The
Case for Concealed Weapons Carry
by Jerry
D. Amstutz
Individuals and organizations
that oppose a responsible citizen�s free access to weapons that are
appropriate for personal defensive employment generally fall within three
categories:
-
Those who oppose defensive
weapons use through uninformed ignorance;
-
Those whose irrational fear
of weapons oppose all weapons in general; and
-
Those who harbor ulterior
motives, seeking to disempower individuals or groups.
Ignorance
Do not confuse
�ignorance� in this context with �stupidity.�
The vast majority of the people in this group are very intelligent human
beings who have been intentionally misled by members of the two groups that
follow. The fact is, weapons save
lives. Sure�guns, knives, even
bare hands can be and sometimes are used as weapons offensively, but research
shows that many weapons�handguns in particular�are used much more often in a
defensive role. Surprising?
Not really. Handguns are
particularly suited to defensive use due to their convenient size and low to
moderate power factor. A great deal
more power may be projected with a rifle or shotgun or even an automobile.
Offensively, the perfect weapon is not a firearm at all but a bomb, which
can be triggered remotely in relative safety.
That is the real weapon of choice of terrorist groups around the world.
I�m sure you have heard the
statistic quoted that a firearm in one's possession is several times (usually
quoted as 30 to 40 times) more likely to kill a friend, a family member, or
yourself than any attacker. There
is only one thing that keeps this statistic from being a valid argument�it is
a barefaced lie, and the original sources that presented this figure as truth
knew it to be false. �Friends and
family members� had to be redefined, to include one's drug dealer, pimp, or
anyone with whom one had at least a passing acquaintance, however remotely. It also does not take into account any situation in which an
attacker was not killed, but simply injured or dissuaded from further assault.
Remember that the good guy is not interested in killing
the person who attacks him or his family, only in stopping the attack.
The bad guy has a vested interest in not leaving behind potential
witnesses who may testify against him.
The argument is often made
that allowing concealed carry of personal firearms would lead to a �Wild
West� society with shootouts on every street corner.
This idea is preposterous. Over
two-thirds of the states already issue permits to their citizens who have passed
police background checks and, in some cases, mandatory firearms training.
One state, Vermont, allows any citizen without a criminal record or
engaging in a criminal enterprise to carry a concealed firearm for personal
protection. Where are the wild shootouts between the currently licensed
individuals? It has been proven
time and time again over the protests of the ignorant, that Heinlein was
correct--an armed society is a polite
society.
Irrational
fear
Many people who have no
knowledge of firearms other than what they have gained through the instruction
of television and movies have wildly unrealistic beliefs regarding the
capabilities and relative safety of firearms.
They see a firearm as a time bomb, set to detonate at some unforeseeable
time, destroying anyone who happens to be nearby at the moment.
It is doubtful that any firearm has ever fired without manual assistance,
and especially unlikely to occur with any firearm manufactured in the last
century. It would be possible to
make a stronger case for alien abductions and spontaneous human combustion than
for any firearm firing itself.
The members of the irrational
fear group are the primary supporters of the theory that deaths and injuries
due to gun accidents are a national health hazard. This has been postulated by politicized physicians at the
Center for Disease Control in Atlanta among others.
The truth is that gun accidents have been on the decline.
They are at their lowest level since 1971 (due in large part to safety
training programs such as the Eddie Eagle Program formed by the National Rifle
Association). It is also
interesting to note that according to the CDC�s own statistics, five times as
many people in the United States [or
more] die each year from physician malpractice as are killed by firearms.
�But if it saves the life
of one child�� I�m sure you
have heard that recitation. But
what of the law of diminishing returns? True,
the death of any child is a tragedy. But
what of the documented research by economics Professor John Lott which indicates
that Americans use firearms an average of
two and one half million times each year to prevent
assaults which would in many cases result in death or serious bodily injury?
In many cases the firearm is never even fired�its presence and
appropriate display alone has oftentimes prevented incidents from escalating
into lethal confrontations. If we
are going to legislate an end to anything in order to save the life of one
child, will we also do away with our motor vehicles, our swimming pools, our
household cleansers, our bath tubs? Federal
Bureau of Investigation statistics show that there are approximately 200 million
firearms in the hands of United States citizens today and that less than 1% are
ever used in the commission of a crime. Firearms,
while (arguably) designed to inflict injury, do so much less often than motor
vehicles which are specifically designed
to be as safe as possible.
Disempowerment
Throughout history, groups in
a position of power have sought to maintain their elevated
status by keeping other groups �in their place.�
Gun control has existed as long as guns have existed, with the United
States of America being the first nation of any global significance that did not
restrict firearm ownership to the nobility.
But that changed following America�s Civil War.
Firearm ownership by the newly freed slaves was seen as a threat to the
established white government, and so �gun control� laws were passed.
As civil rights progress was made, the right to keep and bear arms was
either largely ignored or outright maligned by those who sought to uphold the
other rights outlined in the Constitution.
This is clearly the official position of the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), whose opinion leaders can clearly see such
nebulous concepts as the separation of church from state in the First Amendment, and a woman�s fundamental right
to kill her unborn child
The Second Amendment, stating
that �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,�
has a specific purpose. That
purpose is to recognize that the power of our government is to be forever
subject to the rule of law and the consent of the governed.
In practice, this means that no person or group, regardless of rank,
social position, or office, is to be accorded any more tolerance in regard to
violations of public law than anyone else is.
In today�s courts where some celebrities and popular politicians break
the law and are acquitted based more upon their ability to pay counsels� fees
than upon the evidence presented, the rule of law has been done serious injury.
We are closer to replacing our democratically elected republic with an
elitist plutocracy than we would care to admit.
But what role does the
individual ownership and use of firearms play in assuring equality under the
law? Look at what a firearm does.
With a firearm, the weak and frail need not be the subject of the strong.
The minority need not be tyrannized by the majority, and the middle class
need not be the slave of the ruling elite.
The government cannot enslave an empowered populace any more than a
large, strong individual can victimize a physically weaker individual who
possesses the means to defend his or her own self.
The courts are finally, and
apparently reluctantly, coming to realize that one of the inalienable rights
identified by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was the right of each
individual citizen the ability to defend themselves by means of personal
firearms. This right cannot be
denied, as Harvard Constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe states,
�without some unusually strong justification.�
Two words in this article of
the Bill of Rights, �regulated� and �militia,� have been the subject of
controversy for years. �Well
regulated� appears to mean in today�s parlance �confined or defined by
rule and custom.� On the
contrary, �well regulated,� in Colonial times, meant �well equipped,�
�well trained,� and �well maintained.�
The �militia� was
never intended to mean any type of governmental military unit such as the
National Guard or the police as critics have maintained.
The very idea of a standing army was abhorrent to the revolutionary
writers who recently won their independence from a colonial tyranny.
The �militia� referred to was the pool of citizens who could, if need
be, take up arms for the
common defense. At that time this
was generally considered to be all able-bodied male citizens between the age of
majority and a designated cut-off age. Those
who were not needed for military service were still required
by early state governments to maintain a ready supply of arms and ammunition if
called upon to assist in local law enforcement incidents where the constabulary
was unable (or unwilling) to enforce the law.
Before
we allow our birthright to be taken away, we should carefully examine the
motivation of those who would do so. We
would do well to become informed about our history and the reasons behind many
of the events which has shaped it. We
should subject what we are asked to believe to the same scrutiny that we would
something we were asked to eat or drink. With
rights come responsibility, and with freedom
comes the need to be ever vigilant.
