Though we may continue to disagree on this issue, Dave, thanks for the reasoned discussion; it is a welcome change of pace from the kind of reactions I often get.

And thank you for the thoughtful commentary. I wish more people on both sides of the political spectrum would listen to each other and have reasoned debate these days. It seems to have lost out in favor of cable TV pundits screaming at each other.

Dirty bombs are a rather extreme example, but are laws really going to be a guarantee against crazy people making them and keeping them in their basements anyway? Besides, this line of argument doesn’t work against regular weaponry like pistols and even full auto rifles. Perhaps more importantly, any argument against private individuals making and keeping dirty bombs is an even better one against governments making and keeping them!

As for whether the Founding Fathers would have been in favor of everyone having the ability to walk into a mall and mowing down 30 people in a minute: I’m sure they wouldn’t be in favor of anyone committing mass murder, but I’m also pretty sure that they would have frowned upon governments monopolizing that ability! The last century is a testament to the evils just such a monopoly. If full auto rifles and similar weapons exist, citizens have just as much a right to them as government soldiers and police. Indeed, more so. It’s rather futile to wish such weapons didn’t exist. They do. Given their existence, people should be able to own them in order to be able to defend themselves against others who have them (including their own governments, if necessary).

It is also worth considering just how much more of a police state the US would have to become in order to truly enforce strict enough gun control laws to have a hope of preventing VT-style and Omaha West Roads Mall-style shootings. (I happen to live near Omaha and shop at that mall, btw. If I had been there at the time, I would have liked to at least have had a chance to defend myself. Incidentally, there was a ccw permit holder within range of that shooter but he wasn’t carrying because it was a gun-free zone (at least until the suicidal mass murderer arrived), so he ran and was lucky enough to get away.) But even this extreme prescription wouldn’t be a 100% guarantee. Meanwhile, we’d have even less freedoms and an even more (than it already is) intrusive government than the Founding Fathers meant for us to have. Such a policy would probably have an effect much like the Prohibition and the current Drug War in facilitating the rise of organized crime around the prohibited item/activity. Do we really want to trade what are relatively isolated (as tragic, horrible, and all too frequent they are) incidents for less freedom and more systematic oppression? There is a quote by Benjamin Franklin, often rightly used against Bush’s domestic policies in the War on Terror, that is equally applicable here: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Though we may continue to disagree on this issue, Dave, thanks for the reasoned discussion; it is a welcome change of pace from the kind of reactions I often get.

On the other hand… the Second Amendment needs some updating and clarification. Everyone should have a right to bear arms… so does that mean you should be able to amass an arsenal of dirty bombs in your basement? What, they’re arms, right? Doesn’t the Second Amendment protect that?

I understand the idea of self-protection, but “bearing arms” doesn’t mean the same thing today as it did back in 1787. I don’t think the Founding Fathers would have been in favor of everyone having the ability to walk into a mall and mowing down 30 people in a minute.

It might be true that both much stricter gun control and much looser gun control might have prevented the VT tragedy, might even diminish their frequency. That’s an empirical question. I’m not convinced stricter gun control would help though. Criminals will find ways to get guns or other means of inflicting injury and death. Criminals don’t obey gun laws.

There are other things to consider as well. For one, the second amendment right to keep and bear arms, which is itself but a statement in print of our natural right to the same. Gun control laws violate this right and infringe our ability to defend ourselves from criminals and from tyrannical governments. Gun control is effectively victim disarmament.

For another, even the fastest police response times will in almost all cases not be enough to prevent armed criminals from stealing, raping, injuring, committing mass murder, etc. Knowing most citizens are unarmed makes the criminal feel safer in committing his crime. And there is a reason why these suicidal mass murderers almost invariably choose gun-free zones for their acts.

“Tommy: You can look at the Appalachia case another way. The crazy dude might have gone on to kill 30 more people if he hadn’t been stopped by private citizens with handguns. I’m not sure I agree with that argument — personally I favor much stricter gun control — but it’s not such an easy argument to dismiss.”

Speaking of private citizens carrying concealed and stopping suicidal mass murderer’s from continuing their rampage, did you hear about the recent Colorado church shooting in which a female parishioner (not a security guard as the media claims – no surprise there) did just that?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/09/church.shooting/