Thomas Cavenaugh's much appreciated effort to "clarify terms that mean something specific and significant in this area" could be extended to many recent Newton-related ALSB Talk posts.
For example, one proposed to ban "guns that are automatic and that have bullet cartridges." As this list is populated by lawyers (or former lawyers) known, as a group, for haggling over the meaning of words like "is," it can hardly be said "nit-picking" to observe that guns without bullet cartridges are an oxymoron. What is popularly called the "bullet" is the business end of a "cartridge." Even muzzleloaders use cartridges. In an automatic or semi-automatic firearm, cartridges are stored in a magazine prior to being "chambered" on the way to firing. Unless the author of the post wishes to ban all guns, I would guess she misused the word "cartridge" in place of "magazine." For more on this and similar distinctions, a helpful webpage is this: http://www.americanrifleman.org/blogs/bullets-and-cartridges/.
In a similar vein, a highly educational, quick read on the subject of gun "control" in the Newtown context is Megan McArdle's Dec. 17 article, There's Little We Can Do to Prevent Another Massacre, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/17/there-s-little-we-can-do-to-prevent-another-massacre.html. Short of a book or law review article, I have not seen a better primer for those wishing to engage in the debate. I close with this key excerpt:
* * *
The sort of people who can qualify for a legal handgun are the sort of people who are vanishingly unlikely to commit a crime with it. And the people who can't qualify, but own guns anyway . . . well, we've got this huge border with Mexico. We can't even keep whole people from being smuggled across it. How are we going to make sure that they don't bring guns with them?
There's a terrible syllogism that tends to follow on tragedies like this:
1. Something must be done
2. This is something
3. Therefore this must be done.
. . . and hello, Gulf War II.
It would certainly be more comfortable for me to endorse doing something symbolic--bring back the "assault weapons ban"--in order to signal that I care. But I would rather do nothing than do something stupid because it makes us feel better.
* * *
Best 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: "Carol J Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:51:29 AM
Subject: Newtown
I really don't know what the solution is. Attitudes are soooo hard to change. A few people who care nothing for the rights of other people can cause so much harm.
Banning the sale of such weapons may slow the increase, but there are already plenty of weapons in the hands of individuals with short tempers, mental instability or revolutionary attitudes. There was a disturbing story on MSNBC about home manufacturing of cartridges and gun parts, with downloadable instructions on the Internet. They may not have to buy the key parts of the weapon as that technology becomes more perfected.
-Counseling at a young age if/when characteristics can be indentified may help. But there needs to be funding and destigmitization of counseling. Others may try to prevent counseling because of peer and career impressions. Remember how Senator Eagleton had to resign as a VP candidate because he had had counseling.
Carol
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Marsha Hass [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 2:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: nothing profound
Just stop selling guns that are automatic and that have bullet cartridges. JMHO
Marsha E. Hass
Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Legal Studies
College of Charleston
Charleston, SC
[log in to unmask]
|
