[lit-ideas] Re: Feeling Safe isn't safe
- From: Andy <min.erva@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:00:36 -0700 (PDT)
If you exempted nutcases, convicted felons and the inept, why would you
encourage gun carrying by regular people?
Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Here is an excellent article on the Virginia Tech event and
Gun Control ? excellent in my opinion. While anyone reading my notes should
know this, I have probably not said it in so many words: I do not believe that
no citizens should have hand guns. That much is probably clear. But I also do
not believe that all citizens should have hand guns. I would exclude the
nutcases and convicted felons and that is probably also clear. But I would
also exclude the untrained and inept if I could. I believe that some citizens
should own guns. Perhaps the concealed carry solution is best. Those who
qualify can carry a hand-gun around concealed. Those who do not qualify can?t
have a handgun at all. Lawrence Feeling Safe Isn't Safe By Michael
Barone
Posted 4/29/07
The murders two weeks ago at Virginia Tech naturally set off a cry in the
usual quarters-the New York Times, the London-based Economist-for stricter gun
control laws. Democratic officeholders didn't chime in, primarily because they
believe they were hurt by the issue in 2000 and 2004, but most privately agree.
What most discussions of this issue tend to ignore is that we have two tracks
of political debate and two sets of laws on gun control. At the federal level
there has been a push for more gun control laws since John Kennedy was
assassinated in 1963, and some modest restrictions have been passed. At the
state level something entirely different has taken place. In 1987 Florida
passed a law allowing citizens who could demonstrate that they were law-abiding
and had sufficient training to obtain permits on demand to own and carry
concealed weapons. In the succeeding 20 years many other states have passed
such laws, so that today you can, if you meet the qualifications, carry
concealed weapons in 40 states with 67 percent of the nation's population
(including Vermont, with no gun restrictions at all).
When Florida passed its concealed-weapons law, I thought it was a terrible
idea. People would start shooting each other over traffic altercations; parking
lots would turn into shooting galleries. Not so, it turned out. Only a very,
very few concealed-weapons permits have been revoked. There are only rare
incidents in which people with concealed-weapons permits have used them
unlawfully. Ordinary law-abiding people, it turns out, are pretty trustworthy.
Unfounded fears. I'm not the only one to draw such a conclusion. When she was
Michigan's attorney general, Democrat Jennifer Granholm opposed the state's
concealed-weapons law, which took effect in 2001. But now, as governor, she's
not seeking its repeal. She says that her fears-like those I had about
Florida's law 20 years ago-proved to be unfounded. So far as I know, there are
no politically serious moves to repeal any state's concealed-weapons laws. In
most of the United States, as you go to work, shop at the mall, go to
restaurants, and walk around your neighborhood, you do so knowing that some of
the people you pass by may be carrying a gun. You may not even think about it.
But that's all right. Experience has shown that these people aren't threats.
Virginia has a concealed-weapons law. But Virginia Tech was, by the decree of
its administrators, a "gun-free zone." Those with concealed-weapons permits
were not allowed to take their guns on campus and were disciplined when they
did. A bill was introduced in the House of Delegates to allow permit holders to
carry guns on campus. When it was sidetracked, a Virginia Tech administrator
hailed the action and said that students, professors, and visitors would now
"feel safe" on campus. Tragically, they weren't safe. Virginia Tech's "gun-free
zone" was not gun free. In contrast, killers on other campuses were stopped by
faculty or bystanders who had concealed-weapons permits and brandished their
guns to stop the killing.
We may hear more about gun control at the national level. The D.C. Circuit
Court of Appeals recently ruled that the District of Columbia's ban on handguns
violates the Second Amendment's right "to keep and bear arms." Judge Laurence
Silberman's strong opinion argues that this is consistent with the Supreme
Court's ruling in a 1939 case upholding a federal law banning sawed-off
shotguns; limited regulation is allowed, Silberman wrote, but not a total ban.
Somewhere on the road between a law banning possession of nuclear weapons and
banning all guns the Second Amendment stands in the way. This is the view as
well of the liberal constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe. The Supreme
Court may take the case, which is in conflict with other circuits' rulings.
If it upholds the D.C. decision, there is still room for reasonable gun
regulation. The mental health ruling on the Virginia Tech killer surely should
have been entered into the instant check database to prevent him from buying
guns. The National Rifle Association is working with gun control advocate Rep.
Carolyn McCarthy to improve that database. But even as we fine-tune laws to
make sure guns don't get into the wrong hands, maybe the opinion elites will
realize that in places where gun ownership is widespread, we're safer than in a
"gun-free zone."
This story appears in the May 7, 2007 print edition of U.S. News & World
Report.
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
Other related posts:
