Posted on 12/11/2001 4:30:04 AM PST by SJackson
Whatever one thinks of the "gun rights debate," it's simply not possible to promote rational debate by utilizing irrational arguments and misleading information. The Tribune editorial of Nov. 11 includes some striking examples of misinformation, as well as blatant attempts to confuse the issues that were included in the discussion. The editorial starts by complaining that the claim
that "prisoners are afraid of guns" is an "unproven generality." In fact, it's based on a 1986 study by Wright and Rossi of 1,874 felons in 10 different states. The majority expressed the opinion that they were more afraid of armed citizens than of the police, and that they would avoid attacking a person known to be armed.
As for the need for independent studies of gun laws, it turns out that numerous independent, scientific studies have already been performed by researchers of every political persuasion. The results are clear:
Owning and carrying firearms prevents violent crime. The effects are more dramatic in high crime areas, for women and for multiple-victim shootings which, ironically, are used as the excuse for more anti-gun legislation. Concealed carry is particularly effective because criminals don't know which potential victim is armed (Lott and Mustard, Lott and Landes).
Background checks, as mandated by the Brady Act and Utah law, are worthless at preventing homicide (Journal of the American Medical Association). Yet they waste a tremendous amount of time and money that could be better spent patrolling the streets and apprehending real criminals. They also invade the privacy of gun owners.
Anything that makes it less likely that citizens will own and carry firearms, including background checks, fees for permits, training requirements etc., is counterproductive. To deter and prevent crime, government should do everything possible to encourage firearms ownership (Professor John Lott Jr.).
It's also interesting, not to mention frightening, that The Tribune considers "effectiveness" at least as important as "legality and [gun] rights." Is it the position of The Tribune that legality and rights may be safely ignored in order to promote "effectiveness"? Would this extend to such illegal but effective crime control methods as capital punishment for all felons, indefinitely incarcerating malcontents and troublemakers, and silencing journalists with unpopular ideas? What about chopping off the hands of thieves?
Either The Tribune believes in a judicial system based on laws and rights, or it believes in the expediency of a police state. To insist that journalists' rights are sacred but the rights of the mentally ill and/or gun owners can be ignored when convenient is nothing other than hypocrisy.
Is The Tribune really proposing that we revoke the rights of citizens and ignore a possibly illegal court because it might be "effective"? And by the way, which independent studies show that mental health courts are effective, and what parameters do they use to measure this?
I do agree that the Legislature should study existing research on firearms ownership and crime and re-evaluate Utah laws. An objective study would almost certainly conclude that background checks should be eliminated, and that any non-violent person who wishes to carry a concealed firearm should be able to do so -- without a permit.
As a result, our Legislature might choose to eliminate the persecution of Utah's gun owners by the Department of Human Services, Gov. Mike Leavitt, the University of Utah, the Delta Center and numerous employers. They might choose to build public shooting ranges to encourage regular practice and safe firearms use. They might even provide tax credits to the 40,000-plus good citizens who accept the responsibility of keeping themselves, their families and neighborhoods safe.
Finally, it's of note that Rep. Matt Throckmorton asked for a legal opinion on the legality of mental health courts, and not on the legality or effectiveness of gun laws. His question is legitimate and deserves serious consideration. The Tribune's attempt to taint his concern for maintaining separation of powers by labeling it "rhetoric . . . designed to fulfill a personal agenda" and generating as much "gun hysteria" as possible is reprehensible.
The first question that needs to be answered is whether the Mental Health Court is legal. Until that question is answered, any discussion of cost, effectiveness or gun rights is moot. However, it would also be helpful to know which offenses qualify a defendant for mental health court, what "treatment" is proposed, and what sort of informed consent for both the plea bargain and the psychiatric treatment is involved.
Finally, Utah Gun Owners Alliance has requested that the Legislature audit all of the administrative rules that affect gun rights and gun owners in Utah. We are pleased that The Tribune seems inclined to support this idea, and hope you will use its considerable influence to encourage readers and legislators to support such a review.
Sarah Thompson, M.D., is executive director of the Utah Gun Owners Alliance.
That would seem to be obvious to even the most casual observer and it leads to an even more obvious question. Whose agenda does not include the prevention of violent crime?
An armed society is a polite society.
All innocent victims and law abiding citizens have been forced to give up their guns and the criminals have an open field for gun violence. The people that advocate gun control need a reality check.
It also keeps the government in check, regardless of what they the government believes, if they want to tread further on our liberties there is just so far that the American people will allow themselves to be pushed before like minded patriots "refuse to go quietly into the night" and answer these morally corrupt officials with a resounding NO!
In the words of the ever vigilant Harpseal
Stay well, Stay armed
can someome help me out with a well constructed argument that uses the wording of the 2nd amendment as proof that carrying a concealed weapon is a constitutional right?
thanks
LOL! And show just how ineffective the government is at safeguarding life and property? In your dreams, baby!
Check news, information and news archives, also check top clicks in the right column, 2nd ammendment.
Once it has been established that the Second Amemdment speaks about a right of the people - that it is an individual right, next up is, what right does it protect? Answer: "to keep and bear arms" - and that this right "shall not be infringed". Carrying concealed has to do with bearing arms, and saying "you can carry, but we've just passed a law that bans carrying concealed" blatantly invovles the bearing of arms, hence is an infringement, hence is prohibited by the Second Amendment.
But, good luck convincing whomever you are arguing with of the above. For example, sometimes even after people admit that the above is true, the argument shifts groud to "but, that was then and this is now, and that amendment is an anachronism" or some such. In this case it may be appropriate to mention that, in those days, the First Amendment was intended to apply to quill pens, offset printing presses, and shouting from street corners without benefit of amplification, and if the First Amendment somehow grew to meet the shifting times, what evidence is there that the Second Amendment didn't also? Usually this will turn to a discussion of crime - and you're back where you started, with concealed handguns. Notice that: "The Second Amendment doesn't apply to today, because the situation is different now from when the country was founded, as evidenced by the gun 'violence' rate, and, gun crime is high today because the Second Amendment provides for easy access for criminals to get weapons" is a circular argument.
2. See how many of these addenda were passed during Reconstruction.
(This was 'cuz they wuz skeered uv all them freed black folks who, as freedmen, were entitled to bear arms.
Since concealed carry was commonplace in those days and before, it was difficult to terrorize said black folk if they could carry concealed.)
the legislatures wouldn't have had to pass these constitutional amendments specifically addressing concealed carry if concealed carry wasn't part of bearing arms- otherwise they'd have just passed laws regulating it without going to the trouble to amend the state constitutions.
(Back in *those days* they actually tried to
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.