Posted on 05/08/2007 2:23:43 PM PDT by neverdem
A View from the Valley
In the wake of the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech, gun rights have been a point of contention. Some think stricter gun control laws would have prevented the massacre; others believe if the laws were less strict, the deaths could have been cut down.
If anything, the fact Seung-Hui Cho had mental problems, which contributed to his eventual mass murders, should make states re-evaluate the way they treat people with mental health struggles, especially ones who, like Cho, show violent tendencies and obviously need treatment.
Another important consideration is that while liberals often fervently oppose gun rights, many discourage efforts to control the amount of violence shown in movies and video games. When children grow up having no contact with guns except to watch actors pretend to shoot others down, they will not have a realistic view of weapons. The role of a gun goes from being a tool used for hunting, or more importantly, self-defense, to a way to plug your enemies.
First and most importantly, the Constitution as it stands does not allow the federal government to pass gun control laws, period. The statement in the Second Amendment that “... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” is rather clear.
Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment declares, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
In other words, even if the Second Amendment did not exist, it would still be illegal for the government of the United States to pass gun control laws since the Constitution does not delegate it that right. That right would belong to the states. However, the Second Amendment does not differentiate between the states and the federal government in its stipulation.
Gun control advocates commonly assume the removal of guns from society will remove the desire of some people to hurt others. This is actually an assumption about human nature. Since humans are supposedly good, bad actions have to be blamed on something — society, in general. Not that society doesn’t have an effect on people, but there is a major difference between saying violent video games encourage crime and trying to pin all the blame for a crime on a certain object.
Blaming crime on guns is like blaming a hole dug by a little boy in someone’s flowers on the shovel he used. The little boy only uses the shovel because he wants to dig a hole. A criminal only uses a gun because he or she wants to hurt or kill someone. An inanimate object is not the source of evil desires.
Would restricting guns prevent criminals from being able to carry out crime? Frankly, no. What happened when strongly addictive drugs were made illegal? (Note to all Journal Junction loyalists: I am not advocating legalization.) Do we lack in illegal drugs today? As soon as a gun ban would be enacted, criminals could begin sneaking guns into the country just as drugs are trafficked in now.
Morton Grove, Ill., banned anyone other than police officers from owning guns. The result? Crime immediately increased by 15.7 percent, though the county’s crime rate rose by only 3 percent. The city’s population has shrunk slightly.
In response, the small town of Kennesaw, Ga., enacted its own regulation. The head of each household was to own and maintain a gun. Kennesaw was mocked for its decision and talk of Wild West-type shootouts as well as more realistic concerns of increased crime and gun accidents characterized nationwide reactions to the regulation.
However, Kennesaw’s crime rate, which had formerly been above the national average, went down, and 2005 statistics reported the rate to be well under the national average. Although the town has more than tripled in size, 25 years have passed since the decision and no Kennesaw residents have been involved in a fatal shooting in any way.
The decrease in violence makes sense. People who intend to hurt others don’t want to be faced with a weapon. Cho was in a gun-free zone at Virginia Tech, and he knew it. People rarely try to commit massacres where they know there will be weapons. And if they would make the attempt, it wouldn’t last very long.
While I would not personally advocate requiring families to own guns, we do need to be aware that it is every person’s duty to protect his or herself. Banning guns deprives American citizens of that ancient right.
— Community columnist Elizabeth Johnston is a native of the lower Shenandoah Valley and lives in Martinsburg. She can be reached at murm@access.mountain.net
* The views of columnists do not necessarily reflect the views of The Journal.
Not.
This question needs to be asked of the presidential candidates. Especially the Al-dimocRATS.
This is an absolute no brainer. When someone is trying to assault you or your family, a pistol in the hand is a much more effective tool at stopping the attacker than an execution method on the books.
No, especially the RINO front runners. The Rat's positions are pretty clear.
When someone is trying to assault you or your family, a pistol in the hand is a much more effective tool at stopping the attacker than an execution method on the books.
Answer: immediate DRT trumps the possibility of a future execution.
From a theoritical behavioral science perspective an abundance of armed citizens will deter more crime than the death penalty.
The threat of an armed citizen being present when a crime occurs is an immediate consequence. The death penalty is an indirect consequence inconsistantly applied.
The behavioral science concerning this is not in doubt. Immediate consequences deter more behavior than indirect inconsistant consequences.
You are right and I’m not aware of any competant behavioral scientist who would disagree.
Was that person talking about a specific crime? The research I have seen indicates no statistically significant effect on *murder* rates by either the death penalty or gun ownership. That research (I like Kleck's) indicates that there is a measurable decrease in theft and robbery rates when gun ownership increases.
How many murders per year? (over 16,000 in 2004) How many executions per year? (59 in 2004)
When the number of executions per year equals the number of murders per year, I'm betting that the death penalty deters more murders than guns.
The keyword....being competent.
Bzzzzzt! Wrong.
The federal government is allowed to pass gun control laws just as they are allowed to pass free speech laws (and the first amendment says, "Congress shall pass NO law).
Not.
FR allows a small contingent of 'majority rule socialists' to post their anti-gun agitprop; -- in effect we're using them as 'judas goats'.
I don't know who sneaked in and stole conservatism, but I'd like to have it back now.
The states 'rights'/majority rule faction have long been sneaking around claiming to be conservatives. - Actually most are prohibitionists of one sort or another.
They claim federal/state/local governments are allowed to pass gun control laws just as they are allowed to pass free speech laws; -- that people in our society only have the right to decide how they will live together as a group, not as individuals.
Not. Also unconstitutional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.