[lit-ideas] Re: Feeling Safe isn't safe
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:45:43 -0700
Because this is the orientation of our nation from its founding. Our
nation was based upon the primacy of the ordinary citizen, not the primacy
of government. We the people decided what government shall do and not the
reverse. Mike's scenario has a benign government deciding that no one
shall have handguns and then somehow enforcing that decision - benignly so
that the police are our friends. In my scenario all shall have handguns
if they qualify for handling them, because that is one of our rights. We
the people have determined that certain people may not be trusted with guns
such as criminals and nutcases. As to the inept, those people are either
the lazy (those who don't wish to learn about gun handling and safety) or
the witless (those whose intelligence doesn't enable them to handle guns
safely and responsibly). I am essentially agreeing with the thrust of
Michael Barone's article. He like so many assumed that the ordinary citizen
was not to be trusted. But our nation was founded upon the idea that
government wasn't to be trusted. Mike's fantasy would put more power in
hands of the government - an idea I am uncomfortable with.
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 3:01 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Feeling Safe isn't safe
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 out new
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48245/*http:/autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=
X3oDMTE1YW1jcXJ2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3LWNhcnM-> cars
at Yahoo! Autos.
Other related posts:
