Glenn Reynolds (aka Instapundit): People don't stop killers. People with guns do

 Gun-free zones" are premised on a fantasy: That murderers will follow rules, and that people like my student, or Bradford Wiles, are a greater danger to those around them than crazed killers like Cho Seung-hui. That's an insult. Sometimes, it's a deadly one.

With respect to a NY Times editorial calling for stonger controls to prevent Virginia Tech like murders, Prof. Volokh asks:

What stronger controls over weapons would likely have stopped him from committing the murders, or even led him to kill fewer people?

Note that I'm not asking what controls would have prohibited him from doing something. Murder law, and for that matter the gun control law that banned firearms from campus, already prohibited him from committing mass murder. That didn't seem to help. I'm curious what "stronger controls" would likely have stopped a would-be mass murderer from killing, or at least killing as many.

(The comment thread should be good. The Volokh Conspiracy, to which I often link, usually elicits some very intelligent comments and debates.)

It is the same question that was flowing around the firm and the courts yesterday. There were the immediate comments on American gun culture, but they were quickly tempered by the question of what gun law could have prevented this shooting. Look at Dawson College in Montreal where the shooter complied with the very strict Canadian laws. Fewer people died, but not from a lack of effort: the shooter hit 20 people.

Remember the genocide in Rawanda- it was carried out by machete.

UPDATE: David Frum is kind of asking the same question (via Peaktalk):

America will try to learn lessons from this latest tragedy too. But there is no escaping the hardest lesson: that death lies waiting around the corner for us all. No public policy can rescue us from that grim human fact - or the equally fearful obligation to walk with courage under the burden of the reality of evil.

I have been doing a fair bit or research into the law of self-defence in Canada as I am defending a young person in a stabbing. No doubt the law is confusing, however, the facts seem to dominate the case law. The outcome of the use of force in defence is no where near as important as the proportionality of the force. I think my guy has a good defence.

The defensive use of guns will surely be a topic in the inevitable debate on gun control in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings. At Virginia Tech, they had a "no gun" policy. That's fine for the law abiding, or even for those who do not abide with the policy but aren't using their guns. However, when some nut decides he is going to shoot the place up, that policy means squat. Reading Captain Ed, I found this link about a school that probably did not have such a policy:

The abrupt ending to Odighizuwa's shooting spree is attributed to two students with personal firearms who quickly took action.

I so feel for the students and families that went through this mess at Virgina Tech. Despite the social scientists inevitable commentary, the fact was that these kids and professors were just going about their daily business and did nothing to deserve what happened.  As I posted after the Dawson College shootings:

....these poor kids ... did nothing to deserve this. There will be probably some talk in the not so distant future about bullies, outcasts, American guns, violence on TV, violent video games, dungeons and dragons and the like. However, I suspect that the shooter was just simply crazy. You have to be nuts to pull a stunt like this and chances are at some point in his life he was going to pull a stunt like this regardless of the video games and DVDs. The talk will be idle at best. The standard root causes crap. The kids at Dawson did not deserve this and no amount of blame on external factors will change that. Society did not pull the trigger, the shooter did.

The magnitude of these killings ... it is hard to wrap your head around it.

I said I would update on how the trail of the gun charges turned out. Here it is. 9 months and 7 court appearances after the charges were laid, (including a judicial pre-trail) the trial for possession of a firearm without a licence, unsafe storage of a firearm and possession of an unregistered firearm is finally going to proceed. I have come to realize that the defence I have concocted is quite solid and that the crown will not be able to prove their case. It is a technical defence but fatal to the charges. We arrive in court only to find out that there is a sexual assault trial ahead of us and the possibility of getting reached is next to nil. We wait. Six hours later another court opens up. The new Crown looks at the file and turns to ask why this is at trial. The reply: "Your office would not take the deal that was offered". He again looks at the file and offers: forfeit the gun and the charges will be withdrawn. My guy had already signed a quit claim to the property prior to my involvement so it was an easy deal to take. It is over and my guy wasted thousands of dollars and plenty of time. I am not going to get into the details of the defence as I will use it in the future.

I am in court this week defending a 55 year old gentleman, with no criminal record, on the charges of:

1. Illegal possession of a firearm (section 91(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada);
2. Illegal Storage of a firearm (section 86(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada; and
3. Possession of an unregistered firearm (section 112(1) of the Firearms Act of Canada.

The facts are simple. Wife leaves husband after 30 years of marriage. Husband goes on a drinking binge. Wife does not hear from husband and he does not show up to work for a few days. Wife gets worried that he may have hurt himself. Wife calls the cops and says that there is a long-gun in the house. Gun is in a closet without a trigger lock. The gun has not been used nor thought of for 30+ years. Husband is charged with the above crimes. There is also an application brought under section 117.05 of the Firearms Act for forfeiture of he gun to the police to be destroyed. Husband and wife reconcile. The disclosure from the Crown included a screening form stating that the Crown would be seeking a jail term for this clearly victimless crime if my guy proceeds to trial. Did I mention that he is a 55 year old man without a criminal record? Did I mention that he has never been charged with a crime? Did I mention that he is never going to jail? He does, however, face the problem of having a criminal record. The Crown will not deal though I still can't figure out who got hurt in all this. I will let you know how it turns out. I have concocted a defence that may work. We will see. The problem for my guy is the insistence by the Crown that any deal involves my guy getting a criminal record. What nonsense. As for the Registry charges, the Crown is proceeding but it will be interesting to see how a judge will deal with these charges in light of the plans of the Consrvative government to scrap the registry. UPDATE: The charges were withdrawn at the beginning of the trial.