Summary
After the Oct. 1 shooting at the Route 91 Harvest music festival in Las Vegas — the deadliest in American history — debate on the place of guns in America has seen a revival across the country as well as at Stanford.
Commentators across the political spectrum agree that mass shootings must be curbed as far as possible, but disagree over the preventative measures that should be implemented. The Daily spoke to Stanford students and faculty to get their views on gun control.
…
John J. Donohue III, C. Wendell and Edith M. Carlsmith Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, believes that mass shootings can be stopped and that measures restricting assault weapons and attachments are a necessary first step.
…
“Weapons beyond a certain power are no longer serving a legitimate function of self-defense but are elevating the risk to others,” said Donohue, who has done extensive empirical research on the relationship between gun laws and violence.
…
Conversely, Donohue said that right-to-carry laws — laws that allow citizens to carry concealed weapons, with or without permits — contribute to gun violence.
“Right-to-carry laws greatly expand the number of people who are just out on the street with guns,” Donohue said. “That could have a good consequence if they’re able to fend off or help catch bad guys, but the empirical analysis that I am finishing up now suggests that it actually has adverse effects.”
Donohue added that unintended consequences can result because carrying guns in public spaces increases the risk that they will be stolen.
“The stolen guns are a real problem because that means by necessity that it’s gone from a good guy with a gun to now a bad guy with a gun,” he said.
Read More