Guns and Death from Massachusetts to Alabama

[OakRidgeStars]

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/ ... fmann.aspx

http://tinyurl.com/yggd5tl

Guns and Death from Massachusetts to Alabama: Misrule of Law?
Daniel Kaufmann, Senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development
The Brookings Institution
February 17, 2010

The murder of three faculty members at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, allegedly by Harvard-trained neurobiologist Amy Bishop is eliciting much media attention. Professor Bishop is accused of opening fire at a biology department faculty meeting—to discuss a prior decision to deny her of tenure at the University of Alabama. She allegedly shot and killed three of her faculty colleagues while injuring three others. Thus far, the media has focused on the shock of a Harvard-educated scientist perpetuating such a heinous act, and on the related perennial issues of fierce academic competition and tenure decisions.

Some have already begun speculating about her mental state and about the possible links between decades of often competitive intellectual pursuits and longstanding mental health challenges that may have gone unaddressed. It is both misguided and superficial to conclude simply that she “went ballistic” or just “snapped” during Friday’s faculty meeting or merely focus on her mental state.

What is still receiving insufficient attention is the simple fact that Dr. Amy Bishop walked into the faculty meeting and sat quietly during its proceedings with a fully-loaded gun in her possession.

In the United States, it is almost taken for granted how easy it is to gain access to guns and carry them undetected—even onto college campuses, whether they are a ‘gun-free zone’ or not. This is in sharp contrast to other industrialized, and many emerging, countries around the world today.

Guns play a role by effectively translating fallible human intent into lethal outcomes. It is much more difficult to kill, even in the presence of deadly intent, if access to a gun and free movement with a loaded weapon is effectively limited.

Assume hypothetically that the same Amy Bishop, after obtaining her Ph.D., became a professor at a university in Europe or Asia. Even if that university had denied her academic tenure, following the same process and rationale as the University of Alabama did, her ability to inflict such lethal damage would have been significantly hindered by the stringent rules regarding access to and carrying of firearms in these regions.

Further, it may be the case that in a different setting she would have been more carefully vetted prior to being offered her university faculty position. If she had been vetted, a faculty job offer may have been denied or, even if offered, she certainly should have warranted a special watch. This is because Amy Bishop had fatally shot her own brother in Massachusetts over two decades ago using a legally registered gun from her home. Her past suggests that she had no problem accessing guns since her youth and using them with lethal results.

However politically incorrect, this tragic incident illustrates the damage inflicted on society by the apparent anachronistic, and at times distorted, interpretation of the 220-year old Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects “the right to keep and bear arms.”

Amy Bishop had access to a gun decades ago in Massachusetts and now in Alabama, inflicting significant damage both times. In the recent Alabama killings, it can be argued that the system did not fail, but that Amy Bishop broke the law by obtaining and carrying a gun illegally. The problem with this argument is basic supply and demand economics, given the mammoth number of firearms among civilians, in the streets, and under. It is estimated that there are close to 300 million guns in America today.

The difference between accessing a gun legally (which is commonplace) or illegally (also commonplace) comes down to the price mark-up difference (and transaction costs at the margin, although it is not impossible to order extralegal guns online).

The rate of gun possession per capita in countries like Canada, Denmark, England, Ireland or Japan are a very tiny fraction of that in the U.S. In England, for instance, there are about 6 guns per 100 residents, in Chile and Denmark about 12, in Canada 31, while in the United States there are about 90. And the rate of killings resulting from guns in America (32 per million population per year) is a multiple of that of other countries (1.6 per million in England, 2.6 in Denmark, 4.6 in Canada), as we see in this table. Further, there seems to be no compelling evidence that when gun laws are more stringent, there is a substitution to other weapons that kill.

Unfortunately, in today's political system where money in politics and vested financial interests by powerful minorities play a prominent role (and where lobbying groups such as the NRA and others wield disproportionate influence over lawmakers), the likelihood is low that the United States will enact more stringent gun laws aligned with those of other modern societies anytime soon. In fact, last Friday, the same day of the University of Alabama murders, the Virginia House of Delegates approved a bill that allows people to carry concealed weapons into bars (as long as they do not drink), and yesterday it repealed a 17-year old ban on purchasing more than one handgun a month. This further permissiveness in the purchase and concealed transport of guns is taking place in the very state where less than three years ago the worse peacetime massacre in U.S. history took place, on or off-campus, at the hands of a lone gunman at Virginia Tech.

However, the fact that Amy Bishop may have had mental health challenges, and broken the law, as well as the reality of politics moving toward further permissiveness on gun possession, ought not deter the continuation of data-driven policy analysis and research, as well as a frank debate on this thorny issue, which may be another instance of misrule of law.


--

Have you remembered to sign up for the VA-ALERT yet? If so, are you enjoying it? If not, what are you waiting for? It's FREE! just click

http://www.vcdl.org/va-alert.html

[zephyp]

Well, could conceivably be a point about Europe but wasnt there an article in the news past couple of days about an amnesty box in the UK for KNIVES. They banned those too. You know, the sharp pointy ones dad uses (or used to in the UK) to carve the turkey on Thanksgiving day. What about the 2x4s those thugs used to beat that poor kid to death in Chicago. No body called to trace them or ban them. Police officers supposedly watched.

People who "snap" will use whatever means they have at their disposal to wreak havoc and commit a heinous act. Dont think so? Then please tell me why they banned sharp pointy kitchen knives in the UK? Answer: When guns became hard to get they became the weapon of choice. Make those unavailable and folks will find a 2x4. Ban those and you still have rocks. Ban those and I can give you example after example after example of folks being beaten and kicked to death by hoods with no weapons other than what God gave them...ban that morons.

[Eagle4second]

"Unfortunately, in today's political system where money in politics and vested financial interests by powerful minorities play a prominent role (and where lobbying groups such as the NRA and others wield disproportionate influence over lawmakers)"

Come on. When will these anti-gunners stop fooling themselves into thinking that only a tiny number of crazy white males own guns and that the big bad NRA is out to force people to own guns. Everyone of the arguments presented here are so worn out.

[zephyp]

"Unfortunately, in today's political system where money in politics and vested financial interests by powerful minorities play a prominent role (and where lobbying groups such as the NRA and others wield disproportionate influence over lawmakers)"

Come on. When will these anti-gunners stop fooling themselves into thinking that only a tiny number of crazy white males own guns and that the big bad NRA is out to force people to own guns. Everyone of the arguments presented here are so worn out.

The true anti-gunners (like political figures and activist groups) arent fooled one bit. Why do you think these types want to ban guns? So our streets will be safer from criminals?

NOT. So "they" will be safer from we the people...

Those other arguments are to fool the masses and create/coddle sheeple.

[Palladin]

Oh - and don't forget to ban lighters and matches and airplanes and (gasp) autos!
Heaven knows if Amy Bishop had been a professor in Europe or Asia this never would have happened!

I feel so... anachronistic.

Heck, let's just ban living...
not!

[viiiball]

When guns became hard to get they became the weapon of choice. Make those unavailable and folks will find a 2x4. Ban those and you still have rocks. Ban those and I can give you example after example after example of folks being beaten and kicked to death by hoods with no weapons other than what God gave them...ban that morons.

They do have one rational argument here, its EASIER to inflict multiple casualties with a gun than knives, rocks and 2x4's. One we need to try and find an answer to combat.

[Palladin]

When guns became hard to get they became the weapon of choice. Make those unavailable and folks will find a 2x4. Ban those and you still have rocks. Ban those and I can give you example after example after example of folks being beaten and kicked to death by hoods with no weapons other than what God gave them...ban that morons.

They do have one rational argument here, its EASIER to inflict multiple casualties with a gun than knives, rocks and 2x4's. One we need to try and find an answer to combat.

I find that hard to swallow, that THAT is a rational argument. A sick mind can devise many methods of inflicting multiple casualties... the question for me is - why do we, as a society, coddle sick minds?

[WRW]

When guns became hard to get they became the weapon of choice. Make those unavailable and folks will find a 2x4. Ban those and you still have rocks. Ban those and I can give you example after example after example of folks being beaten and kicked to death by hoods with no weapons other than what God gave them...ban that morons.

They do have one rational argument here, its EASIER to inflict multiple casualties with a gun than knives, rocks and 2x4's. One we need to try and find an answer to combat.

The multiple casualties becomes harder to inflict when others are armed.

[viiiball]

When guns became hard to get they became the weapon of choice. Make those unavailable and folks will find a 2x4. Ban those and you still have rocks. Ban those and I can give you example after example after example of folks being beaten and kicked to death by hoods with no weapons other than what God gave them...ban that morons.

They do have one rational argument here, its EASIER to inflict multiple casualties with a gun than knives, rocks and 2x4's. One we need to try and find an answer to combat.

The multiple casualties becomes harder to inflict when others are armed.

I don't disagree and that is precisely why I carry a legal firearm. All I am saying is the argument about being able to inflict higher number of causalities with a gun vs. other weapons is a correct one. Yes we can argue bombs (like Ok City) and planes (like 9/11). All I was suggesting is we find a counter argument.

And Palladin, I get your point about sick minds but that is such a grey area. Take for example the guy that crashed that plane into the IRS building yesterday. By all accounts he was a "regular" guy. And there is Cho, the VA Tech shooter. People had suspicions about his mental health but until it crosses some line how do you take action? When is sick..sick?

[Palladin]

viiiball, you're right, there's too many angles - and that 'ya can't legislate morality' thing...
And who draws the line to be crossed?

While we're at Tech, what about Haiyang Zhu? Was Xin Yang's death less tragic or horrific because it was just her, and he only used a knife? He pleads guilty and won't be sentenced 'til April, maximum life in prison... Come on - Is that the best we can do?!

Who gets to pay for life in prison - We do!
It galls my 'end' no end...


Not directed at you, viiiball, just venting...

[zephyp]

I think the whole gun argument is invalid anyway for reasons I already stated. If I am a criminal and I aim to do someone bodily harm or death it doesnt matter if guns or knives or anything else is banned. I'm going to find a way to do it. It I want to get more than one I will find a way to do that regardless of what is banned.

Lets take the restaurant concealed carry issue for example. The antis are howling that it will be Dodge City all over again. Are they referring to criminals in the restaurants with guns? No. They are referring to law abiding citizens with CHPs. The same ones that already walk down the street with concealed guns. Very similar argument for national park carry.

Here's the basic rebuttal. What makes me or anyone else susceptible to committing criminal or heinous acts merely because they carry a gun? I'm a law abiding citizen. And, I'm your neighbor, your dentist, doctor, lawyer, fireman, store clerk, barber, teacher, coach, etc, etc, etc. You trust me to do all those things. Many with your children. What is so magical that removes all that trust if I choose to carry a gun? So, let me get this straight - you trust me implicitly to give you a shave with a straight razor but the moment I strap on a gun I become capable of criminal acts?

Its kinda like the argument with liberals over abortion: so, you want to kill unborn children but let terrorists go free?

[Palladin]

- you trust me implicitly to give you a shave with a straight razor ...

WHAT?! Shave me with a straight razor? Maybe Parry (Newdovo) - but not you DK!
I want to see you shave the balloon first...

[zephyp]

- you trust me implicitly to give you a shave with a straight razor ...

WHAT?! Shave me with a straight razor? Maybe Parry (Newdovo) - but not you DK!
I want to see you shave the balloon first...

Hey, Young (my lovely barber) can shave that balloon just fine. Me? I'll pop it every time...

[Reverenddel]

Not to put me on any "list", but I don't need a firearm to be "dangerous".

And that's the mindset that scares the hell out of the "guv'mint controllers". I can improvise just about anything given enough time, tools, and materials. Fear the man, not the weapon.

[zephyp]

Not to put me on any "list", but I don't need a firearm to be "dangerous".

And that's the mindset that scares the hell out of the "guv'mint controllers". I can improvise just about anything given enough time, tools, and materials. Fear the man, not the weapon.

We must have chewed some of the same dirt...uncle taught us well...