Someone posted a link on a blog to another website that rails about people that rely on the constitution as a defense for American's rights to own weapons. I commented with a few short lines, saying it was irrelevant to the situation at Virginia Tech. The author responded with a long comment, to which I replied. The reply is what follows, saved here as everything else is, for posterity....

First of all, claiming naiveté of someone based on the few short lines of mine could be considered naïve as well. I have handled much worse, so no big deal. Your point about the media is true, and I will scream to anyone that will listen about the lack of objective reporting in our country. Are they to blame? They put out what sells, and the majority of the people in this country are more than happy to oblige them and consume their wares. That is why people look to websites like yours and seek out truly objective sources that are free from the mandates of shareholders. Unfortunately, the particulars of the Miller case do not sell, which is a reflection of the poor state of affairs concerning other issues plaguing our country.

You are right, the defense for bearing arms rests heavily with the constitution, which I’m sure we can both agree is poorly worded. The point is, most people that are looking to support a right to bear arms are too stupid or are unwilling to find sound evidence to support their stance, and instead choose the easy argument and leave it at that. Is that really surprising? This is, after all, a nation where a majority of the population believes fairy tales and call themselves ‘Christians’. That is not meant as an insult if you subscribe to such notions, so I hope you aren’t offended. So again, I agree with you.

I also agree that more knowledge is a good thing, and the information in the post was very well presented. However, your assertion that he would not have been able to kill 32 people with a sword cannot be proven, and I would be willing to bet that with proper planning, on a scale with which he seemed to carry out his little tirade, it could be done easily. I admit a gun was much handier, but another weapon would simply have needed different tactics. History is rife with serial murderers whose weapon of choice was a knife. The common sense that you refer to does not enable us to see a correlation which you suggest. You say the majority of murders which involve a gun are crimes of passion, but don’t show how supports your next conclusion. My common sense urges me question my own reasoning, and rely on supporting evidence. Taking refuge in consensus can be troublesome at best.

Your last comments about the abortion case are clearly an attempt to ridicule a supposed stance of mine on that particular issue. You make the mistake of categorizing me with those of a ‘conservative’ mindset. Though I don’t necessarily agree that more gun control is the answer to avoiding situations like that at VT, I probably agree with you quite a bit when it comes to the abortion issue. In fact, I’ve been following your site for some time now because I like what you say for the most part, and your videos are almost as good as those they do on The Daily Show.

Anyway, there is an article in a law journal that concludes there is no such correlation which you suggest, and in fact suggests just the opposite. Though I can't find the article itself, it is referenced in others. This link is one.

http://www.reason.com/news/printer/32529.html

Then there is this article, from another law journal.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkcgc.html

There is a very interesting section titled 'Crime'. Although it says nothing conclusive, there is this statement at the end of the document,

"True, the comprehensive system of controls enacted in 1977 has yielded little demonstrable evidence of success; and the studies purporting to show positive results from the 1977 law are generally of dubious competence."