One: In many rural parts of the country police protection is limited and the need to be defend yourself against possible criminal attacks is a motive for owning guns. Think of the book In Cold Blood.

Second. I doubt a high tax would deter deranged individuals from getting a gun. I imagine if you are ready to commit suicide following the killing, you would be willing to spend your entire savings on a weapon. Poor people would have fewer guns but unless you want to argue that poverty and gun violence are linked, where does this lead.

Third. The Lane Bryant case, assuming the motivation was robbery, might have been prevented with stricter gun laws. Or it might have been prevented if the penalties for gun crimes were increased.

Fourth. The NIU case is a killer with no desire to survive and no concern about the victims. If not guns, he could have reverted to arson, poison, bombs, etc. Do not make the mistake that a determined killer could adjust his methods to achieve his goals.

I don't know how one can square a high tax on legal gun sales with the Second Amendment. If the proposal is to repeal the Second Amendment to enable the government to infringe on gun ownership, say so.

Guns ought to be regulated (not 'controlled') like autos. The cross hatched system of incentives now in place for cars allow us to use automobiles, while minimizing the harm inevitably accompanying their broad use, and would do as well for guns.

Central registration (identification of weapons and ammunition); liability insurance; licensing users and weapons; recordation of transfers; adjusting liability rules to decrease impulsive and criminal behavior. These steps could be followed with the mechanisms now in place in every jurisdiction.

Benefits: we all drive, and appreciate that the inconveniences we are put to are necessary to limit the losses inevitably associated with widescale use. Asking those of use to do as much for a comparably dangerous activity, would be easy for all to understand and accept. (Given the number of users for cars and autos, the risks are comparable. Annual deaths per capita.)

Gun injuries and deaths, as with autos, arise from a limitless range of activities- accidents, like Vice President Cheney's; suicides; domestic violence; criminal behavior. The problem needs to be addressed widely, not piecemeal, as the author suggests.

The low hanging fruit here is in limiting the harm attributable to impulsive and criminal behavior. Liability insurance would provide a number of incentives- cost, underwriting analysis, underwriting recommendations (e.g. building codes, rules of the road - lower rates for less dangerous guns, lower rates for secured weapons etc), greater personal responsibility. Central registries and transfer rules for guns and ammo would temper the informal market that now exists, and provide better law enforcement. The usual auto liablity rules also work with guns: family purpose doctrine, negligent entrustment, 'rules of the road'.

The issue becomes: must we continue to adjust our lives in all other areas, rather than face gun regulation directly? Do we need to have metal detectors, 'pre criminal' intervention into people's lives, flack jackets in schools? After living 60 years in the same neighborhood, I have recently developed the ability to differentiate between the sounds of fireworks on a summer night, and those of automatic weapons. Imagine a world where we refused to regulate autos, but permitted their widescale use. We'd be where we are today with guns - using them, in a much coarser, more dangerous environment.
(For purposes of this post, I assume that the utility of the activity justifies the expense. Politically, regulation (not 'control') also has the advantage of frustrating both the utopians who desire to eliminate guns, and the dystopians who desire to eliminate all regulation of guns.)

Thank you for engaging in this discussion.

A couple of concerns about the various arguments.

First, raising the cost of firearms is a regressive tax on the safety to the poor who are in more need of firearms than the rich. Rich neighborhoods have better police protection and lower incidence of crime. Further, the marginal impact of crime tends to be lower on those with more disposable income.

Gun control's effect on mass shooting by the mentally disturbed isn't something that's easily economically optimized. You'll note that mass shooters of this sort aren't looking for the most efficient way to commit third party suicide. If they were, they would proceed to the nearest police station or shooting range. However, it seems they are seeking an intangible benefit of creating fear and infamy and as such the cost of the firearm is comparatively low compared to the value of their own life. The likely substitution are swords or automobiles depending on the immediacy of fear they are looking to inflict.

Finally, the Tyranny argument is neither so hard to understand or so distant historically as it is often thought to be. First, the simple practical question of whether it is easier to take control of the local Guard Armory with or without common firearms answers itself. More importantly however is the story of the Deacons for Defense and Justice. In 1964, black veterans organized themselves in Jonesboro Alabama into a defensive miltia of sorts to protect their children and the voting rights workers attempting to integrate their town. Tyranny does not have to be Federal to be tyranny nonetheless.

-Gene

In Omaha, where we recently had a similar mass shooting, gun permit applications in the weeks after the event nearly tripled. ( http://www.omaha/comprint_friendly.php?u_mod=story )

So, there is an 'arms race' effect at work here. The spectacular events themselves spawn a broader circulation of guns, and so on.

Ironically, some commentators think that the appropriate policy response to the recent campus killings is to have more guns on campus. Apparently, many schools do not allow students who have licenses to carry concealed handguns to bring them onto campus. These commentators say that concealed carriers would be both a deterrent and a last line of defense against people like the NIU and the Virginia Tech killers. So, I am somewhat doubtful that another campus massacre would increase public support for gun control: the NRA and gun rights advocates find a way to make everything that happens into evidence for the idea that gun control is bad.

On the other hand, maybe a good policy response would be legislation that makes it illegal for mentally unstable people to possess guns? There might be more public support and less NRA resistance for a law like that.

"This position is not responsive, however, to the problem of lunatics who use guns to commit mass murder as a prelude to committing suicide."

I disagree. What Bill Landes and I argued in our work was that these warped killers want to try to create as much carnage as possible. By taking away that carnage, I believe that the evidence shows that you will reduce their incentive to commit these crimes. One very important factor that determines how much carnage takes places is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and someone is able to arrive on the scene with a gun. The longer the amount of time, the more damage. Even with the incredibly rapid response at Northern Illinois University, it was too late.

Your discussion rests on the assumption that guns are on net bad. Yet, survey evidence regarding both crimes committed with guns (not all crimes are reported to police) and defensive gun uses implies that people use guns defensively about 4 times more frequently to stop crime than they use them to commit crime. Possibly more relevant for you, how do you explain the increases in violent crime in murder after gun bans have been imposed? This is true even for island nations, which have relatively easy to monitor borders.

I won't repeat the rest of the post that I have after Gary's post.

Posner writes "The paranoid Right in the United States fears that efforts to disarm the population are a prelude to a military coup d’état, though they do not explain how the possession of pistols, rifles, and shotguns would enable civilians to foil such a coup."

This is a logical mis-step and a straw man to the "paranoid right" position. The question is will a coup d'etat be attempted, not can it be foiled. The paranoid Right would reply that the possession of arms is a disincentive to war being waged, not an absolute barrier. Common sense supports the position that it is more prudent to take steps to remove the rights/possessions/lives of the unarmed than the armed.

Another motivating factor regarding possession that you do not mention: Some of us like to have arms just in case, in that I would prefer to have a gun that I do not need than need a gun that I do not have. Gun owners also tend to resent any implication or policy passed with the logic that because some small minority (lunatics) can not be trusted with guns responsibility we should remove/restrict guns from society. The move would seem a bit overbroad, no?

Posner's right. This is a cultural thing - I'm a Brit and to us the difference is rather obvious. May I make a suggestion? Allow people to own guns, provided they are painted pink. Nonpink guns should carry a 500% duty. And just as anyone caught in possession of an unlicensed handgun in Britain gets an automatic 5-year jail term, so any American caught in possession of a nonpink gun without a receipt for the duty should expect to go down. This will place the functional and cultural roles of gun ownership in clear tension, so that the signaling effects are visible to all.

Surely the argument that all should be deprived or regulated because some are crazy or criminal should be scoffed at by reasonable people.

It seems as though gun control is often discussed as a national issue, though there seems to be a clear tension between rural and urban goals.

These differing goals could be attributable to a number of factors. The response time of the emergency services in remote rural areas is often lower than in more urban areas, if available at all, so self-help solutions may appear a more attractive alternative. Higher victimization rates of urban populations, or just a higher number of strangers encountered on a daily basis might cause residents of densely populated areas to become wary to arm their neighbors.

These factors might explain why mayors in large urban cities see the issue so differently than the rural "paranoid right." Because of these incompatible concerns, this is probably an issue best left to local control. Local control likely results in tougher gun control laws in cities, and looser controls in the countryside. It's regrettable that interpretations of Second Amendment would unlikely consider these pragmatic concerns of modern society, and call for nonuniform presumptions when dealing with gun regulations that target mostly urban or mostly rural areas. However, the status quo seems mostly sufficient to address everyone's concerns (there are more stringent regulations in areas like DC and Chicago), except the concerns of those who mistakenly see this as a uniform national issue.

The easy movement of guns from rural to urban areas might be cited as a reason this must be handled nationally, but only under the presumption that urban concerns are more important than rural. Even under that presumption, the mobility of firearms decreases the costs associated with violating urban regulations, but strong enough penalties for possession of guns in these areas could still be effective.

As an aside: I am particularly fond of Ross's pink gun suggestion, which might also allow guns to raise breast cancer awareness. :)

Excerpts from an article by DAVE WORKMAN

WASHINGTON, D.C.

When the Detroit Free Press recently revealed that six years under a liberalized concealed-carry law in Michigan have not resulted in higher rates of violent crime, gun battles at traffic stops, more police slayings and other gloom-and-doom scenarios, the newspaper put the lie to all the rhetoric against passage of the statute in Michigan, and every other state where so-called “right-to-carry” (RTC) laws have been adopted.

Reporter Dawson Bell noted that in the years since Michigan lawmakers passed RTC, “The incidence of violent crime . . . has been, on average, below the rate of the previous six years. The overall incidence of death from firearms, including suicide and accidents, has also declined.”

....Woodhaven Police Chief Michael Martin with the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police acknowledging that his group’s expectations of increased violence were unfulfilled.

Everything foes of self-defense and firearms rights said in their efforts to prevent Michigan from joining more than 40 other progressive states that have adopted sensible RTC laws was patently false. Their hysteria about “Wild West shootouts” and increased death among youths stands refuted by six years of experience, the same kind of experience reported in other states with similar statutes.

Compare this record with what has been occurring in Britain over the past decade, where a sweeping gun ban has made it difficult to own even a shotgun for sporting purposes, handguns are outlawed and fighting back can get you thrown in prison. According to the Jan. 10 edition of the Guardian, gun crime in the United Kingdom has jumped 400 percent in that decade.

Ross,

Amusingly an acquaintance of mine has recently gotten some notoriety for exactly the act of creating a pink AR-15: http://blog.riflegear.com/archive/2007/12/26/hello-kitty-ar-15---evil-black-rifle-meets-cute-and.aspx

Note that the practical response in the US has been law enforcement alerts...

At this point, the speech issues of rifles "looking evil" have entered the political debate due to misplaced emphasis on evil features as a basis to prohibit weapons that are in most cases less powerful than classic wooden stocked rifles

-Gene

Lott fails o mention that the paper he links never made it through peer review. He doesn't tell you that a peer-reviewed paper by Duwe, Kovandzic and Moody in Homicide Studies 2002 6:4 analyzed the same data and found:

Right-to-carry (RTC) laws mandate that concealed weapon permits be granted to qualified applicants. Such laws could reduce the number of mass public shootings as prospective shooters consider the possibility of encountering armed civilians. However, these laws might increase the number of shootings by making it easier for prospective shooters to acquire guns. We evaluate 25 RTC laws using state panel data for 1977 through 1999. We estimate numerous Poisson and negative binomial models and find virtually no support for the hypothesis that the laws increase or reduce the number of mass public shootings.

As you know, Lambert, the Duwe, Kovandzic and Moody study looked at only those cases where four or more people were murdered. They did get a statistically significant result because the number of cases in sample was so small. We also got a statistically insignificant result for that case. We got statistically significant results for two or more murders, three or more murders, two or more people killed or injured and so on. It is just when we narrowed the sample to such a small number of events as just four or more murders, no one gets statistically significant results.

Sorry typo in previous post

As you know, Lambert, the Duwe, Kovandzic and Moody study looked at only those cases where four or more people were murdered. They did not get a statistically significant result because the number of cases in sample was so small. We also got a statistically insignificant result for that case. We got statistically significant results for two or more murders, three or more murders, two or more people killed or injured and so on. It is just when we narrowed the sample to such a small number of events as just four or more murders, no one gets statistically significant results.

The difference between Lott's and Duwe's results is not that a smaller sample made their results insignificant. The size of the decreases that Lott found woud have been significant, even with a smaller sample. In Duwe's sample the decreases are much smaller and are increases in some specifications. The smaller sample has a big advantage—it is possible to collect every single such shooting, while the larger sample is likely biased by the omission of some cases.

"... a well regulated militia". It would seem the Founding Fathers had a notion that regulation, not "control" was the way to go. Regulation in the way we regulate automobiles is attractive. What does Posner think of it?

An alternative is for Congress to implement "a well regulated militia" as the Second Amendment says. The basic proposition of that would be for everyone who chose to own a firearm to be responsible under militia discipline for it's care, use and control. Having a weapon not listed with the militia would be a criminal offence. Anything that made one unfit for militia duty -for instance being in prison or mentally ill in a potentially dangerous manner - would mean you would have to leave your weapon in the militia armoury. How would Posner view such a "constitutionalist" form of regulation?

Panic about mis-use of firearms in the USA is obviously mis-placed. The other countries that may have roughly similar proportions of gun owners in the population include Afghanistan, Columbia (and perhaps Iraq nowadays). People emigrate in droves to getaway from those guns: they do their best to immgrate into the USA. The US finding that having a swimming pool in the house is much more dangerous to children in the household than having a gun in the house is only one indication of how responsible Americans are with the hundreds of millions of guns in circulation. The only other nation that I know of that combines very widespread holding of firearms with a generally responsible attitude to their use is Switzerland; where the whole and relativly very large army is "a well regulated militia".

An often-overlooked datum relevant to the "Tyrrany" argument is that during the 20th century, malfunctioning socialist governments killed an average of about 1 million of their own citizens per year. To the extent that arming the citizenry reduces the probability of such a development, the excess deaths can be viewed as an insurance premium.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

If you want to ban guns in the USA you'll have to start by repealing the second amendment.

That would be a mistake.

The parts of Europe that restrict or ban private gun ownership have a much higher rate of crimes like hot burglary than the USA. I attribute that directly to the willingness and ability of American citizens to defend themselves. A criminal who invades a home in the USA risks his life. I like it that way.

You yourself are protected by the herd immunity provided by the gun owners around you. You can test this by posting a large sign in your front yard. "This home is a gun-free zone."

Hard cases make bad law. Don't throw out the baby along with the bathwater.

It's not just the US culture with respect to guns that bothers me but also the US culture with respect to getting along with each other in general. When confronted with a societal problems generally, the US culture seems to favor hurting each other over helping each other.

I'll get to guns in a minute but, living in the LA area, the US culture with respect to traffic safety is what really hits home every day. There are a variety of things people can do to improve their safety in traffic: don't talk on a mobile phone, leave a safe following distance, be cautious when changing lanes, don't drive far in excess of the speed limit, buy a car with safety features, buy a car that is heavier than other cars on the road, etc. So what do Americans do? They buy the heavier car. They choose the option that puts others at risk. When I'm out on the freeway I am constantly being passed by people in large SUV's (frequently jacked-up pick-up trucks), who are talking on mobile phones while driving far in excess of the speed limit (or even the speed of other traffic) and doing extremely reckless maneuvers like tail-gating and last minute multiple lane changes.

When it comes to crime, there are a variety of things a person can do to decrease risk. Risk of home burglary can be decreased with alarms, lights, cameras, locks, and fences, for examples. If one is really concerned about crime one can even work to eliminate the root causes of crime by contributing (financially or otherwise) to organizations that work to reduce such things as poverty and drug addiction. Of course, there's also guns. Obviously, someone who lives out in the Alaska wilderness with the nearest police two hours away by sea-plane is in a vastly different situation than someone who live in a suburban environment with the nearest police two blocks away. Nonetheless, in my view the culture in the US tends too much toward individuals looking for ways to hurt each other rather than help each other as a means of dealing with crime.

So, what to do? Something that would never be politically feasible but would dramatically change gun culture in the US would be to impose an essentially mandatory one year prison sentence for shooting someone with a gun and an essentially mandatory ten year prison sentence for killing someone with a gun - regardless of whether it was an "accident" or "self defense" or whether the gun user was the vice-president or an illegal immigrant gang member (law enforcement would be exempt, though). There could be limited exceptions for people who were unaware of the presence of the gun (e.g. a postal employee who jostles a parcel containing a loaded gun) but the basic message would be that if it's important enough to shoot someone then it should be important enough that you're willing to do some hard time yourself.

The basic idea would be to encourage people to think about and utilize the non-violent rather than violent ways to be safe from crime. If there is one solution to a societal problem that involves hurting people and another that doesn't, the solution that doesn't is preferable (unless you just happen to enjoy hurting people).

"This position is not responsive, however, to the problem of lunatics who use guns to commit mass murder as a prelude to committing suicide. When neither deterrence nor incapacitation is effective against some type of crime, preventive measures must be taken, and they include raising the price of some essential input."

Isn't raising the cost merely another deterrent? Like was mentioned before, a higher cost isn't going to stop someone who has no thought of consequences because they are just going to kill themselves.

I think it has to be realized that there are cases where it is impossible to prevent someone from making the choice to go out in a blaze of glory, and people need to start thinking about how best to minimize the damage. An armed citizenry won't deter that suicide killer, but it will cut down on the casualties.

“The paranoid Right in the United States fears that efforts to disarm the population are a prelude to a military coup d’état, though they do not explain how the possession of pistols, rifles, and shotguns would enable civilians to foil such a coup.”
-Professor Posner

“To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.”
-James Madison, more in Federalist 46

I worry less about the military that I do about some sort of Globalist power grab in the aftermath of the collapse of the social safety net. Armed taxpayers are comforting to me, and probably the majority of the military leadership as well. Maybe that makes me paranoid.

When neither deterrence nor incapacitation is effective against some type of crime, preventive measures must be taken, and they include raising the price of some essential input.

This sounds like the premise behind Sarbannes-Oxley Act, the Patriot Act and other "punish the innocent" legislation that does not appreciably affect the targeted act.

Because guns are more lethal than knives or fists, measure to raise the price of guns will not cause large-scale substitution into these other methods of murdering people

This only make sense because the compared group is so narrow and unrealistic; mass murderers would turn to serial killing, poison, arson or just running a car through crowds.

The proximate cause is restrictive gun laws, but these are democratic countries and they would not have such strict gun laws if their population had the same love of guns that ours does.

I don't think this makes sense. Permissive gun ownership results from the second amendment, not democracy.

If I remember correctly, the last few perpetrators of such mass killings were all either mentally defective or pschologically disturbed. If the Nation concentrated on better mental health care instead of allowing such individuals to wander the streets alone and unsupervised, we might very well solve the problem at its roots (wasn't it Reagan who caused the mental institutions to be emptied out?). But then, Politicians and the Media have never been very good at root cause analysis. So, expect more incidents and make sure you practice "duck & cover". It may very well save your life.

After reading all of these responses, doesn't it become apparent why thinking of gun regulation as we do auto regulation would clean up the issues for sensible consideration?

Pandering to the idealogues on neither side, a consideration of such 'regulation' could substantially reduce the increasing carnage that these things are causing.

The absolutist positions, on both sides, are impractical, and unhelpful.

It is almost impossible to prevent Lunatics who desire murder from killing people. We should consider the attacks at the Universities as we would the 10 car pile up on highways. Efforts should be made to prevent mass killings, but there is a limit as to what can be done. Can you image the chaos if metal detectors were installed at the gates of a school? The need for guns is quite often related to magical thinking. Think of how many gun owners, especially criminals, who actually do not know how to handle a gun. Most of their experience comes second hand from the visual media.
Surely some of the older readers of this blog remember the suicide bombers in the 70’s, who ignited their bombs on airborne airplanes, thus killing themselves and the other passengers. The desire to kill others as a adjunct to one’s suicide would be difficult to curtail. The suicide bombers would have been middle class for flying for expensive in those far off days.
As for ordinary citizens who feel the need to own a gun, there are several decrees which could minimize their need. Paranoia fear has been rampant in this country for several decades. Part of the reason is the emotional separation among the citizens. We are truly a nation of strangers and the fear of the unknown person is a powerful motivator for a citizen to arm himself with a firearm to to alleviate fear. I am fearful of the well armed frighten citizen. If I am in a restaurant sitting opposite a couple of cops with their revolvers displayed, I am not worried. They are trained and retrained, I hop, to use their guns. If at another table there is a man in a suit and tie with a barely concealed gun, I am going to worry. Does he have a legitimate reason to carry a weapon or is it merely fear? Does he know how to use a gun? If a crime occurs and he pulls his gun, will it stop the crime or will it only add to the confusion and a hale of bullets?
The level of paranoia could be lower if TV’s were prohibited from dwelling on crime scenes. An anchor person could read an account of the crime and this would create a psychic distance between the event and the audience. Several studies have shown a direction correlation between the amount of Television watching and a state of diffuse fear. The news casts might not be as great a factor if their were watched in larger groups. Unfortunately, in American almost everyone has a TV. When I was young the entire family would gather at the TV, as at a watering hole; now the each member of the family sits in a darken room with the company of well-coifed anchors.
Another way to limit the number of guns in society is for the state/city to require registration and familiarization. The registered gun would have to be accounted for on a regular basis to prevent the gun owner from making a sizable profit from the sell of his gun. The owner of a gun, which was stolen from a house from which nothing else had been removed, would be fined. Once every 6 months, the gun owner would have to show up, with his gun, at a police firing range and shoot off several magazines. Nothing banishes fear like a bumbling bureaucracy.

Will, do you realize that more people died along the Oregon and Santa Fe trails from accidental or self inflicted gun shot wounds than were ever killed by Indians. Stranger than fiction eh? Your statement, "I am fearful of the well armed frightened citizen." That's probably the underlying sentiment-rational of the Continental Congress when they added the Second Amendment.

Strange how things seem to stay the same the more they change.

good efforts

You seem to have a curious blind spot, in that you recognize a cultural aspect to the desire of other people to own guns, but somehow imagine your own desire to deprive them of guns is just the result of objective logic. Nope, it's as much cultural as the other side, and frankly, it's rather arrogant of you to presume that you're somehow entitled to over-ride other people's choices.

I am not a beast, to be driven to your will, and would appreciate it if you'd stop gaming out ways to force me to comply, and consider for a moment just leaving me the heck alone.

The problem of lunatics with guns is a problem of lunatics, not a problem of guns. Try thinking up some solution that attacks the people responsible, rather than depriving 10,000 people of their liberty for every bad guy it merely inconveniences.

The mentally ill do not commit a lot of crime. I am not sure what mental illness the NIU shooter suffered from beyond some run of the mill OCD. Not every violent person is mentally ill, sometimes they are just nasty people.

President Reagan did not release the mentally ill. New drugs and advocates for the mentally ill worked to release the mentally ill from institutions.

Dan, Oh Contraire. The reason the prisons and jails are now so full is because these people have been picked for various offenses and are now in the criminal system(ask the Judge). As for Reagan, it occured on his administration's watch and they pushed it as method of reducing Government expenditures. They should have known better.

The releasing of inmates in the US followed a successful program in one of the Scandinavian countries. As in many cases, the social differences between the original country and the US was not considered. The population in the Scandinavian countries are not heterogeneous. If you look at a photo of a crowded city street, the similarity of the people is eerie, compared to one of our cities. One feels that cloning has already occurred. The urban areas are smaller. A feeling of membership within a community is stronger there than in our cities.

One should not argue for gun control by considering the outliers. The shooting at the Universities seems to show that the mentally ill should not be permitted to own firearms, but the shooters in the recent cases present a unique personality. Undoubtedly, there are many others who, for a variety of reasons, have not undertaken the necessary steps to fulfill their fantasies. And there are many more who are content to indulge their dreams of destruction in their living rooms.
Many more people die of self-inflicted gun wounds, but they die as individuals. One at a time, or occasionally a pair of lovers. We respond more emotionally to larger disasters: a mass shooting, an air plane crash, a train wreck, a highway pile up.
I have been wonder lately if there are approximate statistics for the number of murders that are occasioned by the suicidal driver who purposely crosses the line to crash into another car. In my area, there may be 4 or 5 of these accidents every month. Only a very few are the result of a driver's wish to die. Lack of sleep or alcohol or inattention are the usual causes.

I enjoy how many people (William Metcalfe, neilehat, Bob) just throw out statistics without any citation or proof at all. How can you know how many people died on the Oregon trail because of accidental gun shot wounds, neilehat?

Ross, I don't think you quite understand the problem here. The problem isn't that the guns people used were too hard to see in low light. The problem isn't that the guns don't match their clothes, it's that the people use guns to kill other people. Making guns pink wouldn't solve their lethality, prevalence, or masculine appeal. (Pink been not manly for probably 100 years, while killing people has been manly for about 4000; which social norm do you think is going to change faster?)

But Wes, what are you thinking? A mandatory one year for self-defense? Do you understand the concept of justice? How in the world would putting a man who defended himself in prison with rapists be justice? Unless we are in the Soviet Union, I must be going crazy. The point of a judge is to JUDGE the circumstances around a situation and then JUDGE if prison is the best option. A blanket, pre-planned sentence to be spit out like a vending machine is absolutely ridiculous and against everything America stands for.

Getting rid of guns could well be one solution for the lowering of our horrendous levels of gun slaughter as we see in other nations with 20% or less of our homicide rates or even in NYC where that large and diverse city has less gun crime than 192 other cities of over 200,000 population.

But as many posters and the gun activists are quick to point out the rate of gun abuse is very low, ie most gun owners, are not abusing their "right" or "privilege". (depending on what the SC makes of the DC ban)

Much is made of the high RATE of gun and other crime in the "black community", however, we should note that HALF of our prison inmates are "white". Now what is the common denominator that crosses the color line of our prison population? Illiteracy. Rates of literacy in prison are quoted as 30% or lower in a nation, claiming, lit rates of 95% or higher.

Thus, it would seem wise for those who'd rather not feed "gun banners" the fodder of US gun homicide being many times higher than in the "civilized?" nations to use as political leverage it would seem there best shot would be that of improving education and economic opportunity in the "left behind" areas where crime and kill rates are higher than in all but nations engaged in outright civil war.

But ha!! can anyone imagine the NRA set spending their resources and political might in favor of equitable funding for "those" schools? or economic empowerment zones in our areas that are most economically depressed and rife with crime?

Let me separate this into two parts
1)Can a strongly desired product be suppressed if illegal? Let's think of prohibitiob and cocaine.
2)Can a strongly desired product be suppressed if legal? Let's think of cigarettes.My summationis,it can't be desired,but it can be down sized.But as ther economists among us know there is a "law of diminshing returns".I don't think it can be decreased enough to keep guns from the real nuts.

Greg, Take the time to really study American History, read the accounts and diaries of actual participants, such as Henry Garrison's account of his trip in 1846, instead of the "canned crap" that passes for history in today's textbooks. Or better yet, travel the Trail and become a witness to the monotonous line of graves leading from St. Louis to the Pacific or from Kansas City to Santa Fe. It will really open your eyes to the value of statistics.

Nellehat
I have no idea where you get your information from. Deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill was championed by mental health activists. It was believed that with the advent of new modern drugs, the mentally ill did not have to spend their lives inside institutions. In addition, civil liberties advocates have fought to make it much harder to involuntarily hospitalize someone.

So please don't ignore reality so that you can put a political spin on the topic.

No less a far lefty such as Lawrence Tribe is on the public record as saying that logic and history is on the side of the view that the second amend- ment provides an unqualified right for INDIVIDUALS to own firearms. Without that view, he has stated, "you don't get Lexington or Concord." By this, he explains that the farmers and shopkeepers who rallied to the cause did not go down to the local militia's Armory to check out their weapons--rather they grabbed their own privately purchased and owned weapons from the fireplace mantel, their closets, armoirs etc., and headed out to do battle.

As you yourself have said, ".. was believed", so why the problem? As for the "civil liberties" angle, institutionlize one nut case/potential nut case or bury x number of innocents on a regular basis, tough choice huh? Remember, all Liberties end at my natural right to defend my person and property. And as they say, "the rest is history". Spin? No spin intended, just the facts.

The 2nd amendment specifies "arms". If you were to look into Dr. Samuel Johnson's Dictionary published before our Revolution you will see that the definition of arms included any thing that can be used as a weapon. The common term for guns was firearms. Guns are a subset of the term "arms'. A farmer's arms might be an axe, a knife or a rifle. Firearms were near the top of weaponry then. Today, they are perhaps further down the list. I had a friend who, after a night of drinking, would allows put an empty bottle in each front pocket of his pants. If there were trouble, he would break a bottle and brandish it. He never had to use the bottles, but under the 2nd amendment these would be legitimate weapons. As would be a bottle of acid which was frequently used in urban areas in the 19th century. The acid was more often used aggressively rather than defensively. A husband betrayed, etc. Presently, you could argue that a citizen should have the right to arm himself with any weapon that is in use in the military.

Mr metcalfe;
One can argue anything.But,for many of us,an argument is an opportunity to present materiel and/or information to advance our point of view.I can't believe anyone would accept your point given immediately above.Please find me a supporter of your view

I have seen no one who supports my positions, but this isn't a pole. It is an effort by those who post on here to argue for or against the case for gun control. My only point is that many argue that a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment establishes the right for citizens of the state to carry firearms. I am pointing out that the argument is fallacious because the certain term, "arm", of the Amendment is broader than our current usage. The meaning of words can change over time. The word "cop" seems to alternate between a slang term for a policeman and a very meaning to take, to steal. I think my point is valid.
As a teenager in the 50's, I lived in a large city. This was the period prior to the musical WEST SIDE STORY. There were a number of gangs of young men who seemed to exist to fight each other. I don't recall drugs or stealing as a part of their activities. Kids made their own guns, zip guns. Almost everyone of them carried a switchblade. Kids wore belts with large buckles that were filed to sharp edges. During fights the belts came off and were wrapped around hands and swung at kids in the other gang. Most jurisdictions passed laws outlawing switchblades and formulate broad prohibitions to remove their other weapons.
In a broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment these weapons would be permitted. I am not saying I would like to see that again. Gun usage among young people in gangs today is tragic.
My take on the 2nd Amendment is that that the citizens have the right to protect themselves, but that right is protected by the state which can organize militias in defense of those rights.

The recent well publicized mass murders are a combination of the fact that we are a large country that has an irreducible number of homicidal nut cases combined with over developed sensationalistic national news coverage.

Note how these cases occur in clusters. This is the copycat effect, which feeds back positively engendering even more hysteria emanating from the news media, the pundits, and organizations with a gun control agenda.

The most successful way to reduce this would be to quit glorifying the perpetrators by restraining coverage of these events. Instead each of these events features days of top headline coverage of the event including massive publicity of the perpetrators life story and method of operation.

If anyone suggested muzzling the news media there would be outrage because it would be a violation of the constitutional rights of Americans. Efforts to control the problem by restricting the constitutional rights of innocent, lawful gun owners who use firearms properly seem misdirected.

The recent well publicized mass murders are a combination of the fact that we are a large country that has an irreducible number of homicidal nut cases combined with over developed sensationalistic national news coverage.

Note how these cases occur in clusters. This is the copycat effect, which feeds back positively engendering even more hysteria emanating from the news media, the pundits, and organizations with a gun control agenda.

The most successful way to reduce this would be to quit glorifying the perpetrators by restraining coverage of these events. Instead each of these events features days of top headline coverage of the event including massive publicity of the perpetrators life story and method of operation.

If anyone suggested muzzling the news media there would be outrage because it would be a violation of the constitutional rights of Americans. Efforts to control the problem by restricting the constitutional rights of innocent, lawful gun owners who use firearms properly seem misdirected.

Neither Becker nor Posner make the case for why artificially inflating the cost of legal guns would prevent the deranged from obtaining guns. Their incentives are not economic, so they are unlikely to response to economic incentives. For the same reasons, increasing the cost of illegal guns is unlikely to stop the deranged. Even bringing economics back in, it is worth noting that drug law enforcement has failed to decrease the supply of illegal drugs in any meaningful way.

On the other hand, those law-abiding individuals in a position to stop the deranged from continuing a killing spree probably would respond to economic incentives.

It may be worth noting that most of these killing sprees are happening in places where it is illegal to carry guns. This may come as a big surprise, but criminals (by definition) do not obey such laws, while those in a position to stop them generally do. The deranged will look at a gun-free zone as an opportunity, and an unarmed populace as a collection of easy targets.

Consider this- would you feel your child is more safe or less safe if you knew that some of the staff at his or her school were trained in the usage of firearms, and were "deputized" as part of the emergency response plan?

The plan at my child's school involves locking the classroom door, closing the shades, and having the kids cower together in the corner. They actually practice this regularly now, like a fire drill.

The cultural element to American gun ownership is evident in the feeling that those who depend on the government as their primary means of defense are "serfs," while citizens are able to defend themselves while submitting to a government analysis on if such defense was justified.

I think sucidial deranged gunmen can have their incentives lowered by decreasing their time of having power over the victims they hate, and by not making them famous after their deaths.

Heretic at February 27 wrote: "On the other hand, those law-abiding individuals in a position to stop the deranged from continuing a killing spree probably would respond to economic incentives."
I wish someone would do a probability study on the chances of a mass killer and a citizen, with a gun and the skills to use one, being in the same place at the same time. Obviously, if someone like Dirty Harry, or the cowboy sharpshooters of my youth, had been present on any of the recent rampages, the murder would have been killed and maybe the number of deaths could have been lower. It would happen, but how often? How many gun carrying citizens would it have taken to insure that one would be in position to kill the murder in Illinois before he could begin to fire?

Metcalfe asks:
How many gun carrying citizens would it have taken to insure that one would be in position to kill the murder in Illinois before he could begin to fire?

We will never know. This was a gun-free zone.
Also, one did not only need deterrence before he "began to fire". More shots were to come. Sometimes it's a matter of how far they can get. Look at the elapsed time at Virginia Tech (gun-free zone). Let me ask you this- how far do you think a shooter on a shopping mall rampage would get in, let's say, Texas?

Anonymous at February 27, 2008 said: Let me ask you this- how far do you think a shooter on a shopping mall rampage would get in, let's say, Texas?
If I remember right one of the first mass shooters shooters was a guy on a clock tower somewhere in Texas. On a campus? I don't recall his name or the number of fatalities he caused. It was 20 or 30 years ago.
Even, if a shooter in a Texas mall only shoot 2 or 3 people that would be too many. Doesn't he have to fire first before some one else can react? What if someone else shot your marksman, thinking that he was the mad shooter? It's all hypothetical? Talk to an urban cop about knowing when to fire at a suspect.
I remember once reading about how many bullets were fired during the fight at the OK Corral. These were all men who lived by the gun, but a lot of bullets went astray that day.