by Jay Johansen | Aug 15, 2015
Gun control advocates want to create "gun free zones" where people can go without having to be afraid of gun violence. Gun rights people object that this violates their Constitutional right to carry a gun for self defense.
So let me propose a compromise: Instead of posting a "no guns allowed" sign, post a sign like the one here: "no armed robberies allowed". Such a sign respects the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Such people should not be a danger to anyone, so there's no reason to exclude them. At the same time, it does just as much to prevent gun violence as a "no guns" sign. If a crazed gunman planning to rob and kill will see a sign that says "no guns allowed" and say, "oh, drat, I guess I can't do this here after all" and turn around and go home, this sign should have the same result.
© 2015 by Jay Johansen
Kalam Sep 5, 2015
Your logic is flawed, and it brnigs into question your ability to properly use research methods. The absence of a person with a gun to stop the Westroads shooter cannot logically be used as evidence that guns can help stop such violent attacks. Unless you can prove that a person was kept from bringing in a gun to Westroads, your hypothesis is mere speculation. Again, the absence of a fact (a person with a gun could have stopped the shooter)cannot be used to make a leap in logic that had something taken place, i.e., a person with a gun could have stopped the shooter, the shooting would not have taken place. In simpler terms, the fact that guns are banned from Westroads is no evidence whatsoever that if guns were allowed in Westroads, the shooting would have been any less likely whatsoever. Your logic is flawed, presumably because to support your thesis, you need to make such unsupported leaps in logic that are pure nonsense. More guns are bad. Less guns are good. In this case, security should have had guns, and they should have had the courage to stop someone who they saw with a huge bulge in his jacket, which they admit to have seen prior to the shooting. And I also see no reason why it took dispatchers two minutes to call out an officer after getting the 9-11 call for the shooting. That seems like a very very slow dispatch time.
Vanessa Oct 3, 2015
1. All guns must have a serial nuebmr, and a copy of the # must be embedded inside the metal of the gun too so scratching it off won't make it impossible to identify the gun.2. Handguns must be test fired once by the manufacturer and the bullet stored to create a database of ballistics profiles.3. Guns must be purchased with a $10,000 insurance policy that will be paid to any unjustified victim of the gun. Should the policy have to be paid out (say your kid takes the gun and injurs the neighbors kids), the owner either has to trash the gun or buy a new policy for $100,000 of coverage.4. Gun sales and transfers will go thru dealers via instant background checks. The insurance policy goes with the gun so if you sell your gun on the black market and five years later it turns up in a crime you're on the hook for illegal sales and have to buy the $100,000 policy on future gun purchases.5. Guns without serial nuebmrs, untracked guns etc. would be a serious crime.On the other side:1. No gun databases. The firearm dealer checks the background and provides proof of transfer of the gun but the information will not be saved so you cannot create a database of who has what guns in their homes. You can only prove that the guns found inside a home are legal or illegal. Sort of like how cigarettes or booze has a tax stamp. That proves it was purchased legally but the gov't doesn't know you're buying a little or a lot of the stuff.2. Background pre-clearing'. Register who you are and get a #, unless you get convicted of a violent crime or something like that you can use that # for quick clearing of your purchases or transfers at a reduced or no cost.3. Anti-gun laws voided cross the country. States can decide about concealed carry but cannot make it illegal to have guns in your house provided you followed 1-5 above.4. Assalt weapons, mega-clips etc. can be legalized provided one carries the $100,000 coverage on them.Would it have prevented the Newtown shooting? Probably not, the mother was quite well off and could have easily afforded the insurance and neither her nor the kid had any history that would have caused them to fail a background check. But it would almost certainly frustrate some rampage killings and limit a lot of more mundance gun crime an accidents. I suspect the insurance policies would not cost very much given that most guns almost never end up in crimes or accidents but those who establish a habit of letting their guns get into wrong places the premiums would become steeper (which they should given they would be by definition less responsible gun owners).I don't get volokh's concern about costs to lower income gun owners. Look, a gun is a material thing, material things cost money. The nature of money is that the more of it you have, the easier it is to get more material things. Guns aren't cheap, even the lowest end oens cost a few hundred dollars. If you can't afford that then you can't afford a gun. Get a better job or cut back on other spending.