Reevaluating Gun Control Laws
Support 50's right to bear arms
Joe Holmes

"Listen, Buck, when the gun-control crazies protest the concealed carry legislation, all you got to say is 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. I mean, it's just that simple. After all, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, right?"

This is a bumper sticker distributed by the National Rifle Association. And while it is funny, there is some truth to it. With the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech, new breath has been breathed into both sides of the gun control debate. Many states are now actively trying to pass more permissive gun laws. Texas recently passed a law that did away with its required duty to retreat. Previously, Texans were held to a reasonable person standard, meaning that a party was justified in killing someone only if “a reasonable person in the actor’s situation would have retreated.” The new law assumes that a law-abiding citizen has good reason for opening fire and that retreat was not a viable option. The new law also gives shooters immunity from civil lawsuits. Texas also allows gun owners to open fire if they are threatened in their car or in their office. Florida goes one step further – allowing individuals threatened on streets to shoot to kill.

Despite these seemingly liberal gun policies, only two states allow gun owners to conceal weapons without a permit – Alaska and Vermont. Despite all the rhetoric about redneck hillbillies and their guns, the two states that allow concealed carrying are the most isolated and northern state and the home of Democratic Party Chairman and former Governor of Vermont, Howard Dean. 35 other states allow people to apply for concealed weapons permits. However, some states such as California make it rather difficult to get a concealed weapons permit – requiring a showing of some reasonable threat. I’ll have you know that the two lovely Senators from California – Ms. Boxer and Ms. Feinstein, two of the most liberal Senators in the Unites States – are packing concealed heat.

Any gun owner will tell you that the cardinal rule to gun ownership is gun safety. While regulations are necessary to prevent crazies from getting their hands on guns, law-abiding citizens with no prior history of aggression or psychological problems should have free gun ownership. With laws the way they are in many states, a person cannot carry weapon in their car or on their person and must provide proof of gunlock ownership. In essence, states like California restrict gun access in any situation where you could conceivably need a gun.

Many gun control advocates point to discrepancies between US and other developed countries’ murder rates and claim that gun ownership is the answer. This is a gross oversimplification. Anybody who has a serious desire to murder will do it. Life is fragile; indeed, anybody with a murderous heart could kill someone with a butter knife. It is easy to point to guns as the problem; however, the murder rates reflect deeper social problems than gun ownership.

Banning or restricting gun ownership will not significantly change murder rates. A black market will be created and all the people we don’t want to have guns will get them and all the responsible gun owners of the past will be cut off from gun ownership. All too often we look for band-aid solutions. Many favored gun control are convenient, ineffective ways to give people an artificial sense of security. If there was a school shooting on my campus, if I could not leave the area, carrying a weapon would be my next best option.

If anything, guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens deters crime. In the counties that have enacted concealed-carry laws, murder rates fell by 8 percent, rape by 5 percent, and aggravated assault by 7 percent. Somewhat surprisingly, urban counties actually experienced the largest decreases.

Reasonable restrictions are necessary. Waiting periods, though a minor inconvenience, allow for background checks and should help deter the possibility of committing a gun-crime in the heat of the moment. People with criminal records or histories of psychological problems should be prevented from owning a gun. Automatic weapons serve no reasonable purpose other than to kill mass numbers of people. These are reasonable laws to me. However, preventing me from carrying a gun in my car or on my person seems too restrictive. Believe me, I have no desire to kill someone…indeed, I desire no situation less. However, if some thug threatens my life, my family’s life, or any innocent person’s life, I believe I should have the right to protect myself and others. To restrict this ability is to take away my fundamental right to self protection and self preservation. When did this become such a crazy position?

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed