PDA

View Full Version : Gun Law Pragmatism



mrg666
04-20-2007, 01:20 AM
Why do we have the same futile argument every time there is a mass killing?

Advocates of gun control try to open a discussion about whether more reasonable weapons statutes might reduce the number of violent deaths. Opponents of gun control shout "No!" Guns don't kill people, people kill people, they say, and anyway, if everybody were carrying weapons, someone would have taken out the murderer and all would have been fine
And we do nothing.

This is a stupid argument, driven by the stupid politics of gun control in the United States.

In other spheres, we act reasonably when faced with new problems. When Richard Reid showed that nasty things could be done with shoes on airplanes, airport security started examining shoes. When liquids were seen as a potential danger, we regulated the quantity of liquids we could take on flights. We barred people from carrying weapons onto airliners long ago.

If we can act pragmatically in the skies, why can't we be equally practical here on the ground?

In its zeal to defend our inviolable right to bear arms, is the National Rifle Association going to argue for concealed carry on airplanes? If not, won't the organization be violating its core principle that all of us should be free to be armed at all times?

No one pretends that smarter gun laws would prevent all violence. But it's a disgrace that we can't try to learn from tragedies such as this week's Virginia Tech massacre and figure out whether better laws might at least modestly reduce the likelihood of such horrific events happening again.

Our country is a laughingstock on the rest of the planet because of our devotion to unlimited gun rights. On Thursday, an Australian newspaper carried this headline: "America, the gun club."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

Hobbit
04-20-2007, 02:59 AM
Why do we have the same futile argument every time there is a mass killing?

Advocates of gun control try to open a discussion about whether more reasonable weapons statutes might reduce the number of violent deaths. Opponents of gun control shout "No!" Guns don't kill people, people kill people, they say, and anyway, if everybody were carrying weapons, someone would have taken out the murderer and all would have been fine
And we do nothing.

This is a stupid argument, driven by the stupid politics of gun control in the United States.

In other spheres, we act reasonably when faced with new problems. When Richard Reid showed that nasty things could be done with shoes on airplanes, airport security started examining shoes. When liquids were seen as a potential danger, we regulated the quantity of liquids we could take on flights. We barred people from carrying weapons onto airliners long ago.

If we can act pragmatically in the skies, why can't we be equally practical here on the ground?

In its zeal to defend our inviolable right to bear arms, is the National Rifle Association going to argue for concealed carry on airplanes? If not, won't the organization be violating its core principle that all of us should be free to be armed at all times?

No one pretends that smarter gun laws would prevent all violence. But it's a disgrace that we can't try to learn from tragedies such as this week's Virginia Tech massacre and figure out whether better laws might at least modestly reduce the likelihood of such horrific events happening again.

Our country is a laughingstock on the rest of the planet because of our devotion to unlimited gun rights. On Thursday, an Australian newspaper carried this headline: "America, the gun club."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

A) There's not a metal detector and armed security guards standing outside your house to make sure you don't carry a gun. Same thing for the edges of campus. It would be impractical and expensive to do so, not to mention stupid. An airport has chokepoints, and is a more controlled environment. Asking why we can't ban guns everywhere if we can keep them off airplanes is like asking why we can't just use checkpoints to keep Mexican immigrants out when it works just fine on Chinese immigrants. Apples and oranges.

B) If a gun is fired on an airplane, for any reason, and it pierces the fuselage, it will cause problems. Contrary to popular belief, it won't suck anybody out, and it won't tear the side off the airplane, but it will cause massive problems for everyone on the flight. The same will not happen if you shoot at somebody inside a building and miss.

C) Doing random shoe screenings at the airport is a bit paranoid. You can't detonate C4 without a detonator, and conventional means check for that. Also, I've been shoe screened, and nothing they do will detect anything hidden in my shoe unless I have just placed it inside. It's still easy to hide things, say, within the heel.

D) Banning liquids over a certain container size is stupid. While we're at it, why don't we just strip the passengers and naked handcuff them to their seats before takeoff?

I've also never heard a good answer to the question of why mass shootings occur in 'gun-free' zones while virtually no crime of any kind occurs at gun shows, gun stores, NRA meetings, and firing ranges other than the pro-gun argument, "Because what kind of lunatic would think he could even get off a single round when surrounded by armed citizens?"

5stringJeff
04-20-2007, 10:22 AM
The one law that ought to be passed in light of the VT shootings is the repeal of colleges being "gun-free zones." Obviously, such a designation only worked to keep victims disarmed while a psycho foreign national calmly killed dozens.