Gun Control Fails Again

I've been watching this story a bit when I could during the day but haven't had a chance to comment yet:

BINGHAMTON, N.Y. – A gunman barricaded the back door of a community center with his car and then opened fire on a room full of immigrants taking a citizenship class Friday, killing 13 people before apparently committing suicide, officials said.

Investigators said they had yet to establish a motive for the massacre, which was at least the fifth deadly mass shooting in the U.S. in the past month alone.

The attack came just after 10 a.m. at the American Civic Association, an organization that helps immigrants settle in this country. Police Chief Joseph Zikuski said the gunman parked his car against the back door, "making sure nobody could escape," then stormed through the front, shooting two receptionists, apparently without a word.

The killer, believed to be a Vietnamese immigrant, then entered a room just off the reception area and fired on a citizenship class.

"The people were trying to better themselves, trying to become citizens," the police chief said.

I titled the post the way I did for a reason. The events are probably still too fresh for the usual political response, but I fully expect that by sometime this weekend either a prominent member of the Obama administration, a congressperson (likely from New York) or a NY state politician will come out demanding that the only reasonable answer to this shooting is more gun control.

Of course, New York State already has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, as do many other major cities with skyrocketing numbers of gun deaths. Gun control as envisioned by Democrats doesn't work. Making guns legally hard to own simply makes it hard for good citizens to get them. It doesn't even slow down the bad guys. (UPDATE: Don Surber has similar thoughts.)

I don't think I've ever opined much on the gun control subject other than to say I'm not in favor of very much of it, so this would be a good time to express some of my personal feelings.

I believe the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms should be nearly inviolable, with very specific exceptions. I believe there are five situations in which a person's 2nd Amendment right should be suspended, either temporarily or permanently. For what it's worth, here goes:

In these situations a right should be permanently suspended :

1. Conviction of any felony. Most states have this law already.
2. Conviction of any violent misdemeanor. Better legal scholars than me will have to specify which misdemeanors will qualify, but if a person has gotten violent enough to earn a conviction, they probably don't need access to a gun.

In these situations a right should be temporarily suspended:

1. Upon arrest for any felony
2. Upon arrest for any violent misdemeanor
3. Upon psychiatric determination of mental instability.

Should a person be arrested of a felony or violent misdemeanor but subsequently found not guilty, rights should be restored. A similar outcome should occur upon successful treatment for mental instability. If that instability has to be controlled with drugs, I'd be inclined to leave the suspension in place given the possibility that the individual might not take their medicine.

As far as concealed weapons go, if you don't have one of the problems shown above, can pass a background check and demonstrate a knowledge of your state's gun laws and your weapon, you should be able to carry anywhere, anytime. We have nothing to fear from armed good citizens.

Meanwhile, the gun control kabuki dance will continue with anti-gun politicians attempting to capitalize on the bodies of the shooting victims.

UPDATE: Mark Steyn on the anemic police response.