cuchulainn
April 9, 2003, 10:28 PM
43-to-1 rears its ugly head.
from This Week
http://www.thisweeknews.com/thisweek.php?edition=common&story=thisweeknews/041003/pwl/News/041003-News-248197.htmlThe logic behind concealed weapon proposal eludes meThursday, April 10, 2003
Vince Dunbar
Let me make sure I've got this straight. The reason there's so much violent crime in the United States is there aren't enough people carrying guns?
This is the argument some people in this state are putting forth for once again threatening to introduce a bill in the state legislature that would allow the carrying of concealed firearms in Ohio.
They tried this bill once before, about a year ago, and it died in committee after the governor threatened to veto it. Now you'll almost never see me say anything nice about Gov. Bob Taft in print, but I'm on his side on this one. The governor reasoned that if most police and sheriffs' organizations are against this bill, it can't be a good idea.
But now with a lot of war-inspired flag-waving and patriotism in the air, the conservatives are looking to drag the proposal out again.
Their argument for the right to carry concealed weapons is if criminals don't know which of us have guns in our purses or strapped under our arms, they'll be less likely to shoot anybody.
This requires a couple of leaps of logic I'm not prepared to make. First, it assumes that people who commit violent crimes think before they act. You don't have to be an avid watcher of "America's Dumbest Criminals" to know that's not the case.
Second, you have to assume that the people with the guns in their purses or on their belts are less likely to commit crimes (or shoot you in a dispute over a parking space) than the currently armed contingent of criminals.
I don't know about you, but not knowing who does and does not have a gun wouldn't make me feel safer. There's a good portion of the population that shouldn't be allowed to drive a car much less decide when they should imitate Dirty Harry. Do you feel lucky? Do ya, punk?
The U.S. is already a gun-obsessed country that is a little too proud of its cowboy past. The last thing we need are more guns walking around on the street.
Here are some statistics I dug up:
* According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 1998 there were 30,708 firearm related deaths in the United States. Almost 56 percent of those were suicides. (Admittedly, those statistics are getting a little dated, but I can't imagine they've changed for the better since George W. Bush and John Ashcroft replaced Bill Clinton and Janet Reno.)
* The CDC estimates that there are approximately three nonfatal firearm injuries for every death. In 1990, those injuries cost $20.4-billion in both direct cost for hospital and other medical care and indirect costs for long-term disability and premature death. At least 80 percent of the economic cost of treating firearm injuries is paid by taxpayer dollars.
* According to the New England Journal of Medicine, a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household or friend than an intruder.
* A Scientific American study showed the use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's chance of injury or death.
These are not crystal-gazing, hippy organizations. They're genuine unbiased scientific sources.
"But, but ... but the Second Amendment," is usually the reaction of the Charleton Heston fans. "What about the Second Amendment?"
What about it? First of all, it's an amendment. It was written as a change to the Constitution in the first place. We can change it back. We've changed other parts of the Constitution that became outdated or were bad ideas in the first place. Slavery leaps to mind.
The United States Constitution was written in 1787 when the right to bear arms meant keeping a six-foot gun that required a minute to load a single shot in your home which was, more likely than not, a quarter of a mile from your nearest neighbor.
Do you really think the founding fathers had a cramped and irritable population of 290-million armed with automatic weapons in mind when they wrote, "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"?
I think they were a little more concerned with an invading army or a government run amok than the right of Elmer Fudd to hunt wabbits with an AK-47. This becomes apparent when you read the Third Amendment. "No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law."
Nobody waves the Third Amendment around anymore screaming about his rights. Why? Because it's out of date; it's irrelevant. The Constitution was written a long time ago. It's the foundation of the greatest system of government in history. But what makes it great is its flexibility. It's adaptable; let it adapt to the times.
One need look no further than countries with tighter gun control laws than our own. According to the Physicians for Social Responsibility (another obviously socialist organization), there were 11,798 gun-caused homicides in the U.S. in 1998. In Canada there were 151.
Canadians probably do as much per capita hunting as we do. The difference is it's difficult to buy a handgun, which has no other purpose than shooting a human being. But there are many fewer people in Canada, you say. Then we'll add in New Zealand, Japan, England, Wales, Australia, Switzerland and Germany. Those countries and Canada totaled 724 gun murders in 1998. Again, the U.S. had 11,798.
The answer is obvious -- more guns.
Vince Dunbar is a columnist and page designer for ThisWeek. vdunbar@thisweeknews.com
Copyright © 2003, ThisWeek Community Newspapers.
from This Week
http://www.thisweeknews.com/thisweek.php?edition=common&story=thisweeknews/041003/pwl/News/041003-News-248197.htmlThe logic behind concealed weapon proposal eludes meThursday, April 10, 2003
Vince Dunbar
Let me make sure I've got this straight. The reason there's so much violent crime in the United States is there aren't enough people carrying guns?
This is the argument some people in this state are putting forth for once again threatening to introduce a bill in the state legislature that would allow the carrying of concealed firearms in Ohio.
They tried this bill once before, about a year ago, and it died in committee after the governor threatened to veto it. Now you'll almost never see me say anything nice about Gov. Bob Taft in print, but I'm on his side on this one. The governor reasoned that if most police and sheriffs' organizations are against this bill, it can't be a good idea.
But now with a lot of war-inspired flag-waving and patriotism in the air, the conservatives are looking to drag the proposal out again.
Their argument for the right to carry concealed weapons is if criminals don't know which of us have guns in our purses or strapped under our arms, they'll be less likely to shoot anybody.
This requires a couple of leaps of logic I'm not prepared to make. First, it assumes that people who commit violent crimes think before they act. You don't have to be an avid watcher of "America's Dumbest Criminals" to know that's not the case.
Second, you have to assume that the people with the guns in their purses or on their belts are less likely to commit crimes (or shoot you in a dispute over a parking space) than the currently armed contingent of criminals.
I don't know about you, but not knowing who does and does not have a gun wouldn't make me feel safer. There's a good portion of the population that shouldn't be allowed to drive a car much less decide when they should imitate Dirty Harry. Do you feel lucky? Do ya, punk?
The U.S. is already a gun-obsessed country that is a little too proud of its cowboy past. The last thing we need are more guns walking around on the street.
Here are some statistics I dug up:
* According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 1998 there were 30,708 firearm related deaths in the United States. Almost 56 percent of those were suicides. (Admittedly, those statistics are getting a little dated, but I can't imagine they've changed for the better since George W. Bush and John Ashcroft replaced Bill Clinton and Janet Reno.)
* The CDC estimates that there are approximately three nonfatal firearm injuries for every death. In 1990, those injuries cost $20.4-billion in both direct cost for hospital and other medical care and indirect costs for long-term disability and premature death. At least 80 percent of the economic cost of treating firearm injuries is paid by taxpayer dollars.
* According to the New England Journal of Medicine, a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household or friend than an intruder.
* A Scientific American study showed the use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's chance of injury or death.
These are not crystal-gazing, hippy organizations. They're genuine unbiased scientific sources.
"But, but ... but the Second Amendment," is usually the reaction of the Charleton Heston fans. "What about the Second Amendment?"
What about it? First of all, it's an amendment. It was written as a change to the Constitution in the first place. We can change it back. We've changed other parts of the Constitution that became outdated or were bad ideas in the first place. Slavery leaps to mind.
The United States Constitution was written in 1787 when the right to bear arms meant keeping a six-foot gun that required a minute to load a single shot in your home which was, more likely than not, a quarter of a mile from your nearest neighbor.
Do you really think the founding fathers had a cramped and irritable population of 290-million armed with automatic weapons in mind when they wrote, "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"?
I think they were a little more concerned with an invading army or a government run amok than the right of Elmer Fudd to hunt wabbits with an AK-47. This becomes apparent when you read the Third Amendment. "No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law."
Nobody waves the Third Amendment around anymore screaming about his rights. Why? Because it's out of date; it's irrelevant. The Constitution was written a long time ago. It's the foundation of the greatest system of government in history. But what makes it great is its flexibility. It's adaptable; let it adapt to the times.
One need look no further than countries with tighter gun control laws than our own. According to the Physicians for Social Responsibility (another obviously socialist organization), there were 11,798 gun-caused homicides in the U.S. in 1998. In Canada there were 151.
Canadians probably do as much per capita hunting as we do. The difference is it's difficult to buy a handgun, which has no other purpose than shooting a human being. But there are many fewer people in Canada, you say. Then we'll add in New Zealand, Japan, England, Wales, Australia, Switzerland and Germany. Those countries and Canada totaled 724 gun murders in 1998. Again, the U.S. had 11,798.
The answer is obvious -- more guns.
Vince Dunbar is a columnist and page designer for ThisWeek. vdunbar@thisweeknews.com
Copyright © 2003, ThisWeek Community Newspapers.