The individual who pulled the trigger in Tucson is clearly a disturbed person. He was likely stirred up by intemperate, toxic talk on television, radio, and the Web. But what is the most effective way of making such crimes, which tear the very fabric of our democracy, less likely to happen from now on? Surely, keeping weapons out of the hands of such disturbed people is the most direct way.
The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, but not by criminals and people in mental institutions. How difficult would it be to add to this list of reasonably excluded people those who have shown signs of mental unbalance and propensity for violence?
Jared Loughner showed such signs - to his teacher and by his own postings online. How difficult would it be to get teachers and readers on MySpace and Facebook pages to report such indications of unbalance, such troubled individuals, to a central clearinghouse, that all gun dealers would be obligated to consult before selling a weapon?
This is far from a perfect solution. But surely it would help. The toxic talk could be reduced, too, not by law but by a public which turns off such talkers and walks away from online sites that traffic in the metaphors of violence. But since there is no telling just what can set off a sick person, a better way of reducing the likelihood of murder of public and private citizens for political reasons is to do more, much more than is done now, to keep guns out of their hands.
A nine-year old child killed, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in critical condition, four other people killed - we as our society can't continue doing business as usual when it comes to the gun that did this. And while we're at it, how about banning automatic clips - the most lethal kind of ammunition - which the Second Amendment says nothing about at all.
10 comments:
Hear, Hear!
I second that!
I'd be concerned about the possibility of false reporting by people with grudges if the reporting system was extended to Facebook and such, but I would certainly support your proposal to the extent of mandatory reporting for disciplinary action in school or college.
Thanks for comments.
DifferentDrummer: The likely misuse of the reporting system you're talking about could be limited by the following steps: 1. The whistle-blowers provides a screen shot, or at least a direct quote, of the worrisome text or image. 2. The author of the text is contacted by the clearinghouse. If the charges are denied, the clearing house appoints a neutral third party - an admin from the site would be best - to investigate. 3. If it turns out that the charges were false, the whistle blower could be subjected to some disciplinary action - ranging from being thrown off the site, to in cases of repeated, malicious false reports, to prosecution for a misdemeanor, etc.
Not a perfect solution, but it should help in keeping the system from going after innocent people.
Arizona already has a system to put someone into court-ordered treatment for mental reasons which makes that person ineligible to possess a gun. Someone (or law enforcement) just had to initiate the petition process.
"The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, but not by criminals and people in mental institutions."
HUH?
YOU HAVE A VIVID IMAGINATION. Besides being very dangerous to liberty. And I suppose the guberment won;t overstep those bounds either.....
Yeah, sure. Restrict rights of someone based on what appears on Facebook or MySpace. Everything on the internet is true, you know.
I certainly do not want the mentally ill to have access to firearms, but you have chosen a very unreliable data source from which to make a determination of mental health, one which is also prone to abuse. Internet rumor should not be the source of administrative or judicial determination, excepting where it leads to firm evidence, through a real investigation.
Where would this rumor-milling end? Surely not with gun laws. A miscreant could cause you to lose your job, if your job requires travel, by only posting a fake Facebook profile in your name, with stolen photos. This fake Facebook profile could threaten to kill the President. That would surely add you to the no-fly list.
Do you see where this would naturally progress?
One other thing: In your comment above to DifferentDrummer, you suggested that the online community (Facebook, for instance) could make a determination of authenticity as to an alleged inflammatory posting. I have a few problems with this. (1) The company running the community would object to this layer of administrative overhead, which they may be unable or unwilling to afford. (2) Private communities like Facebook have little regard for the rights and privacy of their users; I would not trust them to make such a determination. (3) The online community has no way to verity the authenticity of a such a spurious posting.
The world is a messy place, and there are often problems without a solution. Mental illness presents a host of these unsolvable problems. A technocratic "solution" to such an intractable problem harms the public at large, and should be avoided.
There is no such thing as an "automatic clip." There are semi-automatic guns which are magazine fed, for which there are in some cases high capacity (an arbitrary assertion in most cases) magazines. The 33 rd magazine Mr. Loughner used is a common enough accessory for the Glock Model 17 and 19 pistols that I know at least 3 people who own them. These men have never harmed anyone, and never will unless they are attacked. They are mentally stable, and should not have their property taken or their right to use it diminished out of some reactionary desire to feel more comfortable, or like you've "done something" in response to this tragedy.
Sometimes the best thing to do is nothing at all, at least legislatively. Why not stick to the non-political, for once? I live here in Tucson, and I can tell you, as even the father of the 9-year-old who was killed affirmed, we will not accept a dimunition in our freedoms in the wake of this tragedy, with respect to either the first or second amendments. We have a gun show every two weeks. We have a lot of loud mouthed radio commentators who have done and are doing a great (and appropriately sensitive) job covering this and other issues.
Please, keep your proposals for more laws the hell out of here and let us mourn the dead, and comfort the living.
Inalienable Rights: Surely you're not saying that convicted felons do have the right to bear arms - they do not - see http://www.ehow.com/list_6368656_constitutional-rights-denied-convicted-felons_.html - and neither do inmates of mental institutions.
Cornholio: I said it wasn't a perfect solution, and outlined, in my response to DifferentDrummer, ways in which the process could be implemented to reduce the likelihood of frivolous or malicious application. This of course would not take care of all possible abuses, and if the process were adopted, other refinements would be needed. The result would still be imperfect, but the point is that something needs to be done, because the present system, with mentally disturbed people allowed to buy weapons, clearly isn't working.
Anon: The point of my proposal is that people with serious mental problems should not be allowed to buy guns, so your friends would not be affected. Indeed, they and everyone in the United States would be protected by any process that keeps guns out of the hands of mentally disturbed people.
Post a Comment