Recognize the folly of concealed weapons
Posted on Tue, May. 06, 2003 | |||
Recognize the folly of concealed weapons
Early Friday morning, two men and a woman were shot to death on a Kansas City street. Just hours later in Jefferson City, the Missouri Senate approved legislation to let residents have concealed weapons on their persons, in purses and briefcases, and in their cars. The paradox is disturbing: While three people were shot to death, lawmakers were trying to pass concealed-carry legislation that would increase the dangers of gunplay in the state. The Senate action, and passage of similar legislation by the House, fails to answer the fundamental question: Why does Missouri need concealed-carry legislation? Its supporters argue that people should be allowed to defend themselves with firearms. But adults in Missouri already have the right to carry firearms and to have them in their cars or homes. We don't need to create more situations where we wonder who is carrying what. Supporters of concealed-carry also like to talk about how often Americans use firearms in self-defense. Estimates vary from less than a million to three million times a year. No one can say for certain how often concealed weapons were used in those situations and how effective they were. Supporters also note that 43 states already issue concealed-carry permits. But that doesn't justify bad policy. The Missouri Senate and House still must reconcile their measures, but it seems obvious that a concealed-carry bill will soon be on Gov. Bob Holden's desk. To his credit, Holden has said repeatedly that he would veto the bill. But supporters of the legislation have a realistic chance of overriding the veto. If the recent votes are any indication, concealed-carry supporters would have the necessary votes to override in the Senate and would need just one more vote in the House. Encouraging people to carry hidden weapons is not a good solution to gun violence. Let's hope that at some point more of Missouri's elected representatives recognize this and reject concealed carry. |
Actually, yes you do. It is precisely this benefit of the doubt that protects those not carrying weapons, as the potential perpetrator cannot distinguish who has them and who doesn't, and must weigh the risks. The result? Crime goes down. I remember that the town of Chappaqua in NY (rings a bell...) tried to become a "gun free zone" and posted such on the entries to the town. The crime rate shot up, because to a criminal, a fat cat rich suburban town with a guarantee that there will be no armed resistance is like shooting puppies in a barrel, manna from heaven. Needless to say, Chappaqua quickly changed their idiotic policy.
Will Hillary insist that her bodyguards (ugh!! the very phrase makes me feel unclean!) be "gun free?" Doubt it.
awesome!
That's right, I won't go out and buy one.
I will go out and get a permit though.
(For those of you wondering, I don't need to buy one.)
I may have to e-mail the gov's office and let him know that he will be committing political suicide if he vetos this. (As if he was actually going to win another term.)