Where Is The Technological Solution To Unauthorized Gun Use?

One of the reasons Americans are by nature optimistic is that they seem to believe that there is no problem on earth to which there is not at least one technological solution.

State politicians are now actively engaged in addressing the mass murder in Sandy Hook where, more than a month ago, a gunman fired upon school children, killing 20 children and 6 staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and some critics have attacked a few of the legislative solutions so far offered because they regard them as non-solutions.

Two state legislators, Representative Bob Godfrey and Senator Beth Bye, have written a bill that imposes a 50 percent tax on the total sale of ammunition, a non-solution that struck a chord in the heart of Democratic Majority Leader Martin Looney, who observed, “A gun without ammunition is only a club. We really need to restrict access to ammunition.” But of course; and a car without gas is a stationary art piece. Wishing that every rifle in Connecticut were a club is a form of magic thinking that will do little to reduce gun crimes in the real world.

Mr. Looney, who has been leading gun control efforts in the Democratic dominated State Senate, recently has announced that a bill addressing the slaughter in Sandy Hook will bypass the usual public hearing process and be sent to the governor for his signature though an emergency certification process, a strategy that will obviate legislative oversight and leave no unsightly fingerprints on a final bill produced in General Assembly backrooms by legislative leaders. Too many fingerprints on legislation might imperil re-election efforts by removing vague assertions of approval. The Looney gambit can only succeed by enlisting the support of a governor armed with veto power.

It is one thing to know or think you know, and it is quite a different thing to know that you know. We should be modest about what we know concerning the events at Sandy Hook. So far, criminal investigators have released no definitive findings on the mass murder. After all the data has been presented, certified and sifted, all of us can begin seriously to ponder the problem and offer effective solutions. Until that time arrives, we are building our Looney castles on sand.

In proposing solutions that would in the view of Governor Dannel Malloy and others prevent future Sandy Hooks, we should first agree that the chief problem is the unauthorized use of guns; or, to put it in police terms, guns falling into the hands of criminals.

Pending a final report on Sandy Hook, there is some reason to believe that the shooter illicitly acquired the weapons he used at Sandy Hook Elementary School. If Adam Lanza’s mother had permitted her son’s use of her weapons to slaughter children at an elementary school, Mr. Lanza need not have murdered her.

We think we know that Mr. Lanza had at his disposal, two semi-automatic pistols, a shotgun, which he may have left in the car he took from his mother, and a Bushmaster long gun, a semi-automatic capable of firing 30 rounds from a dischargeable magazine. According to one news report not yet verified by crime investigators, Mr. Lanza changed his magazines after firing 15 rounds.

Could there be a technological solution to gun crime? Is it possible to engineer solution to the unauthorized possession of weapons?

If the weapons Mr. Lanza acquired, presumably without the approval of his mother, had been inoperable, children’s lives might have been saved. To put it in terms used by Mr. Looney: If the disarmed weapons used by Mr. Lanza were clubs, the slaughter might have been averted.

Present law requires weapons to be securely locked up and unavailable to unauthorized users. Suppose – just to suppose – that the gun safeties on most weapons were to be replaced by a lock operated by a fingerprint or a swipe card, the weapon rendered inoperable after purchase until activated by its owner each time it is used. That kind of technological solution to the problem of the unauthorized use of stolen weapons or illicitly acquired weapons– or some more practical method that would prevent any but an authorized user from discharging the weapon -- would be far more helpful in averting Sandy Hook mass murders than a tax on bullets, supposed by some to be a craven attempt to raise needed revenue that would not affect the illicit purchase of weapons or bullets.

Creating such a technological solution – not necessarily those suggested above-- that would render a firearm inoperable to anyone but an authorized purchaser ought to be a snap for a country that can put a rover on Mars. Where there is a will, there is a way; and where there is a demonstrable need, there is money to be made by some energetic and creative weapons manufacturer.

We already know that not every sociological or economic problem here in the land of Alexander Graham Bell, Henry Ford, Samuel Morse, Orville and Wilber Wright and Samuel Colt yields to legislation.

Sometimes it takes an engineer to carve a path out of the wilderness to a safe and secure future.

Vanderbilt Chancellor Issues Edict Affirming New Policy Offensive To Religious Groups On Campus

The new policy in place deprives religious groups on campus of effectuating their mission because the policy removes standards of leadership, according to Chris Godfrey, the National Advisor of Beta Upsilon Chi, Inc.

Mr. Godfrey has sent out the following media release:

“Dear News Team,

“I would like to inform you about a situation at Vanderbilt University that has escalated over the past few weeks and would like to encourage you to get the word out about this story. The Chancellor at the university, Nicholas Zeppos, sent out an e-mail two weeks ago informing the student body about a new non-discrimination policy that will that undermine the integrity of many student religious organizations. This issue deals with our First Constitutional Right, Freedom of Religion, Press, and Expression.

“He says in his e-mail that ‘I want to assure you the university does not seek to limit anyone's freedom to practice his or her religion. We do, however, require all Vanderbilt registered student organizations to observe our nondiscrimination policy. That means membership in registered student organizations is open to everyone and that everyone, if desired, has the opportunity to seek leadership positions.’ No matter how the facts are framed, the reality is that the student organization handbook was altered last December, when a section specifically protecting religious association was removed. Last April, a number of organizations were placed on provisional status as constitutions that had been easily approved in previous years were evaluated under this new standard.

“Now, with a new policy in place, religious organizations can no longer have standards for their leadership. They can no longer require that their leadership believe what the organization stands for. A Christian could lead a Jewish organization, a Muslim a Christian, etc. If a student says that they feel that they cannot join an organization or be elected an officer in it, there will be grounds for a university investigation.

“We need your help getting the word out about a Town Hall Meeting tomorrow that the university is hosting. The meeting is at 6:15pm tomorrow evening in Room 114 in Furman Hall. I have attached four documents that I think you will find helpful in highlighting important information regarding this issue. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Give me a call at (877) 250-4512 or e-mail me back if you need anything at all. Here is a video link that is relevant as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOmpzQh6J7c

“Sincerely,

“Chris Godfrey

“National Advisor, Beta Upsilon Chi, Inc.

The missive sent by the Chancellor of Vanderbilt University in Nashville Tennessee was as follows:

“From: Chancellor Date: Friday, January 20, 2012 Subject: Message from the Chancellor To: VANDERBILT-COMMUNITY@list.vanderbilt.edu

“Dear Members of the Vanderbilt Community, As we settle into the spring semester, which will conclude with many of our students taking on new roles - as alumni - in our Vanderbilt community, it is a good time to reflect on the core principles and values of our university. As an institution of higher education, Vanderbilt values above all intellectual freedom that supports open inquiry, equal opportunity, compassion and excellence in all endeavors. We are committed to making our campus a welcoming environment for all, and we are dedicated to encouraging and supporting diversity of thought and opinion among our students, faculty and staff. We believe this sense of inclusiveness, of everyone being able to take part fully in the Vanderbilt experience, is essential to our being able to give students the most enriching educational experience we can provide, both inside and outside the classroom. We believe we all have the opportunity to learn greatly when we are exposed to new people, and to ideas and beliefs different from our own. Equally, we believe that in gaining exposure to the unfamiliar we may discover common ground. Religious freedom is also a fundamental value of our university community. Historically the intellectual freedom that is central to university life has its roots in respect for freedom of conscience. We also believe that Vanderbilt registered student organizations are an important part of the overall Vanderbilt educational experience. That is why we invest university funds in them and afford them the privilege of using the Vanderbilt name. We want to be certain that all of our students have an opportunity to join and fully participate in the registered student organizations that interest them. Questions have recently been raised about how our nondiscrimination policy applies to our registered student organizations. At Vanderbilt, we firmly believe that discrimination is wrong. Individuals must be judged as individuals, not as members of groups. This foundational belief is codified in our nondiscrimination policy, which covers all Vanderbilt students and all registered student organizations. Discussion concerning Vanderbilt's application of our policy, like discussion about other matters of communal concern, is healthy and welcome. What the discussion suggests to me is that, while there is widespread agreement with the principle of nondiscrimination, application of this principle to student religious organizations has prompted concern from some quarters.

“I want to assure you the university does not seek to limit anyone's freedom to practice his or her religion. We do, however, require all Vanderbilt registered student organizations to observe our nondiscrimination policy. That means membership in registered student organizations is open to everyone and that everyone, if desired, has the opportunity to seek leadership positions. We have great trust in our students to select their own leaders of these organizations. In an effort to ensure the content and purpose of our nondiscrimination policy are more fully understood and to continue to discuss any concerns, we will host a town hall meeting later this month. University leaders will explain and take questions about our position regarding registered student organizations and our nondiscrimination policy. We hope this forum will provide an opportunity for the intelligent, dedicated and compassionate members of the Vanderbilt community to make themselves heard, and we want to emphasize that all views are welcome. While the meeting is principally for our students, faculty and staff are welcome to attend and express themselves as well. Details of the town hall meeting will be announced soon. Meanwhile, thank you for all you do every day to advance the mission of Vanderbilt. As always, I am honored and privileged to serve as your Chancellor.

“Sincerely, Nicholas S. Zeppos Chancellor”

Some students at Vanderbilt responded to their Chancellor by means of a video:



Mr. Zeppos’ edict confuses important issues. Schools should not discriminate in their admissions policies, but an admissions policy that cannot set standards for admissions would launch colleges on a journey of suicidal recklessness. Colleges insist, for example, on certain standards for the hiring of staff. A non-discriminatory policy that would abolish standards of hiring would permit students, say, to teach courses at the university and even administer the functions that fall to the chancellor – which, in Mr. Zeppos’ case might not be a bad idea. It is always possible that one of the students “selected” -- though we must be careful of using such words in the absence of standards of selection -- as Chancellor of Vanderbilt might be more discriminating, in the good sense, than its present Chancellor.

The rule that applies to admissions to the college must also apply in some degree to the various clubs the college supports. A Newman club at any university would suffer greatly if, in the absence of standards, a leader of the club should be chosen who practices Wicca – not that there’s anything wrong with Wicca. Likewise, a conventicle of Satanists at Vanderbilt would reasonably wither in indignation if a member of the Newman club with were to be appointed as a club leader just because the chancellor of Vanderbilt was unable to distinguish between rightful and wrongful discrimination.

The chancellor is also climbing out on a very risky limb. Only recently, in a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States for the first time the “ministerial exception” to state and federal employment discrimination laws, while rejecting the Obama administration’s argument that churches should be treated no differently than other employers.”

Reasoning that rights extended beyond reasonable bounds sooner or later collide with other important rights, chief justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, pointed out that “The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission,” a triumphant declaration of common sense that, for some reason, is beyond the ken of the chancellor of Vanderbilt University.