Posted on 03/24/2002 9:37:02 AM PST by real saxophonist
Littwin: Debate on concealed weapons revealing
March 23, 2002
I've got a little confession to make. In my column Thursday on the concealed-weapons bill, I left out maybe the most important point.
Which is this: You can safely bet that whenever the bill becomes law, you won't be able to tell the difference. It won't set off a crime wave. It won't make the streets any safer, either. But you already knew that.
To begin with, not that many people will even sign up for a permit. Most people don't want to carry a concealed weapon, if only because of the unsightly bulge.
And even those who do get a permit are unlikely to ever use a gun in anger. As one of my faithful correspondents noted, he carries a gun and has killed fewer people with gunfire than Ted Kennedy did with his car. That's the kind of e-mail I get.
What is it about guns that tends to make people go slightly nuts?
It's a simple proposition really. You either believe, as I do, that fewer guns make us safer or, as Charlton Heston does, that more guns make us safer.
There are competing studies. And there's also, say, the well-armed citizenry of Afghanistan.
I've done my own research, by living most of my life in cities where people in great numbers use guns to kill other people in great numbers. And, like most sane people, I'd just as soon stay out of the crossfire.
Let's face it, a concealed-weapons law implicitly says you should step in during that 7-Eleven holdup -- how often have you been embarrassed to be the only guy in the cash-and-carry store not carrying? -- and introduce your pals Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson to the conversation. What it says is the cops can't protect us in this violent society, so we need to be prepared to meet violence with some of our own.
The truth is, the argument is less about guns and about violence and about self-protection than it is about philosophy. The political divide is fairly obvious. It's the cultural divide that is even deeper. Your take on the Second Amendment -- by the way, check your history; even the founders couldn't agree on what the founders meant -- will tell you everything.
So, if the two sides barely speak the same language, why am I writing about guns again?
Because a little boy from Arvada, 3 years old, is in the hospital in critical condition with a gunshot wound to the head after handling a gun. And, worse, it's thought he was shot when trying to give the gun to his 7-year-old brother to put away. Words do not suffice.
And because in the same legislative session that seems ready to pass the concealed-weapons bill into law, the legislators also rejected a bill that would have required guns to be stored safely in the home.
I talked to Rep. Alice Borodkin, a Denver Democrat who sponsored the bill. She was heartbroken. The bill fell to arguments that a gun storage law doesn't let a homeowner get to his gun quickly enough in a robbery situation. It fell, too, because many believe any gun-limiting law is a bad law.
I can give you numbers from studies I've read. In 1997, 630 children under the age of 15 died from gunshot wounds in America. Nine times as many children die from unintentional gun-related incidents in the United States than in 25 other industrial nations combined.
The NRA likes to point out that gun-related accidents with children are falling -- by as much as 23 percent in one year. Which is fine, except that according to a report cited by the American Medical Association, in the first 12 states to adopt safe-storage laws the rate fell by 41 percent.
Both sides have numbers. The NRA will point out, for example, that more kids die from poison or falls or choking than from guns. But I still don't get the point.
Even the NRA advocates safe storage of guns -- just not mandated safe storage.
Borodkin said her bill was not aimed at gun-owners, but at parents who would be held liable if they left loaded guns where kids could get to them. There were exceptions in the bill for hunting and target shooting and self-defense.
"That's a quadruple tragedy," Borodkin said of the Arvada shooting. "For the kid who was shot. For the brother who shot him. For the parents who have to live with this."
Borodkin admitted that she couldn't be sure if her bill would have made the difference in this case.
"But," she said, "it's a statement."
Just as the concealed-weapons bill is a statement.
If you had to choose -- and, actually, there's no reason you can't choose both -- which statement would you rather make?
Mike Littwin's column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Call him at (303) 892-5428 or e-mail him at littwinm@rockymountainnews.com.
When in doubt, it's always best to err on the side of freedom.
He should shut his mouth, and try his hand where it gives him the most pleasure.
Yeah... who successfully turned back the Soviet Army.
In a democracy, the People hold power, including the ultimate power of Arms. In a Totalitarian state, the People do not hold power, especially the ultimate power of Arms.
"It is not about Guns, it's about Controll"
So is "Arbeit Macht Frei" on the concentration camp gate.
And when you control for race, you find that whites have less than 2/3rds of under-15 firearms fatalities.
But if you really want the truth about "the children" in most communities, look at 1997 white gun deaths for 10 and under: 33 accidents, 96 homicides, and 3 suicides.
33 white kids of 5th grade or younger die in gun accidents per year. That's all. Increase it to 54 to include all races.
It drops down to 14 white kids and 32 all races in 1999. (whites dropped from 33 to 14, while non-whites dropped from 21 to 18 - it looks like white families are being much more responsible about gun storage, but we need to do some focused outreach. Further research should be conducted to see if these are anomolous data points.)
Source: CDC. http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus.html
Just to deal with a couple of this Clymer's lies.
It won't make the streets any safer, either
I'm sure most Freepers are familiar with the Lott Study. There would be 1410 fewer murders, 4200 fewer rapes, 60,400 fewer aggravated assaults if all states had "shall issue" laws similar to Florida's. Sounds like safer streets to me.
according to a report cited by the American Medical Association, in the first 12 states to adopt safe-storage laws the rate (of gun-related accidents) fell by 41 percent.
Again, the Lott Study. "Safe Storage" laws in (the first) 15 states will lead to a 9% increase in rapes, 11% increase in robberies, 6% increase in burglaries and 168 more murders.
Using this Clymer's 41% figure above will save 82 children under 15 (if gun related accidents and accidental gun deaths keep the same ratio.) So "safe storage" should only cost 86 additional lives.
First the founders did agree on the right ot keep and bear arms. Philosophy and political divide yes. The liberals want control off every aspect of life, whether it's personal, market, or other public activity. They are extremely bothered by the fact that folks resist their attempts to control them and force the acceptance of their conclutions as fact. So bothered, that they resort to lies, deceitful propaganda and pure emotional appeal to get their way. The people they appeal to are the ones that pay no attention to this stuff normally. They only pay attention, because the liberals eventually scare them into believing the BS. Liberal vision is everyone elses nightmare.
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.