The tragic incident at Virginia Tech has precipitated an interesting (?) debate on whether guns should be allowed on campuses to thwart any repeat of the massacre. Gov Rick Perry of Texas is considering repealing the state law that prohibits arms on the University campus.. "It makes sense for Texans to be able to protect themselves from deranged individuals.." Does it make more sense to keep a deranged person away from doing any harm? Or is it more sensible not to sell firearms to a deranged person? Maybe the Governor is taking a path of least resistance steering clear of controversies. It is harder to convince the states to change their privacy laws and it is a pure uphill task to make any dent in the gun lobby. So the brilliant solution from Texas is to allow students and faculty to carry arms to the classroom and that will be enough deterrence to a person of unsound mind!
And what happens when the shooting begins? Any law enforcement officer would testify that it takes training and a high degree of skill (don't we have SWAT teams for this) to stop a mad gunman and not to inflict (or minimize) any collateral damage on innocent people. It is hard enough in a usual crime situation and would be a pure nightmare in a class full of frightened students caught in crossfire with both sides firing wildly.
Safety (to repeat the cliché) does not come from guns alone.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
An imminent danger...
...to himself as a result of mental illness," concluded the judge after examining Seung-Hui Cho in December 2005. Yet Cho, with this disturbing history, succeeded in buying not one but two guns and ended up by becoming the deadliest threat to himself and 33 other innocent people at VA Tech and creating the scariest nightmare our college campuses have ever seen!
Some of you may remember Lisa Duy, who went on a rampage in 1999. Despite a long history of paranoid schizophrenia and being committed to a mental institution a year earlier she managed to obtained access to gun by providing false information that could not be verified!
True the Federal law prohibits people who have been committed involuntarily from buying a gun. However most state laws deny access to patient information citing privacy issues. The only safeguard is the veracity of the answer a gun applicant fills in the mandatory federal handgun application. Ironically we put more faith in the mentally ill person to answer accurately!
Back in 2006 Attorney General opined that the Governing Board of public colleges and universities in Virginia "...may regulate conduct of students and employees to prohibit them from carrying concealed weapons on campus.." Interestingly places off limit to carrying include school property. I do not know if VA Tech took any steps in this direction.
While the gun control debate will continue to rage endlessly around us, is it too much to ask that any person who had had a history of mental trouble (whether requiring committing involuntarily or voluntarily or had been adjudged as a danger to himself or others) to be first declared mentally fit before allowing to possess a firearm?
Some of you may remember Lisa Duy, who went on a rampage in 1999. Despite a long history of paranoid schizophrenia and being committed to a mental institution a year earlier she managed to obtained access to gun by providing false information that could not be verified!
True the Federal law prohibits people who have been committed involuntarily from buying a gun. However most state laws deny access to patient information citing privacy issues. The only safeguard is the veracity of the answer a gun applicant fills in the mandatory federal handgun application. Ironically we put more faith in the mentally ill person to answer accurately!
Back in 2006 Attorney General opined that the Governing Board of public colleges and universities in Virginia "...may regulate conduct of students and employees to prohibit them from carrying concealed weapons on campus.." Interestingly places off limit to carrying include school property. I do not know if VA Tech took any steps in this direction.
While the gun control debate will continue to rage endlessly around us, is it too much to ask that any person who had had a history of mental trouble (whether requiring committing involuntarily or voluntarily or had been adjudged as a danger to himself or others) to be first declared mentally fit before allowing to possess a firearm?
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Kiss Kiss: Law Law
Richard Gere and Shilpa Shetty indulged in public display of affection in India causing some self appointed moral police to move the court to restrain them from leaving the country!
The reasons "...advocates pleaded that Gere continuously kissed Shilpa who did not resist which gave the reflection of a planned conspiracy to defame the Indian culture" !
Phew! Does anyone care!
Where were these guardians of Indian culture when a prominent TV channel in India exposed selling of minor girls by their families in Andhra Pradesh early this year? Did they put their energy into starting a crusade to curb female infanticide being openly practiced in some villages in southern part of India? Do these practices preserve our cultural identity in the world? Do these saviors know the dedication Richard Gere has shown for fighting AIDS in India? Above all do they now what Indian culture means?
This law suit reeks of cheap popularity, at best a gimmick in bad taste and at worst a public disservice. It is well known that our judicial system is overwhelmed by large number of cases that lead to justice not only delayed but more often denied. Load the system with such frivolous law suits and you ensure that courts in India get completely gridlocked.
Sean
The reasons "...advocates pleaded that Gere continuously kissed Shilpa who did not resist which gave the reflection of a planned conspiracy to defame the Indian culture" !
Phew! Does anyone care!
Where were these guardians of Indian culture when a prominent TV channel in India exposed selling of minor girls by their families in Andhra Pradesh early this year? Did they put their energy into starting a crusade to curb female infanticide being openly practiced in some villages in southern part of India? Do these practices preserve our cultural identity in the world? Do these saviors know the dedication Richard Gere has shown for fighting AIDS in India? Above all do they now what Indian culture means?
This law suit reeks of cheap popularity, at best a gimmick in bad taste and at worst a public disservice. It is well known that our judicial system is overwhelmed by large number of cases that lead to justice not only delayed but more often denied. Load the system with such frivolous law suits and you ensure that courts in India get completely gridlocked.
Sean
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)