weapons, the government or institution has taken away (or at least decreased) the individual's ability to protect him/herself from an armed attacker. One thought could be that if the government/institution has in turn provided this protection, then there is no net loss of security. In some spaces, this is a good thing. I can't own (and would rather not have to buy) an anti-aircraft gun, and the US government has made it so that my fear in the US of being attacked by hostile aircraft is extremely low. In this week's case, however, the government/institution took away the ability of an individual to carry a gun on campus, and provided only a law that guns can not be carried on campus. This rule was clearly broken by one individual, and others could not protect themselves. Seems to me that to guarrantee security, either individuals should be allowed to carry guns on campus, or everyone should be screened by metal detectors (or similar security check) to make sure that no one does. I am not naive enough to think that either of these extremes will ever prevent all violence (or even all gun violence on a campus). However, if feeling secure is the goal, it seems to me that it comes down to a trade between providing our own personal security or putting this responsibility on the the government or institution.

I was just talking to my brother about this yesterday. Kudos for talking about it.

University campuses provide an interesting arena to discuss this, partly because they are generally like cities within a city. But believing that a ban on guns will prevent gun violence is a result of the group think that results when law-makers get together.

Washington DC has the some of the most stringent gun laws, yet almost miraculously it has one of the highest rates of gun crime in the US. Brazil has had anti-gun laws on the books for a few decades, yet Rio de Janeiro has the highest rate of gun crime in the world (of course this is ignoring parts of the world that are considered to be in a state of civil unrest or civil war).

Yet Texas as a whole has fewer homicides involving guns, robberies involving a gun, etc, but contrary to the group think wisdom Texas has gun laws that are impressively lax.

Assuming that criminals will follow gun laws ignores the fact that few criminals obtain their weapons legally in the first place.

The more intelligent response from the gun control crowd would be to ban guns outside campuses, too. I say intelligent only because at least it would involve an actual change in policy... although most of us here at the Cafe would probably compare it to saying, "maybe I'll try smashing my head with a sharp rock instead, that should cure the headache."

I've never found a really solid statistical analysis that shows what happens in places like Britain after guns are banned. Does anyone know of such a study that's publicly available? I seem to recall that in Freakanomics the author says that there's no evidence that gun control affects violent crime one way or the other, but there are no citations.

The issue regarding gun laws, I think, is states rights vs. federal laws. States differ in how strict or lax their gun laws are. I have been wondering if this leads to problems (like a someone without a criminal record who wants to go on a killing spree buying a gun in one state because they cannot do it in another state), or not. Any thoughts?

Regarding the UK, the hoodies and yobs have substituted knives for guns. Look at the British Crime Survey and other studies published by the Home Office on violent crimes. The Jill Dando Institute is another good source.

"Firearms were already banned at Virginia Tech. Wouldn't you want to try a different approach? Or wonder why the ban failed to prevent tragedy? Shouldn't the "next debate" be about the failure of the current approach?"

This is fallacious reasoning. A good policy can sometimes still lead to a bad outcome. When designing policies, what should be noted is the policy's likelihood of promoting a good outcome, despite the occasional bad outcome. One event does not change the efficacy of the policy.

I am not saying that the gun laws do not need to be changed, nor am I saying they do need to be changed. I do not know enough about the school's policies, nor do I know enough about Virgina's gun control laws to make either of those claims.

I am saying that anecdotal evidence alone, which this tragedy is, should not be used to judge the efficacy of a policy. A better approach would be to do what Adam suggested, and compare the violent crime rates between countries that allow people to carry guns and countries that do not allow people to carry guns.

Using this event to advocate, either for or against gun laws, is using an emotional appeal to sway people, instead of a statistical analysis.

Objectivist,

For what it's worth federal law does not allow an individual to buy a handgun in a state in which he does not reside. Long gun (rifle, shotgun) purchases in other states are allowed.

I'm banging my head on this one each time I hear someone say something like "this shows we need to ban guns on campuses".

Come on folks, does someone who is about to go on a murderous rampage stop and say "Ooooooh, guns are banned on campus, in that case I better wait for somewhere else to senselessly murder dozens of people. I wouldn't want to break the law or anything.".

It may be a cliche, but the only people that are stopped by a ban on guns on campus are honest people, thus depriving them of the means to defend themselves from predators. A ban on guns on campus won't do a blessed thing to stop massacres, and the VT massacre is a shining example of that, not a rebuttal to it, noting for those who missed it that VT already had a ban on guns on campus.

"A good policy can sometimes still lead to a bad outcome. When designing policies, what should be noted is the policy's likelihood of promoting a good outcome, despite the occasional bad outcome. One event does not change the efficacy of the policy."

Granted, but who in their right mind could seriously argue that this event shows why guns should be banned on campus when guns are already banned on campus? A bad outcome does not itself constitute proof that the policy is bad but it certainly doesn't do much to show that the policy is good.

Time to revisit the shooting at Appalachian School of Law in 2002 by a student. Two students with licenses to carry a concealed weapon subdued the shooter (mainstream media conveniently dropped this fact)and prevented other deaths. The school had a gun ban at the time and campus security, the students ran to their cars to retrieve their guns. John Lott is the go to man on this topic.

Adam, see this paper:

"This brief review of gun laws shows that disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined here: not in Great Britain, not in Canada, and not in Australia. In all cases, disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive, and often counterproductive. In all cases, the means have involved setting up expensive bureaucracies that produce no noticeable iprovement to public safety or have made the situation worse. The results of this study are consistent with other academic research..."

http://www.hardylaw.net/FailedExperiment.pdf

"Using this event to advocate, either for or against gun laws, is using an emotional appeal to sway people, instead of a statistical analysis."

How about using logic?

Golddog: I agree with your identification of the fallacious reasoning in this post but I disagree with your statement that "Using this event to advocate, either for or against gun laws, is using an emotional appeal to sway people, instead of a statistical analysis."

It's appropriate to acknowledge, validate, and channel the emotion of the moment into intelligent action that reduces the likelihood of future tragedy. In a healthy psyche, that's what emotions are for: they motivate both reflection and action.

Jim: You say: "Q: Why do you want to own/carry gun? A: To give yourself a sense of security so that you can go about your business."

I wonder in which college campus, city, or state would you feel more secure: one in which ALL of your neighbors are packing a gun(the logical outcome of your argument, if we all subscribe to your logic), or one in which you have good reason to assume your neighbor is not so armed?

Perfect security is not a reasonable goal, in firearm regulation as in the regulation of motor vehicle use. We aim for an appropriate level of risk management. Limiting access to firearms with a basic set of gun control regulations is a simple, straightforward way to accomplish this.

It is quite possible, Adam, that high rates of gun violence in cities with strict gun laws are due to initial preconditions (i.e., everyone is packing, high rates of gun violence, drug and gang cultures) that generate a vicious spiral of the self-protection logic noted above. The solution, however, is not to relax the laws, but to identify and target the preconditions that the laws have failed to address. Gun control legislation, alone, is certainly not enough to address the complex set of variables that play a role in various forms of gun violence.




Final point: at Columbine and at Virginia Tech, the evidence does not seem to suggest that the shooters were cunning criminals following black market game rules as much as individuals with severe mental health disorders. Such individuals may not, in fact, have sufficient comfort or opportunity to acquire firearms from the inevitable black market if stricter gun legislation is in place.

"A better approach would be to do what Adam suggested, and compare the violent crime rates between countries that allow people to carry guns and countries that do not allow people to carry guns."

Ignoring for a moment that a ban on guns is unconstitutional, any conclusions drawn from a study of the results of the UK’s gun ban would be inapplicable in the United States. The UK is a relatively small island and its borders are much more easily controlled. The United States is huge with relatively unguarded borders. We have been able to stem neither the tide of illegal immigrants nor drugs across our borders despite the trillions spent on those efforts over the years. We’ve not been able to prevent the already illegal semi-automatic weapons from falling into the hands of gangsters. We have, however, successfully prevented those weapons from falling into the hands of law-abiding citizens.

What’s realistic for a small country of 60 million people is rarely realistic for a diverse population of 300 million living in a huge country.

If a killer obtains a gun, illegally (criminals tend to disregard any gun bans) or legally, and enters a “gun free zone”, he is fairly secure in the knowledge that he is safe from being shot himself. If there’s no “gun free zone”, then he may decide against the attempt, knowing that there is a higher probability that he will be shot down himself. The probability of his would-be victims being armed would acts as a deterrent. If this probability does not act as a deterrent, there’s a good chance that the killer may be shot down by one of his armed would-be victims, thus minimizing the total number killed. In fact, there seems to be pretty good evidence that this is, in fact, what happens.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117686668935873725-search.html?KEYWORDS=gun+free+zone&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month

I’m not advocating the arming of students and I’m not saying that we shouldn’t require advanced fire-arms training and other safety measures to enable people to carry guns in what are currently “gun free zones”. But we should notice that the lunatic Cho killed himself ONLY when he realized the police – ARMED police – were moments from shooting him.

"The solution, however, is not to relax the laws, but to identify and target the preconditions that the laws have failed to address."

At what cost? Where has this ever proven successful?

Methinks: I'm a mental health therapist in community outpatient setting and I have personally provided therapy to clients who have disclosed homicidal ideation and plan involving a firearm. Thus far, mental health treatment for these clients - funded by taxpayer dollars, I might add - has been successful. But good gun control legislation would add another level of safety.

Strong community mental health services with close linkages to schools and colleges, as well as properly funded psychiatric institutions, are essential complements to better gun control legislation. Of course, you may find it hard to acquire statistics on incidents of gun violence that have been prevented by such services.

We are really not talking about 2 or 3-variable equations here. We are talking about multiple, interacting systems and transactions that all influence aggregate cost.

Russ, I certainly sympathize with your point of view. The thing that makes gun control "work" in the minds of so many is that too many gun owners are idiots with their weapons. How many of us know someone who has a loaded pistol in the glove compartment or keeps a loaded shotgun under the bed? Honestly, I don't want the responsibility of carrying a gun with me everywhere. It's hard enough sometimes not to forget my cell phone!

Security on a college campus is a tough nut to crack. Perhaps pattern it after Federal Air Marshals. You don't need total 24/7 coverage, just enough that trying to hijack a plane is risky. Enlist a small percentage of the school population, perhaps ROTC students to take part in some training and visibly carry a sidearm at particular times. If they had 100 such students/professors in such a program, the probability of an armed person being in the area and able to offer some resistance is much higher that waiting for police to get there. Especially when it involves guns, we tend to want specialists to handle security. Perhaps this is a case when we should want to "buy local", in the sense that we should want some of us to be specialist enough in a pinch.

"Final point: at Columbine and at Virginia Tech, the evidence does not seem to suggest that the shooters were cunning criminals following black market game rules as much as individuals with severe mental health disorders. Such individuals may not, in fact, have sufficient comfort or opportunity to acquire firearms from the inevitable black market if stricter gun legislation is in place."

The Columbine killers did, in fact, obtain their guns illegally. Furthermore, subsequent regulations imposed here (in CO) and elsewhere would have done little if anything to prevent it.

Great point. I read Conflict of Visions a couple years ago and it's an instant classic imho.

Jonathan: I appreciate your perspective. I also take no issue with the use of tax dollars to fund programs for disturbed people. I just have problems with your assertions.

You give full credit to your program for successfully talking people out of homicidal plans. But how many of your clients would have acted out on their plans without you? What are the stats? It’s not that uncommon for abused people, for example, to have homicidal thoughts and even plans against their abuser but few actually act on them. To prove your program’s success you would have to have a control group of people (or a proxy) with homicidal ideations that didn’t receive your help.

Then, there’s the issue of the people who are put in these programs and aren’t helped. The VT shooter was an example of someone who received counseling, medication and was even institutionalized. I think most mental health professionals will agree that the very disturbed are almost never helped by counseling, sometimes not even medication. The people you’re counseling are showing up to counseling because they understand that their thoughts and behaviours are not exactly normal. Socio-paths don’t make that distinction and won’t be knocking on your door. They are, however, incredibly resourceful in finding weapons.

Even if you can prove that your program is successful, you would have to also prove that it was worth what tax payers paid for it.

Outlawing guns is horribly expensive and has a miserable track record. However, when the would-be victims are also armed, the result is usually more favourable to the would-be victims. Sorry, Jonathan, but I’d rather arm myself than rely on mental health professionals talking socio-paths out of massacres.

The unforunate tragedy of the mass murder of 32 people at Virginia Tech followed by the suicide of the killer, make it the second most deadliest firearm related mass killing after the Port Arthur Tasmania (Australia) mass killing in which 35 people were murdered.

Neither incident is the worst non-firearm related incident, in 1927 in Bath Michigan an elected school board official dynamited his own school killing 45, mostly children.

After the Australian incident tough national gun laws were implemented including a compulsory confiscation ("buyback") of privately owned long rifles. Generally speaking pistols were already subject to highly restricted firearm laws across Australia before these laws were implemented and were not included.

Here is a recent Sydney Morning Herald article discussing what a decade of data showing the (Non-)impact of national gun buyback have had on Australia's homicide rates.

See here.

I'd disagree with mostly US based pro-gun advocates who paint the late 1990s tightening of Australia's gun laws as a "disaster which have increased risks to the public." I don't think there is the empirical evidence for that. But the gun control lobbyists or the Australian federal government can not claim victory either, ...although of course they do.

The empirical evidence from Australia is that there have been no major mass shootings here since the federal gun buyback was implemented. That's the good news. But, as the article above shows, the laws (implemented at a huge cost in terms of personal liberties and public expenditure) have had zero impact on the overall homicide rate. That's the bad news.

I am tempted to say something about "the seen" and "the unseen" in all this but I suspect the readers of this blog know how all that works already,

Noah: The Columbine massacre is a great example of breakdown in key aspects of our juvenile justice, mental health, and gun control systems. We know that three of the guns the Columbine shooters used were straw purchases by Robyn Anderson, a female high school student, and that she later told the House Judiciary Committee that a background check would have made her avoid buying the weapons. We also know that the fourth gun was sold to the shooters by Mark Manes, a 22 year old who purchased the weapon at a gun show and later said he wished he had listened to warnings from his mother to stay away from firearms.




We also know that two of the four weapons were semi-automatics.

Manes and Anderson do not appear to have been part of a dark underground economy. They were young people with poor judgment and unconscionably easy access to unnecessarily powerful weapons. It's reasonable to predict that better gun control legislation could have made a difference in reducing risk at this particular point in the chain of events (though by no means at every point in the chain).

Methinks: I don't give my program full credit for talking people out of homicidal plans. On the contrary, I am acutely concerned that mental health treatment is not an adequate level of risk management, and that stronger gun control measures are necessary.

You're right, it's not uncommon for abused victims to have homicidal ideation toward an abuser. What concerns the therapist most is when the homicidal ideation does not fit this profile.

Your argument that severely disturbed people are almost never helped by counseling, sometimes not even by medication, and that most mental health professionals would agree to this statement, begs the same statistical validation that you asked of me. Also, you should be aware that mental health professionals are routinely called upon to assess involuntary clients in multiple settings from schools to emergency rooms. The client doesn't have to knock on your door. Based on a clinical risk assessment, usually in tandem with other professionals, the clinician may then violate confidentiality to warn others of harm, or arrange involuntary hospitalization with a police escort. I would imagine that at least one such assessment and hospitalization is occurring every minute of the day somewhere in our country, and that numerous acts of violence have been prevented in this way.

My suggestion is not to outlaw guns as a single stroke solution. It's to regulate them better as part of a broader program of reforms. And if you want to get at a meaningful research design to assess the validity of what I am proposing, you are going to have to look beyond mere mental health programming, or mere gun control legislation, to see how variables in multiple systems are increasing negative outcomes across numerous social dimensions. Piecemeal, single variable statistical analysis with a self-disclosing homicidal control group is just way off the mark, in terms of both validity and research ethics.

I'm sorry, Methinks, but the next time we need to figure out what to do with the homicidal client in our local ER, I'll put my faith in the police and in a mental health professional who knows the difference between a sociopath (not an accepted mental health diagnosis) and a paranoid schizophrenic (for example), and who really doesn't need to buy a gun to feel safe from his neighbors. These are services I'm willing to pay for.

Thanks Jonathan.

"a sociopath (not an accepted mental health diagnosis)"

That’s only because personality disorders are considered “incurable” and psychologists hate giving that diagnosis as a result - At least according to my abnormal psych book and my friend who is a mental health professional dealing with troubled teens.

"What concerns the therapist most is when the homicidal ideation does not fit this profile."

As well the should be concerned! What percentage of these people actually commit murder and how many commit mass murder?

"Your argument that severely disturbed people are almost never helped by counseling, sometimes not even by medication, and that most mental health professionals would agree to this statement, begs the same statistical validation that you asked of me."

Well, I'm asking you because I'm not a mental health professional. I figured you would have the statistics since you deal with this issue daily.

"Also, you should be aware that mental health professionals are routinely called upon to assess involuntary clients in multiple settings from schools to emergency rooms. The client doesn't have to knock on your door. Based on a clinical risk assessment, usually in tandem with other professionals, the clinician may then violate confidentiality to warn others of harm, or arrange involuntary hospitalization with a police escort."

I know that. However, isn't it also true that clinicians face an uphill legal battle if the person is an adult? It's my understanding that it's very difficult to keep an adult institutionalized. Judges are reticent to step on civil liberties to keep a person institutionalized against his will. Also, isn't it true that someone has to actually DO something or threaten someone before the police can act?

"I would imagine that at least one such assessment and hospitalization is occurring every minute of the day somewhere in our country, and that numerous acts of violence have been prevented in this way."

I would imagine you're right.

"My suggestion is not to outlaw guns as a single stroke solution. It's to regulate them better as part of a broader program of reforms."

That last sentence is too broad, I think. As you are not advocating outlawing guns, I'm not advocating unrestricted access. Mandatory gun safety classes and an ability to demonstrate knowledge of safety skills are not onerous requirements and would save lives. Outlawing guns simply hasn't worked and is unlikely to work - especially in a huge country with porous borders.

"...to see how variables in multiple systems are increasing negative outcomes across numerous social dimensions."

What makes you think negative outcomes are increasing? Violent crime rates are down across the country. Did I misunderstand you?

"..but the next time we need to figure out what to do with the homicidal client in our local ER, I'll put my faith in the police and in a mental health professional..."

Okay. I'm willing to pay for that too. I'm not willing to pay to wage a "war on guns" similar to the "war on drugs".

But what if the homicidal maniac doesn't stop by your ER before he commits homicide?

You're also over-focused on guns. Homicide rates can remain the same and the weapon of choice changes to knives. What then? A ban on pointy things?

Mass murder can be achieved without a gun. Guns are outlawed in Britain but the 7/7 bombers had no problem finding ways to blow up public transport. In fact, you could make the argument that if a homicidal maniac bent on mass murder is using a gun, he's more easily stopped by another armed person and the number of dead would be lower than if he couldn't obtain a gun and was forced to use a bomb instead. Bombs are very easy to make out of a lot of mundane household items. The FAA is currently treating my mascara and lip gloss as deadly weapons!

So, Jonathan, I think we can spend infinitely more money and add infinite layers of security and we still won't be able to stop the truly determined. Would that it were that is easy.

The only Gun Laws for College Campuses that make sense would be to reaffirm the rights of a citizenry to carry weapons within the scope of the laws of the Nation & State.

Purposely creating "Soft Targets" by restricting otherwise legal means of self-protection as a platitude to constitutional-deconstructionists hiding behind tenure left Virginal Tech pregnant for attack.

Campus "Laws" in general are very silly - any student will tell you that the piled-on prohibitions against illicit drugs is a failure, with most campuses & surrounds noted as places to make easy scores for buying illegal drugs.

No one deserves to be sacrificed to a madman or terrorist because of misguided disarming of an intelligent citizenry.

In actual fact in the specific case of University Campuses there should be a wide spread relaxation of rules, as are these not the brightest, most responsible, best educated of our society?

Why do we instrictively know that a young farm hand is safe with a firearm as a generality, whereas we have a media leading a feeding frenzy with the claim that the cream of our society are somehow by definition less competent?

Guess we've decided to educated "sheeple."

Methinks: It sounds like we are in agreement: "As you are not advocating outlawing guns, I'm not advocating unrestricted access. Mandatory gun safety classes and an ability to demonstrate knowledge of safety skills are not onerous requirements and would save lives." But if you believe that mandatory classes and the ability to demonstrate knowledge of safety skills would save lives, why aren't you in favor of better control laws?

I live in the state of Maine. I am supportive of Mainers' right to bear arms and I am supportive of our long hunting and recreational traditions, and the industries these traditions support. But Maine doesn't have laws requiring the basic measures you outlined above. So let's get them on the books.

Sociopathy is not an accepted personality disorder diagnosis. And a personality disorder does not have to be "curable" to warrant mental health treatment; it just has to be capable of amelioration. Ongoing safety assessment - so that proper steps can be taken immediately when there is a risk of harm - is also an important treatment goal.

On the one hand, you seem pretty confident in a textbook and a friend that tell you sociopathy is a personality disorder and that clinicians are reluctant to diagnose personality disorders because these disorders are incurable. On the other hand, you plead ignorance and ask me, the mental health professional, to throw some stats your way. Interesting. Now before you reply to this point, you might want to consider upgrading your library to include a copy of the DSM-IV. Estimates of the prevalence of Antisocial Personality Disorder in clinical settings, to give just one example, range from 3 to 30% and are even higher in substance abuse and forensic settings. Now I'd be happy to have a debate about whether we are under or over-diagnosing personality disorders in a particular setting, but the upshot of that argument would probably be to get more MMPI-2's, PAIs, and other reliable diagnostic instruments into routine clinical practice.

Is the rate of mass shootings on school and college campuses and in workplaces down?

I'm not over-focused on guns. If this was a different thread I'd be talking about something else.

I'm not talking about eggregious over-spending on piciune gun control legislation. I'm talking about responsible spending on some common sense laws. And I am very aware of the trade offs, thank you very much. We can spend billions of dollars and thousands of American lives on a far-flung campaign to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but we can't have a debate about spending a fraction of the cost to reduce gun violence in our own country? Hmmm. Whose ducking the real economic trade-offs at question here?

"But if you believe that mandatory classes and the ability to demonstrate knowledge of safety skills would save lives, why aren't you in favor of better control laws?"

Because I don't know what you mean by "better control laws". The devil is in the details. I also should have been clearer: I don't have a well thought out position on whether these classes should be mandatory for the larger population. I do think those laws are a great idea as a conceal carry requirement for places like college campuses. I do NOT support any "gun-free zones".

"But Maine doesn't have laws requiring the basic measures you outlined above. So let's get them on the books."

That's between you and the people of Maine. I live in New York.

"On the one hand, you seem pretty confident in a textbook and a friend that tell you sociopathy is a personality disorder and that clinicians are reluctant to diagnose personality disorders because these disorders are incurable. On the other hand, you plead ignorance and ask me, the mental health professional, to throw some stats your way. Interesting."

So what you're telling me is that your word as a mental health professional should be taken as the unvarnished truth but my mental health professional friend is utterly useless as a source. Fine. There’s no such thing a sociopath. I concede that I'm in no position to diagnose anybody (the reason for getting rid of my DSM-IV). But that's not the point of this thread is it? Looks like you're just distracting from the fact that you don't actually have the stats to throw my way.

"Is the rate of mass shootings on school and college campuses and in workplaces down?"

Would the rate of mass murder (shooting and non-shooting) decline if we took guns out the hands of law-abiding citizens? Would it even decline if we were somehow magically able to prevent killers from obtaining guns?

"I'm not over-focused on guns. If this was a different thread I'd be talking about something else."

You are over-focused on guns. You're making an assumption that if people had less access to guns that mass murder rates would decline. Neither the 7/7 bombers, the 9/11 terrorists nor Timothy McVeigh used guns to commit their massacres. They also happened to have killed more people than the average gun massacre - especially where the gunman faced armed would-be victims. This is the second time I bring this up. Why are you side-stepping this issue? In fact, you pretty much side-step most of my questions.

"We can spend billions of dollars and thousands of American lives on a far-flung campaign to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but we can't have a debate about spending a fraction of the cost to reduce gun violence in our own country?"

Violent crime is already down, what makes you think that any further reduction would not produce diminishing returns? Why focus violence reduction on "gun violence"? What makes you think that if we are even able to reduce gun violence, that knife violence or bomb violence wouldn’t replace it? What makes you think fighting gun violence will cost a fraction of the war on Iraq?

Gee…Do you really want to drag Iraq into this? OK. How many lives and how much money did the US spend fighting Hitler and then communism? Was it worth it? Why fight anything at all? Conversely, why not fight absolutely everything at any cost? Did you really mean to open the Iraq can of worms or did your politics accidentally slip out in an unguarded moment?

As it happens, a few weeks ago I asked a GMU police office whether the university has prohibits lawful concealed-carry. She said there is no prohibition.

I'm trying to get written confirmation of that from the GMU police muckety-mucks.

"I do NOT support any "gun-free zones"."

Not to be overly pedantic (because I bet you'd be in agreement :-) but I have no problem with gun-free zones. If someone wants to designate their private property to be "gun-free" then so be it. However, if they are merchants or inviting areas they better be able to protect those that enter into trade with them.

Just heard back from GMU's Chief of Police, Michael Lynch. He writes: "Students and faculty are prohibited from carrying firearms onto university property. Students are referred to the Dean of Students for discipline, fac/staff are referred to HR for discipline. (See Va Code 23-9.2:3)."

So what that other GMU police officer told me was wrong.

See also: "The unauthorized possession, storage, display, or use of any kind of ammunition, firearms, fireworks, explosives, air rifles, air pistols, or other lethal instruments are prohibited on university property. Any questions regarding this regulation should be directed to University Police, (703) 993-2810."

http://www.gmu.edu/catalog/9899/genpolic.html#W...

This is very disappointing.

"Why focus violence reduction on 'gun violence'?" - Methinks

"Are you serious?" - ME

Response to Methinks:

"Neither the 7/7 bombers, the 9/11 terrorists nor Timothy McVeigh used guns to commit their massacres." - Methinks

This is correct, however, firearms were used to commit 68% of the 14,860 homicides in the United States during 2005. 68% of 14,860 is 10,104. In 2005 10,104 people were killed in the United States by firearms. 10,104 is larger than 7/7, 9/11, and Oklhoma City combined. This does not diminish the impact of 7/7, 9/11, and Oklahoma City, but it does show that more lives are terminated by firearms than by terrorism in the United States. Additionaly, because firearms were used to commit 68% of the 14,860 homicides in the United States during 2005 we know that the clear majority of homicides involve firearms.


The firearm homicide rate per 100,000 in the United Statesis 3.6. In Germany, Spain, and New Zealand the rate is below 0.5. The United States firearm homicide rate is over seven times higher than those developed nations. In fact, in Australia, a country with a simlar gun culture the firearm homicide rate is 11 times lower than the United States'. The firearm homicide rate in the United States of America is higher than that of any other developed countries. Clearly countries with more gun control have lower firearm homicide rates.


I am sympathetc to the argument that gun control would take away current liberties, but life is the greatest liberty that can be taken from someone, and therefore it must be protected. I do not support a complete gun ban because of the complications that would be involved, but I do support a more stringent process when one is buying a weapon.

Methinks: "I also should have been clearer: I don't have a well thought out position on whether these classes should be mandatory for the larger population." I agree.

"That's between you and the people of Maine. I live in New York." An admission that your logic doesn't generalize to other states?

"So what you're telling me is that your word as a mental health professional should be taken as the unvarnished truth but my mental health professional friend is utterly useless as a source." Not exactly. It's a simple matter of record that I implied nothing of sort.

"I concede that I'm in no position to diagnose anybody." Agreed.

"You are over-focused on guns. You're making an assumption that if people had less access to guns that mass murder rates would decline." I said nothing of sort - again, a simple matter of record. I think it is quite clear that I referenced mass shootings. You're making an assumption about my position on the relationship between gun violence and other forms of violence in our society.

"How many lives and how much money did the US spend fighting Hitler and then communism? Was it worth it? Why fight anything at all? Conversely, why not fight absolutely everything at any cost?" Of course you're right. The best course of action is generally going to fall between these two extremes. Which is why we agree, at least to some extent, on better regulation, not a complete ban, on firearms.

"Did you really mean to open the Iraq can of worms or did your politics accidentally slip out in an unguarded moment?" We've been talking about whether or not to change our laws about guns, which has made this a political discussion from the start. And I wouldn't call it a can of worms - unless that's how you like to think of our federal budget. I guess I just think a discussion of trade-offs in federal budget expenditures is reasonably relevant to any discussion of regulatory costs involved in better gun control legislation.

Thank your for the firearms statistics, ME.

"Clearly countries with more gun control have lower firearm homicide rates."

But do they have lower overall homicide rates? I believe that through anti-gun legislation we seek to lower overall homicide rates not change the method by which homicide is committed. So don't we need to compare homicide rates not the rate per method?




Which should else explain the following question from my earlier post:

"Why focus violence reduction on 'gun violence'?" - Methinks

I also want to be clear. If I'm not mistaken (and hopefully Jonathan can comment on this), the psychology behind mass murder and murders of individuals is different. So, we are discussing separate issues: 1.) the overall murder rate and 2.) Mass murder rate in particular. I just don't see how gun control will prevent another Virginia Tech massacre.

"I am sympathetc to the argument that gun control would take away current liberties, but life is the greatest liberty that can be taken from someone, and therefore it must be protected."

I agree with you completely. I'm just not seeing evidence that disarming the general public will provide this protection.

Jon,

You're so busy deflecting from the issue with who is competent to diagnose mental abnormality and who isn't that you're not getting around to answering the question of how many people you clinicians are successful in locking away from the general public once you qualified folk determine that they are a danger to society. Wasn't that one of the variables in your multi-variete approach? How well is it working?

"I said nothing of sort - again, a simple matter of record. I think it is quite clear that I referenced mass shootings. You're making an assumption about my position on the relationship between gun violence and other forms of violence in our society."

Well, when you're finished clearing up the record, maybe you can finally get around to answering the relevant question. Why focus on guns as a method of MASS murder when guns have proven to be the less efficient method? Wouldn't mass murderers just find another - more deadly - method? And – before you repeat yourself – how do we stop these people if they don’t happen to pay a visit to your ER first?

"Which is why we agree, at least to some extent, on better regulation, not a complete ban, on firearms."

No, we don't necessarily agree. I don't know if I agree with you because you refuse to define "better regulation".

"We've been talking about whether or not to change our laws about guns, which has made this a political discussion from the start."

Hmmm.. that was never my perspective on the issue. I thought this conversation was about the trade-offs involved in public safety issues. I haven’t gotten to politics yet. I didn’t realize you were already there.

"And I wouldn't call it a can of worms - unless that's how you like to think of our federal budget. I guess I just think a discussion of trade-offs in federal budget expenditures is reasonably relevant to any discussion of regulatory costs involved in better gun control legislation."

Well, as a matter of fact, I do see our federal budget as a "can of worms", LOL. I particularly want a satisfactory answer for our tax dollars are used to build bridges to nowhere, farm subsidies, peanut storage, and assorted other useless pork. Claims of outrageous defense spending is a persistent canard. In fact, our defense budget has increased to only 4.3% of GDP in 2006. But the total budget is at least 6 times that amount. Since I believe that one of the very few functions the government should perform is defense, I don’t see this as a large number (particularly in light of the fact that part of that budget is used to subsidize NATO). So, yeah, I think it's pretty much a can of worms best not opened on this particular thread, IMO.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/issues/issuearea/Defense.cfm

Jonathan, economists don't put much value on what people say they would or would not do. It's hard to take those words at face value given hindsight bias.

The Columbine killers planned their massacre well in advance. I have little doubt that if the first sucker they enlisted to help them get guns turned them down, they would have found another.

What I truly can't wrap my brain around is the belief that guns are the issue. The people committing these heinous crimes have serious issues. The Columbine killers received little if any parenting, and not much help from our pathetic school system either. The VT killer apparently had a history of mental instability. And we want to blame the tools that they used? Please, spare me your idiocy.

You know that bumper sticker lawful gun owners are fond of, "Guns don't kill people, People kill people"? We like it because it's unyieldingly and indisputably true.

Isn't the real issue is Criminal Insanity acted out in real life?

The chosen tool for the criminally insane happens to be guns this time, but current history is littered (pun intended) with use of explosives, posions, arson and other tools to act out criminal insanity.

The only useful tool in a battle that is being fought with guns is guns. Sorry if that is to simple, but sort of calling in airsupport, that is the most significant response.

These stupid gun-free zones could be likened to having zones with no fire protection.

By legislation we created undefendable unarmed soft targets.

Let the best of our society defend themselves.

Give them their guns back.

Noah: I think the point you have been disagreeing with me on comes down to this: "The Columbine killers planned their massacre well in advance. I have little doubt that if the first sucker they enlisted to help them get guns turned them down, they would have found another." Actually, I think the evidence on this point, from what I understand of the Columbine shooters' mental history, is very consistent with your assertion. They would have looked for another avenue - and that avenue might not just have been other guns, but an even more deadly explosive device. Or perhaps they would have given up there effort: we can't really know. But what I am suggesting is that better gun control legislation would have created a time gap, a window. And in that window, mental health services, the police, criminal justice, the schools, or some other system that interfaced with these youth might have been able to prevent the tragedy.

Noah & Methinks: Now the question is how much are we willing to pay for that gap? I myself am willing to submit to a background check, a waiting period, and a certificate of some kind verifying that I have completed a safety course appropriate to the gun I am purchasing. I would also be willing to have a licensed gun dealer check a national database to determine whether my name had been flagged by a licensed mental health professional for high-risk of harm to self or others based on some basic risk assessment guidelines that mental health providers are already trained to perform. A prospective buyer might in some cases, depending on history, override a flag with a current mental health assessment prior to purchase.

I would add significant sanctions for those who violate the law.

This doesn't strike me as a terribly expensive or onerous proposition. I am not sure why any responsible gun owner would be opposed. How does it interfere with the responsible gun owner's liberty? What is he or she being asked to give up, in order to secure a reasonable decrease in risk for all?

This kind of reform (and I am not holding it up as an answer, more as a continuation of the question), would not prohibit lawful gun owners from responding in self-defense to threats of harm. Nor would it prohibit hunting or recreational gun use.

Will it somehow miraculously create a utopian culture free from homicides and mass murders? Free from knifings and bomb attacks? Of course not. But we could just as easily point out that it won't cure AIDS, or cure cancer, or prevent another terrorist attack. It doesn't have to do any of these things to be a reasonable strategy that minimizes the risk of gun violence and better protects the liberty of all.

I really do wish to understand the other side on this one. It's just that none of the arguments I have yet heard on this thread help me understand why rational, responsible gun owners and a rational, responsible gun industry are opposed to gun control laws of this type.

Jon:

First, 2 psychology questions:

I understand that you can't really "diagnose" Cho Seung-Hui, but if you had to just issue an armchair diagnosis, what could would it be?

Also, is there a difference in the psychology of mass killers and murderers of individuals? If so, what - generally?

I'm just interested. Thanks.

"It's just that none of the arguments I have yet heard on this thread help me understand why rational, responsible gun owners and a rational, responsible gun industry are opposed to gun control laws of this type."

Rational, responsible gun owners will submit to whatever they have to. However, rational responsible gun owners are not the problem, are they? The hell-bent crazies are unlikely to submit to all that.

Incidentally, while I haven't owned a gun in 15 years, that legislation you proposed sounds a whole lot like the legislation we already have on the books. It doesn’t seem to be yielding the intended results.

"I would add significant sanctions for those who violate the law."

Those people who violate the law in meaningful ways are already heavily sanctioned - they are usually tried for murder, attempted murder, or commit suicide. Heavy sanctions for people who inadvertently violate some technicality of the law will just scare normal citizens from buying guns in the first place.

"Will it somehow miraculously create a utopian culture free from homicides and mass murders?"

Nobody is calling for utopia. A reasonable argument in support of your assertions that your proposed gun control will reduce the murder rate will suffice. We already have proxies in countries where guns are completely illegal and the murder rates are higher. So, it's difficult to find evidence in support your suggestion. Perhaps you can produce such a source.

"But what I am suggesting is that better gun control legislation would have created a time gap, a window. And in that window, mental health services, the police, criminal justice, the schools, or some other system that interfaced with these youth might have been able to prevent the tragedy."

Assuming mental health services, the police, and the criminal justice system is alerted in the first place. We both know that a person who has no record and no obvious red flags to the lay folk can just suddenly go postal. He will have no red flags to prevent him buying a gun. On the other hand, Cho Seung-Hui went through the entire system with nary a red flag to prevent him purchasing a gun. His window was almost two years. How big a window do you guys need to work your magic?

Plus, there’s that pesky undefined “better gun control” legislation. Your previous suggestion seems like an attempt at such a definition but it’s remarkably similar to the current gun control legislation. For your proposed gun control legislation to be better it must be somehow different from the current legislation and it must also actually BE better.

"I really do wish to understand the other side on this one."

I don't think you do, Jon. If you did, you would stop asserting that things would be so much better if only things were better and side-stepping the difficult questions.

Methinks: "However, rational responsible gun owners are not the problem, are they? The hell-bent crazies are unlikely to submit to all that."

You're right. It's the "hell-bent crazies" who cannot submit to reason that present the greatest challenge to the welfare of our nation. Allow me to withdraw to give this point more reflection, and best wishes in your own deliberations.

Mikie V.,

Yes, of course I agree with you!

Jon,

OK. We seek the same outcome (fewer homicides). Any restrictive action we take infringes on our liberty. To compensate for lost liberty, the action must result in the intended outcome. Further, it must not cause a worse unintended consequence. I can't think of an action that fits this criterion. If you do, please post it.