Hi Ginny,

Thank you for your collegial, temperate response.

I value my relationships with my ALSB colleagues and hope they feel the same. However, I cannot with integrity ratify with silence a one-sided, emotional attack on a constitutional provision that I consider integral to our system of ordered liberty.

As Dan hinted when he started this thread, notwithstanding recent incidents involving firearms, this continues to be a hotly controversial question with visceral feelings on multiple sides. It seems to me, as scholars, we owe it an open, dispassionate, and fair discussion. I think we also owe our colleagues the courtesy of carefully considering what they have written before responding.

Along these lines, John Allison wrote, "You are picking at nits in the face of one national tragedy after another. You brought up arming professors. I simply think that this is too ludicrous for words." First, "too ludicrous for words" is not an argument, except perhaps ad hominem. While some may see it as ludicrous, it is already the law in Utah that faculty and students can carry on state university campuses. See http://dps.utah.edu/laws-policies/weapons.php. You may not agree with this policy, but plenty of completely rational Utahns do.

Second, no one is "picking at nits." I did not bring up "arming professors." Rather, on that point, I responded to another list member who suggested that arming elementary school teachers or administrators is unreasonable because, apparently, my college prof colleagues are not competent to be so armed. (This seems a non sequitur, but I'll keep an open mind on it, for now.)

In response to Robert Bird's collegial gloss on Allison, my original post reported the view of a local SWAT team member to the effect that "the best defense is a good offense: administrators and/or teachers should be armed and trained to respond . . ." Neither I nor the SWAT team member was suggesting that "everyone be armed" or even that every teacher and administrator be armed. Granted, I could have explicitly included the modifier "some" (as in "some administrators and/or teachers"). But readers might also be reasonably expected to read "some" into the message on their own.

As to John's "one national tragedy after another," alcohol abuse (by teens and adults - not sure why everyone is focused narrowly on teen alcohol abuse) kills, maims and destroys far more of American life each year that guns ever have. Alcohol is a continuing national tragedy that rolls forward every day of the year, across the country, in the form of death, disability, disfigurement, divorce . . . you name it. Yet, we regulate alcohol far less than we already regulate guns. 

Why are we as a nation so hypocritical on this point? Understand, I am not suggesting that alcohol should be regulated more than it is. I am suggesting, however, that if we do not regulate alcohol more, we should not be regulating guns more than we already do at both state and federal levels. I will be shocked if, when all of the facts are in, it is not clear that the Newtown shooter violated multiple state and federal weapons statutes before he pulled the trigger on anyone. What good did those statutes do in this instance?

Finally, to Ginny's proposal. I could be wrong, but aren't parents already accountable under local law for firearms misuse by their children? I have always believed this to be the case and have acted as if it were, wherever I go. If such liability does not already attach, then I wholeheartedly agree that it should, just as it should (and, I believe in some jurisdictions does) if parents' provision of alcohol to their children indirectly results in death or grave harm to others. 

I respect the sincerely held views of my ALSB colleagues. I hope we can agree that making policy while under the influence of highly emotional and tragic circumstances too often results in bad policy. As an aside, I am reminded of the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, an absurd piece of legislation if ever one was, passed by Congress on March 6, 1996 following Cuba's cold-blooded, February 24 downing of two civilian aircraft operated by Americans. 

With heartfelt condolences to all impacted by the Newtown tragedy, I nevertheless wish my ALSB colleagues a holiday season as happy and safe as may be.

Warm regards,

Kurt S. Schulzke, JD, CPA, CFE 
Associate Professor of Accounting & Business Law 
Director - Law, Ethics & Regulation 
Corporate Governance Center 
Kennesaw State University 
+ 1770-423-6379 (O) 
+ 1404-861-5729 (C) 
http://coles.kennesaw.edu/centers/corporate-governance/ 
My research: http://ssrn.com/author=804023 




----- Original Message -----
From: "Virginia G Maurer" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 2:56:54 PM
Subject: Re: Newtown

Well, we're lawyers here. What kind of solution protects both the 2nd amendment and the security and welfare of our people? I can think of lots of proposals, but here is one I have not heard (although undoubtedly I am the 20,000th person to think of this since there really are not any new ideas in the world): Criminalize failure to secure firearms from known incompetents who use them to kill people without justification. Make them accessories to murder. Let them rot in prison.

Now, of course, none of that would punish Mrs. Lanza, whose illusion that owning such weapons would protect her life actually caused her death. But she knew she had these weapons in her house. She knew she had a schizophrenic 20 year old living in the house. If she could envision the personal consequences to herself of going to prison for not effectively securing those weapons, would she have taken action that probably would have saved her life?

Well, we know that the use of the criminal sanction to deter behavior is only imperfectly effective, but criminalization might cause most people to think more deeply about how they secure their weapons and also notice the social approbation attached to irresponsible behavior. And, as with many other crimes, most responsible people would already have taken the action the law was designed to promote.

In short, make the gun owners take personal responsibility for their behavior or negligence. 

Next argument: What about knives? Well, there are paring knives and there are Samarai swords. Yes, leaving a collection of Samarai swords on the walls in reach of small children or the insane is similarly negligent and people should take responsibility for that decision, too. That is, the standard of behavior should be commensurate with the risk of injury as a reasonable person would assess it. I guess that is criminalizing gross negligence.

Oh, and of course civil damages.

Anybody have thoughts on that? It secures the right to bear arms and makes people take responsibility for their own behavior. 

Most likely, however, it is not enough. 

Ginny