Allowing citizens to have weapons cuts crime

Over the past 10 years, South Carolina has become a much safer place to live, work and raise a family. Since the General Assembly wisely chose to allow good citizens to carry guns for self-defense, the violent crime rate has sharply declined. And although the mainstream news media largely avoid reporting such facts, the truth is more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens equals less crime.

Prior to passage of the Law Abiding Citizens Self-Defense Act, few South Carolinians were allowed the ready means to protect themselves from vicious criminals. In fact, applications for concealed weapons permits were summarily denied unless the State Law Enforcement Division was convinced of the need. Under this outdated and highly discretionary system, money or worldly goods were often given higher priority than personal safety.

That all changed when then-S.C. Rep. Jeff Young of Sumter decided to take up the cause of self-defense. Young's extraordinary leadership bolstered by members of the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of South Carolina helped persuade more than two-thirds of the S.C, House to advance the concept. The train was on the track and South Carolina was well on its way towards becoming a safer place.

The citizen safety measure passed the House with little disagreement, but when it reached the Senate, opponents of individual rights were waiting. The mostly Democratic opposition, led by S.C. Sen. John Land and his closest allies, immediately began warning about the dangers. According to their confused logic, good citizens could not be trusted to handle firearms in public. They seemed to suggest the mere presence of a gun would somehow turn an honest person into a homicidal maniac.

Thankfully our friends, like then-Sen. Joe Wilson of Lexington, knew better. Again, with strong grass-roots support, Wilson was able to convince the Senate majority to recognize the basic individual right to self-defense. Although the other side predicted that blood would run in the streets, our clear thinking prevailed. And in the closing minutes of the 1996 legislative session right-to-carry became law.

The first permits were mailed out a few months later, around Thanksgiving. Since that time well over 50,000 more have been issued. The best news in all of this is that statewide our violent crime, which had been on a frightening rise, suddenly began to drop. And its decline has continued. Research conducted by various scholars, including professor John Lott of the University of Chicago, suggests that it's no coincidence.

The indisputable conclusion drawn from Lott's research is that in every case liberalized right-to-carry laws have caused violent crime rates to plummet. It's not difficult to understand why this happens. As a whole, street thugs and other criminal opportunists are cowards. They fear an armed populace. And although violent crime will always be with us, the deterrent effect of a reasonable concealed weapons law does indeed benefit society as a whole.

So, on this 10th anniversary of the Law Abiding Citizens Self-Defense Act, we should applaud its common sense approach to crime control and community safety. As more people take responsibility for their own safety, the folks living around them will gain a real and tangible benefit. More guns in the hands of good people clearly makes the streets safer for everyone except those who seek to do us harm.

The writer, former president of Gun Owners of South Carolina, lives in Columbia.

It's more likely a polite society can allow it's people to be armed.

I have two comment on this, particularly since my original comments seem to have sparked this conversation to some extent.

1st, it is true that it is much more likely that a polite society is more capable of being responsibly armed. That is because a fundmental moral foundation is indidspensable to liberty and freedom. Our fouders knew this and our society and its government was based upon the notion that we were all created equal, that we were endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that the people, by and large in the large majority, were good.

2nd, I take issue with the statement about society allowing people to be armed. I believe it is a fundamental unalienable right. It is not for sociey to decide IMHO. I believe that the people being armed is another indispensable ingredient to true liberty so long as their is evil in the world. I also believe it is clear that the founders felt that "armed" meant the individual citizens having ready access to and ownership of the same individual arms that their enemy's soldiers had access to...but that is my opinion.

Anyhow, the two go hand in hand, fundamental moral foundation and self defense through owning and bearing weapons...in this day and age, firearms.

Again, just my thoughts on the matter.

A) You are on a bus and a guy starts shooting passengers. You have no gun. What do you do?

B) You are on a bus and a guy starts shooting passengers. You have a gun. What do you do?

I'd respond exactly as you say you would. Except for the lobbying part. I have already been a part of a successful lobby in my state for carry laws. The laws in other states I'll leave up to it's citizens.

You left one possibility out.

C) You are on a bus and a guy with a handgun, that's not foaming at the mouth, demands a purse from a little old lady. What do you do?

I also believe it is clear that the founders felt that "armed" meant the individual citizens having ready access to and ownership of the same individual arms that their enemy's soldiers had access to...but that is my opinion.

I agree 100% except for the fundamental unalienable right part, which in my opinion would allow everyone from known criminals, to insane people and 15 year old children to own weapons. I personally think, and this is only my opinion, that a shopping mall full of 15 year old kids with Czech 75's stuffed in their waistband down around their knees is not likely to remain a very polite place.

I'm not trying to be semantic here either. A 'fundamental unalienable right' is very specific and implies everyone. I'll repeat that I am in favor of carry laws. I am highly in favor of the 2nd amendment and the right to own arms. I am not in favor the restrictions put forth by the anti-gun lobby, but at the same time I'm not in favor of the drunk down the street owning a stinger missile. On the other hand if a million man Muslim army was marching through my state I'd probably change my tune about arming crazy people and my tipsy neighbor.

What an odd posting style you have. Out of one side of your face, you support firearms ownership. Then you say things that are completely devoid of anything resembling rational thought in regards to the notion that self defense, and the tools in question, are an "unalienable" Right as the Founders stated over and over again.

My Father started teaching me the shooting skills at age 7. Was given my first .22 at 12. My first bow at 13. My first pistol, a .357 magnum, at 16. Far from being a kid shooting up a mall, my criminal history is ONE speeding ticket (22 years worth of driving, no accidents). No, I am not exemplary or unusual in this respect. This is the NORM.

As for a drunk owning a Stinger missle. Again, you show a complete lack of thought. Any idea how much a Stinger costs? Most of the drunk I've been aware of can't afford to pay their rent much less the ten's of thousands required to buy things like Stingers.

Right now, I'm more worried about the APD SWAT morons than I am anything my neighbor may own.

The Second Amendment precludes the necessaity of gun control laws. The only laws that could be deemed Constitutional are those that would instill severe punishments for actual harm done with arms during the commission of an actual crime. The mere possession, or carrying, or arms should never... EVER... be a crime.

I believe it is an unalienable right...the right to self defense. My feeling is that the founders understood that the right extended to adults. A parent had the right to extend that privelege to their children by way of instruction and practise...but until that child becomes responsible for themselves it reamins a privelege.

I also believe it is clear that as long as someone is incarcerated and has not paid their debt to society for a crime, then they clearly are not armed. If they have paid that debt to the point of being allowed to be free...then with that freedom should come the ability to keep and bear amrs...I believe such a right is indispensable to freedom. If it is not felt that they are capable of exercising that right, then I submit they have not paid their debt and should not be at liberty (free) amongst the rest of us.

I think you and I are basically in agreement on this subject. You aren't reading meanings in my posts that are not there. The right to self defense is a good argument that is hard to dismiss with direct argument. However, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness also appears on the surface to be an unalienable right. But I wouldn't suggest eliminating capital punishment (life), prisons (liberty) or marriage (pursuit of happiness :-))

Not wanting to get hung up on the word unalienable there have been 5 USSC decisions directly concerning the second amendment and 35 USSC decisions that involved the 2nd, and there is a massive amount of modern legal scholarship concerning this amendment and it is unquestioned that, five of the Renquist court Justices have written an opinion in which the Second Amendment is considered an individual right granted by the constitution, and three more Justices have joined such an opinion.

There is also an even more massive scholarship of USSC opinion on the First amendment and the Justices through the years have mostly referred to the right to assemble and free speech as a right that existed 'prior' to the existence of the US constitution. In my interpretation, that's an unalienable right, while the right to bear firearms is a constitutional right.

I nearly agree with your thoughts on felons who have paid for their crime. There are lot's of felonies that aren't violent and don't involve the use of weapons. But, I do understand why the laws concerning felons are the way they are. It's easier to define "all felons" rather than try to nuance who's good and who's bad. I think we would both agree that a poll of Americans would leave the ex-con with rocks to defend himself.

I'll be the first to admit that if a thousand screaming Arabs were charging me, the first people I'd throw a gun to would be the crazy guy and the felon that actually shot someone in anger.

I grew up in the gun industry and know all the arguments. In my opinion there are advocates of gun banishment, advocates of arming everyone including their Brittanies, and a very large group in favor of the guns with sensible restrictions. Now let's think about that for a minute. One group in favor of NO guns and two groups in favor of guns. People in the industry believe that if you force that segment in the middle to choose between the extremes, we'll lose them completely.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.