Gun control isn't the answer - Los Angeles Times

[slackmaster]

By James Q. Wilson

...Let's take a deep breath and think about what we know about gun violence and gun control.

First: There is no doubt that the existence of some 260 million guns (of which perhaps 60 million are handguns) increases the death rate in this country. We do not have drive-by poisonings or drive-by knifings, but we do have drive-by shootings. Easy access to guns makes deadly violence more common in drug deals, gang fights and street corner brawls.

However, there is no way to extinguish this supply of guns. It would be constitutionally suspect and politically impossible to confiscate hundreds of millions of weapons. You can declare a place gun-free, as Virginia Tech had done, and guns will still be brought there....

...The main lesson that should emerge from the Virginia Tech killings is that we need to work harder to identify and cope with dangerously unstable personalities.

It is a problem for Europeans as well as Americans, one for which there are no easy solutions — such as passing more gun control laws....

Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-wilson20apr20,0,4514008.story?coll=la-opinion-center

[depakid]

1. Needs a link and consider the source

James Q. Wilson was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George W. Bush in 2003.

Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Q._Wilson

[slackmaster]

2. Link added and yes, his track record is abundantly clear

But can you say why you think he's wrong about this, if you indeed do?

[depakid]

3. I take issue with two things.

First of all, he's advocating a nihilist position (which is typical of his ilk).

The fact is that THIS shooter (and presumably this shooting) went out and purchased a gun legally. I rather doubt he (or many others like him) have access to "black market" firearms.

I call Bullshit on the "esteemed" professor.

Second, he knowingly misconstrues European crime statistics. He's engaging in sophistry to promote an agenda- and presumably, he's smart enough to know that he's being dishonest. Another hallmark of his ilk.

[slackmaster]

4. Good points - I think the piece is neither fish nor fowl

Where he failed to connect the dots IMO is that the VT shooter SHOULD have been caught in the background check because of his prior involuntary commitment to psychiatric care. That is a disqualifying event for buying a gun.

The problem there, as I see it, is the state of Virginia as well as many others are not doing a good job of reporting that kind of information to the FBI in a timely manner. Congresswoman McCarthy of New York (with whom I usually disagree on gun issues) has a bill going to fix that problem.

As for the nihilistic aspect, I do agree with him that nothing we could do would prevent ALL such incidents. The best approaches are going to involve multiple fronts including better access to mental health care, better reporting of disqualifying events, and better enforcement of existing laws.

In particular, though not related to the VT tragedy, the fact that people who put under restraining orders for domestic violence are required to divest themselves of firearms. I believe only Connecticut has a system for making that happen.

[depakid]

5. Agreed to some extent

Reasonable, albeit piecemeal measures regulation would help, but the bottom line is that comprehensive regulation like we saw in Australia after the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania is politically anathema and practically infeasible (in the short run).

The trouble is that that the issue is so emotionally charged that it short circuits people's reasoning processes, making responsible regulation difficult (or in some states, well nigh impossible) to achieve, even incrementally.