3/14/2007
Guns kill.
The gun lobby won a significant victory Friday (March 9) when the D.C. federal appeals court found unconstitutional the D.C. law that prohibits handguns in homes. The decision was based on the second amendment, interpreted as protecting the rights of individuals as opposed to the rights of state militias. Wow.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Because nine other appeals courts have ruled differently (i.e., that the second amendment appeals to state militias, and not to individuals), it’s likely the issue will eventually be taken up by the Supreme Court.
The New York Times states, “If the Supreme Court were to adopt the District of Columbia Circuit’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, gun control laws and gun prosecutions around the country would be endangered.”
Of course, the National Rifle Association said the D.C. decision was a “significant victory [that] affirmed that the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects an inherent, individual right to bear arms.”
This news comes on top of articles from The Florida Sun-Sentinel showing the affect of Florida’s twenty year-old concealed carry law. As detailed in a January 30 New York Times editorial, when Florida’s law was first enacted, there were fewer than 25,000 licensed gun holders. There are now over 410,000 “law abiding” citizens licensed to carry concealed weapons, having declared they were needed for self-defense.
The Times editorial was apoplectic about the sheer number of guns being carried, as well as the provision enacted last July that has made the list of licensees secret. Oh my.
Ok. It’s the New York Times. Whining liberals through and through. But this is an issue on which I part ways with my informed, sincere, liberty-loving, constructionist – and gun-toting - conservative bro’s. I can’t respond, point by point, to NRA positions. I can’t stand toe-to-toe with a gun advocate spouting all the critical statistics.
But here’s what I know. Guns kill. And the more there are of them, the more killing there will be. And just because you have a gun under your pillow or under your trench coat, the world cannot possibly be a safer place.
It’s my hope the legislature finds too many other things to do this session than to bring up concealed carry once again. So hassle me. Convince me. Tell me everyone needs semi-automatic rifles and handguns to perpetuate our treasured sportsmen’s heritage. I acknowledge that I am not well studied in the science of gun statistics. But no matter how you slice it, more guns in homes, in pockets, in cars and on the street simply cannot be good for America. Nope, I just don’t buy it.
COMMENTS
Jo---I knew there was a liberal side to you somewhere. Fine blog. Come over some day and I will show you my gun collection. All of my guns are designed for hunting. I do not need military type weapons.
Dale (Wed Mar 14 07:42:57 2007)
Jo An America without, easy to conceal handguns, would be a good thing, in my opinion. However, it's not realistic. The US Constitution is clear. Like it or not it says we have the right to bear arms. It does not say criminals have the right to bear arms but law abiding citizens do not. Therefore we can not deprive Americans of the right to carry a handgun for self defense.
Question Russ: Do you think it is just plain naive to think we can find a way for hunters and other sportsmen to have guns, but to keep them out of the hands of criminals? - To find a way the vast majority of the population wouldn't then need a handgun for self defense? (I know, I know, 'when it's criminal to have guns, only criminals will have guns.' Can't we, in the land of the free and the brilliant, find a way to get past that?) JE
Russ (Wed Mar 14 08:28:45 2007)
But here’s what I know. Guns kill. And the more there are of them, the more killing there will be. A does not imply B. Example: The number of commercial air flights has increased since 1960. More than double, I think. 47 years ago air travel was a once in a lifetime deal, unless you had money. Now anyone can buy a ticket - American Airlines is the new Greyhound. But the number of commercial airliner crashes and fatalities has decreased - by a huge margin - since then. And just because you have a gun under your pillow or under your trench coat, the world cannot possibly be a safer place. Me - I'm not concerned about the world. I am concerned about the people close to me. Just saying. Here is the deal; if an absolute ban firearms would decrease the number of murders and etc. in the country, I'd be for it. Sign me up for that glorious future. But it can't. Prohibition has never worked, and probably never will work here. I have no idea why this would be so - perhaps Americans are too individualistic for prohibition to work - but evidence of Prohibition, the Drug Wars .. if the government outlaws something then people will find a way to acquire it.
Good points. Must ponder. JE
Brian (Wed Mar 14 09:15:27 2007)
Dear Jo, We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Guns do not kill. Guns do not defend. They are inanimate objects. I have yet to hear of the case where a gun, unattended by humanity, committed murder upon its own initiative. I have also not yet heard the case where a gun inspired a human to kill. People seem to find their own motivation to do horrible things. The truth is, people kill. Killers will kill with or without guns. Further, criminals will get and carry guns with or without legal authority. These laws only take rights away from law abiders. It occurs to me that the gun-ban position, being so completely proven ineffective by statistics, is illogical, and must the product of emotion. How shall we govern? By logic, or emotion? Your Friend, Brian
Agreed friend, we will disagree. People kill with (yes, and without, I agree) guns. JE
Brian (Wed Mar 14 09:17:24 2007)
Jo,
Your FoxPolitics is an excellent summary of our daily news, and your blog is particularly interesting. I usually agree with you but your thoughts on gun control are off the mark. As others have noted, "Guns Don't Kill, People Do". Remove the guns and the only ones that will have them will be the criminals. The threat of having a gun for protection will deter some crime.David
David Seitz (Wed Mar 14 09:57:01 2007)
Isn't it strange that Washington DC and New York with the toughest gun control laws have the highest rate of gun crimes and the states with the most liberal laws the fewest. It's not the guns that kill but the idiots standing behind them.
DC (Wed Mar 14 13:31:56 2007)
Jo: People kill.....people kill using guns, using knives, using stones, using cars, in the case of the 9/11 attacks using airplanes full of people and no guns. You said that the world cannot possible be safer if one has a gun under his pillow. The world may not be safer but you can be safer if you have a legal gun in you possession. The police cannot protect you if a rapist attacks you no matter how quickly you call 911. There are times when you have to exercise your right to protect yourself or your loved ones or you property. Don't you think the liberal press would have a field day if they could uncover a person with a permit to carry using his gun in a felony? I could go on but it is hard to even talk with a woman who has made up her mind that gun are evil. Guns are no more evil than a screw driver or ice pick or hammer or....
Richard Griesser (Wed Mar 14 14:31:56 2007)
Your editorial is absurd. The statistic you offer about Florida does nothing to support your argument. There are now 410,000 people with permits to carry firearms as opposed to 25,000 in the past? So what? How many of those 385,000 people used their firearm to commit a crime? Look at our neighbors across the St. Croix river to the West. They enacted concealed carry in 2003. Do you have any evidence that it's turned into the Old West? http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/mncrime.htm The data shows crime in Minnesota has declined in almost all categories since 2003. Not that concealed carry is the sole reason, but it obviously has not had the effect you claim it would.
Tosa: Should it matter to a citizenry (not to the government) if guns are to be used for hunting and target sports or if they are to be used for "self defense?" What are the statistics about folks who keep [a] gun[s] supposedly for self-protection and then are harmed with their own guns? JE
Tosa Voter (Thu Mar 15 08:05:48 2007)
Dear Ms. Egelhoff, Jacob Sullum, editor of Reason Magazine on-line, makes a very good point about the 2nd Amendment: "[A]s the court's 58-page opinion shows, gun controllers are the ones who have reinterpreted the Second Amendment, finding hidden meaninglessness. They insist that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" guaranteed by the Second Amendment, unlike the rights of "the people" mentioned in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and 10th amendments, is not a right that belongs to people. But as the D.C. Circuit pointed out, 'The Second Amendment would be an inexplicable aberration if it were not read to protect individual rights as well.'" The full article can be found here: http://www.reason.com/news/show/119106.html Sincerely, Steve Erbach Neenah 3rd District P.S., I invite you to attend the candidates' forum at Neenah City Hall next Thursday, March 22nd, at 6:30 pm.
Good points Steve. Will read the Reason piece. Thanks for the invite to the forum - I'll be in Steamboat.... Nuts. Would almost rather be at the forum. Almost. JE
Steve Erbach (Thu Mar 15 09:01:28 2007)
Jo, you did not address my point, which is that there is no correlation between legal gun ownership and an increase in crime, otherwise Minnesota would resemble Dodge City. Should it matter for what purpose those guns are intended? No, it should not. So long as you use your own gun for a legal purpose, it's no business of mine how or why you use it. Yes, people are killed with their own guns. While tragic, that is not sufficient reason to ban guns. You can legislate away neither accidents nor stupidity. If we're going to legislate against things that kill their owners, then say good bye to cars. By the way, I do not own a single gun and have never been hunting.
Tosa, are there statistics anywhere (i.e. a human laboratory anywhere?) that indicate what happens to crime when all guns disappear? I know, that's naive and idiotic. But other than sportsmen missing them (I would never advocate taking guns from sportsmen, however), what would happen to crime rates? JE
Tosa Voter (Thu Mar 15 20:53:46 2007)
Jo, why do you continue to avoid my point? Minnesota passed concealed-carry in 2003. Its crime rates have declined since that year. You keep deflecting with other points, which I address, while you refuse to address my initial point. What happens when guns are banned? There is still gun crime. Look at the United Kingdom: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm Has gun crime gone away since guns were banned there? No, it's actually increased. Now I will concede that there is less gun crime in nations such as the UK, however I submit that the reason is more cultural than anything. The reason I believe that is Switzerland. Are you aware that in Switzerland every single male is issued either an assault rifle or a pistol? By your logic, Switzerland should be a bloodbath, but it isn't. That's because just like in Minnesota, law-abiding gun owners do not commit crimes. So again I ask you, what does it tell you that in Minnesota, crime has gone down across the board since concealed-carry was approved in 2003? What does it tell you that gun crime has risen in England since legal gun ownership was essentially banned in 1997? What does it tell you that in Switzerland every male is issued an assault rifle yet that country has almost no gun crime? What do those facts do to your rather simplistic argument that giving law abiding citizens guns increases crime? That is a direct question, Jo.
Tosa, I said from the start that I can't quote statistics. So I can't refute or support your statistics. (I can refute or support statistics in many other areas!) But what you're telling me is that before I say another word, I better dig in and understand the complex body of data and knowledge surrounding gun use. Ok, I'll do it. I take your point! Over and out. JE
Tosa Voter (Fri Mar 16 07:51:21 2007)
Jo, I'm happy to hassle you about this. *But here’s what I know. Guns kill. And the more there are of them, the more killing there will be. * Guns without someone to pull the trigger kill no one. Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens kill no one either. People have to go through rigorous background checking to be able to carry a gun. They're not handed out like Tootsie Rolls at a parade. Right now criminals have guns. It makes no sense to me that they have guns and law-abiding citizens have none with which to protect themselves. Please stop confusing legal gun carriers with criminals. Have you ever had to make a night deposit at a bank? I can tell you it's one of the scariest things there is. I did this and it was many years ago, not like now when thugs seem to have the idea that what's yours is theirs. Even giving up the money willingly doesn't work in many cases. Too many people are murdered even after having given it to the robber. If there's a killing done, I'd rather be on the giving rather than the receiving end.
C.R. Stevenson (Thu Mar 22 15:28:55 2007)
|
