With idiot gun grabbers reenergized by this week's tragedy, Eugene Volokh and Donald Sensing ask, "what law would have prevented this?"

Congress could have banned immigration from Korea for the last two decades and provided additional funding to border patrol to prevent illegal entry. Variations on this might have even prevented 9-11, though we are often told Americans kill Americans, but I digress.

The fact is, the US is not an isolationist country nor should it be. Once that is realized, then yes, I can not think of a law that would have prevented this.

You're right about the gun grabbers being idiots, but you miss the point. Their agenda isn't really about the prevention of crime; it's about the expansion of Der Staat.

The removal of guns from society is a hypothetical imaginary proposition that des not deserve further debate. Also, it is self evident that had even one or two other students been armed, this event at VPI would have been avoided.

However, if a "well regulated" militia was interpreted to ensure the mental health and sanity of every individual who is allowed to own a gun, by some means of semi-annual or annual mental examination and certification, no different from the annual safety inspection of ones car, it could be argued that this event at VTech may have been avoided.

We need some mechanism of ENSURING that someone who owns a weapon that can kill many and so rpaidly and without direct physical contact is of sound mind. Sound mind so that the person not only has his weapons maintained and stored properly (no access to others), but that the person proves periodically to the satisfaction of society that he/she is of sound mind and will not misuse this "right to bear arms."

This may not sound so preposterous as advances in testing and scanning the brain pick up steam. Simple tests of correlating violent images and corresponding illumnation of certain brain regions may easily allow the diagnosis of individuals with violent fantasies (pleasure in the image vs. revulsion) or predisposition to violence.

Unfortunately, this will likely be synonymous, to some, to "registration." Which, of course, is on the slippery slope to "confiscation."

And if the "gummint" can get inside your brain, who knows where that leads?

Donald Sensing is right about the comments being "uh, entertaining". Logicnazi's magical gun is written by a person who knows technology buzzwords and has no clue of what that technology looks like and how it works.

However, I like "PersonFromPorlock"'s letter to the editor solution. It does seem like the killer was motivated by the attention he knew would come.

A more realistic scenario for prevention is mentioned many times... the shooter was certainly mentally ill and had been found to be so by the judicial system. However, laws nationwide have been modified to make it very difficult to commit there people to asylums. People, who are likely to commit multiple murders, usually need treatment in a hospital for a long time and have been identified as needing such previously.

Well, a law that required all full-time tenured college teachers to take three weeks of police training (or have military experience) and wear sidearms in the classroom would have prevented more than one or two deaths. But it's hard to see anyone taking this seriously.

A policy by news organizations of never mentioning the criminal's name, or showing his image, such as they implement for rape victims, would probably reduce the number of such incidents. But this is the media's meat and potatoes. They live for this stuff. Journalists and murderers need each other like whores need johns, and for much the same reason. So this isn't practical either.

Hmm...what about the MSM's favorite, the "Dept of Precrime" solution, that young men who write ugly poems in English classes and obnoxiously pushy e-mails to young women should be incarcerated indefinitely? I guess I'd be OK with that, if we added in young men (or women) who displayed any early urges to spend life standing around with a microphone and camera, asking other people after evil or tragedy strikes: But why didn't you do something?

A more realistic scenario for prevention is mentioned many times... the shooter was certainly mentally ill and had been found to be so by the judicial system. However, laws nationwide have been modified to make it very difficult to commit there people to asylums. People, who are likely to commit multiple murders, usually need treatment in a hospital for a long time and have been identified as needing such previously.

Posted by Leland at April 19, 2007 08:08 AM
============================================

First, the level of "madness" exhibited by Cho would not qualify placement in an asylum. On several other levels Cho was obviously quite capable of functioning as a "normal" person.

Second, who pays for these asylums? Are you talking about more taxation? We already have more people in prison per capita than any other developed nation.

Third, who does this testing? Do we test everybody so we can decide who should be committed?

Why not limit the "testing" to those who desire to have a means that can cause quick and contact-free elimination to multiple law abiding members of the public, as evinced in Norris Hall?

Cho WANTED a gun. He is the initiator of the restriction I propose on him in my ealier comment. Since he wanted this "right", society can act to ensure that he is "properly regulated" to do so. A much simpler, less costly proposition.

Andy, The "gummint" getting into your brain? It doesn't do that already? ;-) I bet brain scans will work their way into obtaining security clearances at some point in the future, and will certainly replace lie-detector tests (which are a lie anyway).

Also, with regard to registration. This is where the gun rights folks look stupid. If one is advocating a law abiding, armed society, that same lawfulness should be applied to a means of "self regulation". When there is no means of "self regulation" of a "militia," society as a whole has a responsibility to provide minimal regulation. Either that or every gun owner belongs to a militia which "gurantees" to the general society that it's members are properly regulated - an unworkable proposition in the modern context.

I go back to my earlier comment where such a method of proving to society on a periodic basis that one is not a danger to society in owning a gun would have prevented the event at VPI.

Even though he was determined to have mental problems, there was nothing on the system to inform the gun store that Cho shouldn't be sold a gun. From what I've read, perhaps that information needs to be on the same system that sellers use to determine if the buyer has a criminal record. However, I don't know how that would square against the federal HIPPA (sp?) regulations protecting the privacy of personal medical records.

First, the level of "madness" exhibited by Cho would not qualify placement in an asylum.

Yes, that was my point. Changes in laws have made it more difficult to qualify people for state funded mental health.

Second, who pays for these asylums?

Taxpayers, and they already do. The cuts in mental health (one area were national health proponents seem to not find valuable) have been too deep.

Third, who does this testing?

The same people who do the testing now, and the same people who decide now for the same reason they evaluate people now.

Do we test everybody so we can decide who should be committed?

That's just stupid. Again, this killer had been previously identified as mentally ill. It didn't require testing everybody to identify him.

Larry,

The privacy of personal medical records isn't protected (not all of it anyway) when one is obtaining a security clearance. The same should apply here. In any case, that doesn't address the situation where someone could be quite "sane" on initial purchase of a gun but develops an "issue" later on. That's an obvious logical flaw in the current requirements. A periodic means of verifying mental health for maintaining the ownership of a gun is needed.

Leland,

Qulifying someone for state funded mental health care was not what you said in your earlier post; you were talking about placement of someone like Cho in an asylum.

The other problem, with outpatient care, as other have noted elsewhere is that many such individuals refuse to acknowledge that they have a problem and do not stay on their meds. In Cho's case, we don't know all the facts but it is clear, he wasn't in a category that was obvious for institutionalization, and if he was on Psych care, he may or may not have been compliant on meds. What was needed was for society to ensure that he was unable to buy or retain use of a previously purchased gun.

"what law would have prevented this?"

I know - we could pass a law against murder.

Oh, wait....

The privacy of personal medical records isn't protected (not all of it anyway) when one is obtaining a security clearance.

Yeah it is. Investigators must have a signed affidavit from a person seeking a clearance allowing them, investigators, access to medical records. Larry is right. HIPPA would have to be amended to allow such a system to function.

Qulifying someone for state funded mental health care was not what you said in your earlier post; you were talking about placement of someone like Cho in an asylum.

It's exactly what I was talking about. Asylums are usually state funded mental health care facilities. If he was in asylum, then society would have prohibited his use of any weapon (firearm, knife, club, intoxicant, motor vehicle).

The other problem, with outpatient care, as other have noted elsewhere is that many such individuals refuse to acknowledge that they have a problem and do not stay on their meds.

Yeah, that's why I said asylum.

In Cho's case, we don't know all the facts but it is clear, he wasn't in a category that was obvious for institutionalization,

Right, and what was the law that identified the category when he was in it? What changed, and could the law that put him in the category (at one time) be changed to keep him in that category.

Both Columbine killers were also identified as mentally ill and sent to mental health care facility where they were eventually released on good behavior.

What about passing a law against suggesting that all problems can be solved by passing a law?

I agree Carl. Passing a law has never solved anything. Enforcing some of those laws is the corrective action.