The right to bear arms cannot survive
tragedy after tragedy being reported in the news
as a simple failure to control guns. We never read
about the two million times a year that private
guns are used to prevent crime.
Professor John Lott of the University
of Chicago did extensive studies of FBI statistics
and wrote a book called "More Guns, Less Crime."
It gave instance after instance of how armed, HONEST
citizens prevent crime. He did statistical studies
proving this fact. The book lived up to its title.
Let me tell you how effective Lott is. I saw a 1990's
debate between him and gun control advocates on
public television. No one is going to accuse public
television of not giving the left all the odds it
can. Lott was outnumbered, but he made an unbeatable
case that when the honest public is armed, crime
goes DOWN. His case was so good that the gun control
advocates were reduced to arguing that allowing
honest people to carry concealed weapons had NO
EFFECT on violent crime!!!
Now here is the CRITICAL point: this occurred in
the mid-nineties. This was when concealed weapons
permit laws were being passed that gave the public
more access to firearms. In response to these proposals,
these exact same anti-gun people were shouting "BLOODBATH!"
They were saying that if these new concealed weapons
permit laws were passed, "It will be Dodge
City!"
Respectable conservatives don't remember that, but
I do. The very second a roomful of these anti-gun
screamers had to face a knowledgeable scholar, they
were reduced to arguing that the permits shouldn't
be allowed because they didn't MATTER.
The laws they were screaming against were passed
and they have worked beautifully.
If the nonsense they were screaming in the mid-nineties
were repeated today, the anti-gun nuts would be
laughed to shame. If respectable conservatives had
any memory at all, the gun-grabbers would be in
very deep trouble. But respectable conservatives
are an intellectually inbred bureaucracy of city
people who know nothing about guns. Whenever the
subject comes up, they are truly pathetic.
The problem is that they speak for us in public
debate, and we never object.
|
There have always been concealed weapons
permits, despite the fact that liberals speak of
them as if they were a right wing innovation. What
has changed, and outraged the left, is the WAY the
right wants such permits to be handed out. In South
Carolina and other states, it used to be that you
got a gun permit because you knew the right people.
Now you have to EARN a permit, and the media considers
that a dangerous and evil thing.
The old concealed weapons permits, the ones you
got by knowing the right people or having political
pull, had no restrictions. In South Carolina, if
you helped the sheriff win his election or otherwise
pleased him, he could appoint you a Special Deputy,
an unpaid police officer. You would get a badge
and the right to carry a gun anywhere a deputy could.
Judges and other petty officials got unlimited permits
routinely.
For citizens in general, there were no permits except
under extreme conditions. If you wanted a permit
and didn't have political pull, the burden of proof
was on you.
Then came what is now known as "the concealed
weapons permit movement." A majority of states,
including almost all of the South and west, have
passed laws which shift the burden of proof from
the honest citizen to the petty officials. In other
words, if a person proves his qualifications to
have a permit, and if the CITIZEN feels he needs
one, it is up to the police to prove he SHOULDN'T
have one.
This movement, from political pull for permits to
making people EARN permits, has infuriated the media,
the political left, and many of our pettiest petty
officials.
South Carolina's version of the EARNED permit is
contained in the Law Abiding Citizens' Self-Defense
Act of 1996. To get a permit, one must take a day
long course, demonstrate competency on the firing
range, and then undergo a three-month background
check by SLED.
As what was called "the concealed weapons movement"
advanced, the establishment panicked. To repeat,
there had always been a concealed weapons law in
every state and every county in the United States.
The change was that one would have to EARN a permit
rather than simply being a buddy with the local
authorities.
"There will be a BLOOD BATH!" shrieked
the press from coast to coast. Since then, some
24,500 permits have been EARNED in South Carolina.
Nation-wide, the number of EARNED concealed weapons
permits is well into the hundreds of thousands.
For the last half of the 1990's, the national and
local media searched hungrily for some instance
of misuse of these permits. There were NONE.
Since respectable conservatives have no memory,
no one will ever remind the media that they screamed
"BLOODBATH" when these EARNED permits
were proposed. It would embarrass them, and respectable
conservatives never say anything to embarrass liberals.
That's how they stay respectable.
So, now that we have hundreds of thousands of permits
and many years of experience with EARNED gun permits,
it would seem obvious that the opponents were not
only wrong, but laughably wrong.
Back when the establishment was screaming "BLOOD
BATH!," liberal legislators could not stop
the EARNED permits, so they did what the gun grabbers
considered the next best thing. They heaped special
restrictions on EARNED concealed weapons permits
that were never even considered for permits handed
out under the old buddy system.
Clearly, permit holders have earned the right to
rid themselves of the special restrictions they
are under, the ones no one even considered putting
on permits awarded under the old buddy system.
Back in 1996, when they were shrieking "BLOODBATH!,"
the press demanded that people not be allowed to
carry guns to the bank. They had lines like, "the
law would allow armed men to go into banks!,"
evoking images of bank robbers. Needless to say,
not one instance of any problem has been recorded
anywhere when a permit holder carried his gun into
a bank.
Now the papers say, "people carrying guns in
bars!!" Right now, someone who has an EARNED
concealed weapons permit cannot carry his gun into
any place that serves alcoholic beverages, including
most restaurants. Once again, no such restriction
was ever considered when permits were awarded on
the buddy system.
It turns out that criminals like this restriction.
Criminals know that if they see someone coming out
of a restaurant that sells beer, the law guarantees
that that person will not be armed.
Grassroots, South Carolina (http://www.scfirearms.org)
is leading the growing fight in the state legislature
to get these absurd limitations removed.
Many states do not have this restriction. And once
again, where this restriction has not been applied,
there has, once again, been NO INSTANCE of abuse
of it by EARNED permit holders.
Nonetheless, once again the shriek is "BLOODBATH!,"
and all permit holders are portrayed as drunken
bums who will shoot up the place.
There is a fundamental point here, though, that
goes beyond whether or not a person has a gun permit.
The theory of the media is that the average law-abiding
citizen is exactly the same as the criminal population.
A person who EARNS a permit and undergoes a three-month
background check to prove he has no criminal record
or any other problem, should be banned from self-defense
as completely as a career criminal. They are the
same.
This is not only factually absurd, it hideously
insulting, and not just to permit holders. It reflects
the establishment's attitude toward all law-abiding
citizens. It is time for everyone to back the regular
citizens who have EARNED their permits.
|