When one tries to make sense of existing public policy, especially when it seems confusing, it is worth considering whether the establishment of that policy was motivated by a response to a tragedy or scandal.
Several shocking examples of child abuse decades back led to the child abuse policy. The murder of Laura Smithers led to similar legislation and additional attention to child abduction. The Enron scandal led to Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, and of course 9/11 led to substantive changes in airport security.
It should not be surprising then if the shooting spree in Virgina Tech leads to changes in gun policy, but the fight now seems to be what the nature of that change is likely to be.
Not long after the tragedy began, thanks to the speed of the internet, gun control policy became the dominant policy issue debated. Each side attempted to spin it in a manner beneficial to it's side.
Gun rights advocates claimed that this incident proves that gun laws must be lenient enough to allow people to purchase and conceal weapons that they can use to defend themselves, while gun control advocates stated that this shows that guns are too difficult to obtain. This is called framing--or spin. It has a bad connotation of course, but it is simply a reflection of the complexity of the issues we face.
Now, is this the appropriate time for legislatures to evaluate existing gun control laws, or should they hold off? Is this a time when the inertia built into the American constitutional system impedes the ability of the public to protect itself, or does it slow down the process sensibly so that bad policy is not passed?
