Here's what I sent:
Dear Sir,
Please forward this to Amy Fletcher, the author of the following article.
http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2003/06/02/story2.html
Dear Amy,
Having read your account of the recent legislative changes in Denver and their possible effects, I’m left with the distinct impression that you feel these changes will make Denver a less safe place to live and work. If that is incorrect, please disregard this message. If on the other hand, it is an accurate description of your organization’s feelings, please allow for the possibility that those feelings bay be based on assumptions of questionable validity. It seems to me that there’s another story to be told, and while the measures available to circumvent the new law do make interesting reading, they aren’t nearly as significant as the fundamental issues being addressed.
As a firearms enthusiast and more importantly as a Libertarian, I have a somewhat different set of values from the “mainstream†when it comes to guns. I see them as tools no different from a chainsaw, a drill, or a screwdriver. Most importantly however, I see them as tools that can help a person protect him/herself and loved ones from harm, even if the aggressor is much stronger. Can they be misused? Of course they can, just like any other tool. Are they inherently dangerous? No they are not. Because objects are incapable of independent action, its behavior that is dangerous, not objects. That’s what the Concealed Carry issue is all about. It concerns the likely behavior of the small subset of citizens who wish to carry firearms (as an insurance policy if you will).
This set of people is defined by certain characteristics:
1. They have the inclination to carry a gun. (Note that this does not mean they are paranoid or predatory, just that they don’t want to be victims if they can prevent it.)
2. They are willing to go to considerable expense and effort to remain legal while doing so.
3 They are known to be stable individuals with no criminal history.
4 They have received training in the effective, safe and ethical use of firearms.
One idea seems to be that carrying a gun automatically turns a person into a threat. It’s bad logic, but it’s persistent. A depressingly large number people have difficulty distinguishing between correlation and causality. They see crime, coupled with the use of firearms, and deduce (incorrectly) that guns cause crime. This assumption is behind most gun control laws, and it’s a source of great frustration for those of us who enjoy the safe lawful use of firearms.
The opposite perspective is that law abiding persons and criminals retain their identities as such whether armed or not, and that decreasing the potential for armed resistance to crime while leaving criminals armed (Let’s face it, what mugger is actually going to care if his gun is legal or not? He’ll keep it regardless of the law.) only encourages more crime. Because of that, I see any law that makes it easier for law abiding people to be armed as something that will increase the safety of whatever locality enacts it. As long as people who hurt others are prosecuted vigorously, having defensive equipment easily available seems to be a plus. After all, how many police officers get mugged? There’s a reason for that, and it’s not the badge or the uniform.
Thanks for your time,
Hal Romberg
, Art
