Recognize the Actual Point!

Recognize the folly of concealed weapons

Early Friday morning, two men and a woman were shot to death on a Kansas City street.

The op-ed author is probably referring to this incident that happened last Friday.

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.

Most likely referring to this bill, the details of which can be read here.

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.

No context is given for the shootings the author refers to above. Little can be gleaned from the link to the shooting I provided to the news story. We don't know the circumstances of the killings. However, there is one thing that can be said to be disturbing: the author utterly fails to mention how those people might have saved their lives if they owned (assuming they didn't) and used (assuming they were able) a personal firearm.

The Senate action, and passage of similar legislation by the House, fails to answer the fundamental question: Why does Missouri need concealed-carry legislation?

Original emphasis included.

Missouri doesn't need such legislation because self-defense is a fundamental right, as is the freedom to choose how best to do it. But since there are people like this author out there who would restrict that right through laws, some people have decided that the best way to keep this right alive is to formally enact it through 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.

If they already have the right, then why does the author oppose such measures? Because he does not trust people to do the right thing. He wants danger and uncertainty legislated away.

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.

This is a dodge by both gun rights supporters and detractors. It doesn't matter if liberalized gun laws contribute to a decline or an increase in gun fatalities. What matters is respecting individual rights and personal responsibility. The effectiveness of a method of personal defense is not up to the state to decide or judge.

Supporters also note that 43 states already issue concealed-carry permits. But that doesn't justify bad policy.

Quite right.

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.

The purpose of carrying a concealed firearm is not to "solve" gun violence, you twat. The purpose is to allow the person the freedom to choose to carry a substantial power to deter and stop crime against that person, that person's loved ones, and that person's property.

I'm against these laws because it shouldn't even have to be codified into law and often there is a host of restrictions imposed on the license applicant. But since our reality has not yet reached the point where this admittedly lesser matter becomes a primary concern, I'll support concealed gun laws. Especially if people continue to assert I have no right to firearm-derived self-defense.

Posted by Drizzten at May 08, 2003 01:48 PM