Support VSSA Advertisers

Monday, November 16, 2015

University of Baltimore Professor Suggests Gun Manufacturers Pay for Security Measures at Public Buildings

The Hill has this op/ed from Jeffrey Ian Ross, a professor in the School of Criminal Justice at the University of Baltimore, that suggests improved access control to public places is the best short term solution to violence committed with firearms:
Pro-gun advocates seem to support better mental health screening and therapy, enhanced training in the use of firearms, and better and safer methods of storing weapons. These suggestions are directed toward the saner and law-abiding people of our society. But the anti-gun-control advocates have no solution to the gunman, either motivated by malice or suffering from a major mental illness, who walks into a crowded movie theater and opens fire on the crowd.

Then there are those who dislike the suggestion of installing access controls (the range of security measures used to monitor and prevent unwarranted entry into a room, floor, building, etc.) at vulnerable locations, like our college and university campuses, improving the methods and technology to detect and deter individuals who may open fire on the defenseless public.
Ross then runs through a litany of reasons why people oppose such increased controlled access.  The bottom line is, he thinks that gun manufacturers should have to pay the cost of installing these measures, and having to do so would induce them to finally agree to the various gun control proposals that have floated around for years:
In the end, once the gun manufacturers — wholesalers and retailers — and the pro-gun lobby realize how much money they are spending on access control, perhaps they will take the wider issue of gun control more seriously and consider the ways that the American public gets access to guns, how many they can own and how to better monitor their use.
I keep thinking about how Virginia's crime rate is at it lowest level in decades, at the same time gun sales have increased over 100% since 2006, and wonder why these people can't see that maybe instead of infringing on our rights, they actually get serious about targeting criminals.

1 comment:

m444ss said...

Professor Ross has it exactly backwards. We each have a natural right to self-defense, including a right to personal arms for that defense. When a govt or commercial enterprise denies that right at a specific location, that entities should have a duty to (a) provide security at that location and (b) be civilly liable if anyone is harmed by a criminal or kook at that location.