The most interesting article I’ve read against gun control since the Virginia Tech massacre is the one in the Australian by John Lott. He argues that Gun laws disarms the one who are most vulnerable to gun violence and therefore do not achieve their state goals of reducing gun violence. It is a point of view, which I find intriguing even though I disagree totally with it. Sugary excerpt:
Within hours of the Virginia attack, publications such as The New York Times and leaders of gun-control groups were calling for more gun-control regulation. But perhaps it is time for a different approach. After all, following the Luby's massacre, Texas and many other states began allowing their citizens to carry concealed hand guns.
There is an important reason to believe that the Virginia attack may also be different. All these attacks shared something in common: citizens were already banned from having guns in those areas.
The problem with gun-control laws is not that there isn't enough regulation, rather that it is primarily the law-abiding, not the criminals, who obey these laws.
Virginia Tech has rigorously enforced its gun-free zone policy and suspended students with concealed hand-gun permits who have tried to bring hand guns on to school property. But whether it is the three-year prison terms that can await those who take guns on to property of K-12 schools in most states, or the suspensions and expulsions at universities, these penalties are completely meaningless for someone intent on killing.
Comments