Bob and Cal disagree about the effectiveness of gun-control laws, but they do see eye to eye on one thing: The Constitution allows for gun ownership.
Cal Thomas is a conservative columnist. Bob Beckel is a liberal Democratic strategist. But as longtime friends, they can often find common ground on issues that lawmakers in Washington cannot.
Today: Early next month, the Supreme Court will consider whether to hear an appeal of a lower court decision striking down tough gun-control laws in Washington. The case, Parker v. District of Columbia, is the first time a federal appellate court has overturned a gun regulation on Second Amendment grounds.
(Illustration by Web Bryant, USA TODAY)
Cal: Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty's normally good political timing was a little off when he announced last month his intention to appeal the federal court decision. Fenty said the handgun ban "has saved many lives and will continue to do so if it remains in effect." The following week, four adults and three children were shot after visiting relatives. Fortunately, all survived. D.C. has been a shooting gallery for years despite the toughest gun laws in the country. As if to further mock the ineffectiveness of gun laws, the shootings occurred in the midst of a citywide crime-fighting effort.
Bob: Are you saying gun-control laws don't matter? Do you really believe the level of gun violence would be the same in D.C. without these laws? That is insanity. Without such laws, the number of victims in the District would increase dramatically. By the way, it doesn't help that D.C. borders Virginia, which has among the most lax gun laws in the country. If the Virginia Tech killer had faced D.C.-type gun laws, perhaps 32 lives would have been spared.
Cal: I hate to break this news to you, but people with criminal intent don't obey laws. Otherwise, they would not be criminals. There is much hypocrisy behind the cry for "tougher" gun laws, when those on the books are not obeyed.
Bob: No law is fully obeyed. That doesn't mean that a society shouldn't advocate sensible boundaries.
Cal: The late newspaper columnist Carl Rowan regularly campaigned for stronger gun laws. But Rowan owned a gun in violation of the very laws he supported. When a trespasser took a dip in his swimming pool in the late '80s, he used his weapon to wound the man before police arrived. Rowan said he felt threatened. That one act proved the point of those who seek to preserve the right for individuals to keep and bear arms. The police can't be everywhere, and an armed citizen is the first line of defense against criminals.
Bob: I see you've been reading your National Rifle Association propaganda. With all due respect to Mr. Rowan, a guy swimming in his pool does not deserve to get shot. The fact is, more people die at the hands of guns in their own homes from domestic violence and accidents involving children than are ever saved from criminal intruders. It only stands to reason that in places with strict gun-control laws, fewer people will be killed accidentally. When are you and the NRA going to get it through your heads that arming the public results in more deaths by guns among family members than by criminals?
Cal: You've been reading your Handgun Control talking points. Criminals are more likely to use a gun in the commission of a crime if they know their target is unarmed. When D.C. began "toughening" its gun laws, the murder rate actually increased. As John Stossel noted on a recent 20/20 program, when Kennesaw, Ga., passed a law requiring its citizens to be armed, the crime rate declined. Stossel reported that the National Academy of Sciences "could not document a single gun regulation that reduced violent crime or murder."
Bob: Does this mean the waiting period for buying handguns under the Brady Bill had no impact on crime? If you say no, then explain the fact that thousands of former felons were stopped from buying weapons. Cal, for a man as smart as you to buy this NRA drivel is silly. If it were up to me I would ban handguns except for sporting competitions, and those guns would have to be held in licensed gun clubs. That will never happen because the NRA and the other militia groups have paid for and intimidated politicians. I once debated the former head of the NRA, Charlton Heston. I told him then he and his NRA thugs should go to the funerals of children accidentally killed by legal handguns and ask God's forgiveness for the blood on their hands.
Cal: I have no problem with waiting periods and background checks. You have yet to convince me how more laws will deter criminals intent on breaking them. Cars driven by drunken drivers and people who exceed the speed limit kill more people than guns, and I know you do not favor banning cars.
Bob: No, but I favor strict punishment for drunks who drive those cars. That's why we have tough drunken driving laws ... to keep as many drunks away from cars as possible. That is exactly the point of the Brady Bill. The FBI with its national database on gun purchases now does the job of the Brady Bill. Yet the NRA still opposes background checks. Surely you don't agree with the NRA on this.
Cal: I absolutely support full background checks and denying a gun to convicted felons and people with histories of mental illness. But criminals denied a legal gun purchase will find a way to get one illegally.
Bob: One fact is irrefutable. In countries where handguns are either illegal like Japan, or strictly controlled like Britain, the number of gun deaths is miniscule. No wonder the other civilized countries of the world consider U.S. gun laws (or lack of laws) to be nothing short of barbaric.
Cal: I don't think most people would settle for what the Japanese must endure. Japanese police have virtually unlimited powers to search anyone they regard as "suspicious" for weapons without a warrant. Even if the search is later deemed illegal, Japanese courts have a history of allowing evidence obtained in an illegal search to be used in court. I doubt if you would accept that in America, Bob. I know I wouldn't. U.S. civil liberties groups wouldn't put up with that, and neither would I. As for England, the country had 500 years with no gun laws and few incidents of violent crime. It was only after gun laws were introduced more than 50 years ago that crime started to increase. Murders with guns are down, but other categories are up sharply.
Bob: Well, the bottom line in all of this is that if the Supreme Court accepts this case, I have no doubt that the conservative court will agree with the appeals court and throw out D.C.'s gun ban. And I'll surprise you here: I think the Second Amendment does establish an individual right to own a gun. At the same time, though, I think government can — and in many cases should — restrict that right to protect a greater good.
Cal: It's hard to argue with that, though I think government should take the least intrusive approach.
Bob: So assuming the court rules as such, how about at least doing something for the children? Let's put mandatory locks on guns in homes and provide a stiff legal penalty for those who fail to do so. And please don't reject this as Heston did when I raised it. He said gun locks would be difficult to get off in a burglary, but most people can handle it just fine. If such locks were mandatory nationwide, we could save lives, particularly the lives of kids. How about it, Cal?
Cal: I am OK with gun locks, so long as they don't disable the owner when he or she needs it in an emergency. The criminal is likely to have his gun unlocked when he commits a crime. I want to be sure I have access to a fully operational weapon should I need to defend myself. If safety locks would prevent a gun from being used by a child in the home, while not impeding self-defense, I could agree to them.
Bob:It's a start. And on an issue in which very little common ground exists today, I'll take it.
Gun rights & the D.C. law
"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."
— Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Main provisions of Washington, D.C.'s gun law, which went into effect on Sept. 24, 1976:
* Handguns are banned, along with most semiautomatic weapons (unless registered before the law took effect). Exceptions: police officers (active and retired), members of the military, private security companies and licensed dealers.
* You must be 21 to possess any kind of firearm, unless otherwise approved by the police chief. (Maryland is the only state in which residents must be 21 to own any gun.)
* Guns must be stored either unloaded and locked or disassembled.
Research by Kristin Deasy
Posted at 12:16 AM/ET, August 09, 2007 in Common Ground, Criminal justice - Forum, Forum commentary, Gun Control - Forum, Politics - Forum, Supreme Court - Forum | Permalink
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/08/lock-up-guns-bu.html
(Bonus points if you want to read: Lev 20:27, Deut 18:10, 2 Chron 33:6, Gal 5:19-21)
