Private Gun Ownership Keeps the Criminals in Line

Josey1

Private Gun Ownership Keeps the Criminals in Line Sunday, December 9, 2001 BY SARAH THOMPSON Whatever one thinks of the "gun rights debate," it's simply not possible to promote rational debate by utilizing irrational arguments and misleading information. The Tribune editorial of Nov. 11 includes some striking examples of misinformation, as well as blatant attempts to confuse the issues that were included in the discussion. The editorial starts by complaining that the claim that "prisoners are afraid of guns" is an "unproven generality." In fact, it's based on a 1986 study by Wright and Rossi of 1,874 felons in 10 different states. The majority expressed the opinion that they were more afraid of armed citizens than of the police, and that they would avoid attacking a person known to be armed. As for the need for independent studies of gun laws, it turns out that numerous independent, scientific studies have already been performed by researchers of every political persuasion. The results are clear: Owning and carrying firearms prevents violent crime. The effects are more dramatic in high crime areas, for women and for multiple-victim shootings which, ironically, are used as the excuse for more anti-gun legislation. Concealed carry is particularly effective because criminals don't know which potential victim is armed (Lott and Mustard, Lott and Landes). Background checks, as mandated by the Brady Act and Utah law, are worthless at preventing homicide (Journal of the American Medical Association). Yet they waste a tremendous amount of time and money that could be better spent patrolling the streets and apprehending real criminals. They also invade the privacy of gun owners. Anything that makes it less likely that citizens will own and carry firearms, including background checks, fees for permits, training requirements etc., is counterproductive. To deter and prevent crime, government should do everything possible to encourage firearms ownership (Professor John Lott Jr.). It's also interesting, not to mention frightening, that The Tribune considers "effectiveness" at least as important as "legality and [gun] rights." Is it the position of The Tribune that legality and rights may be safely ignored in order to promote "effectiveness"? Would this extend to such illegal but effective crime control methods as capital punishment for all felons, indefinitely incarcerating malcontents and troublemakers, and silencing journalists with unpopular ideas? What about chopping off the hands of thieves? Either The Tribune believes in a judicial system based on laws and rights, or it believes in the expediency of a police state. To insist that journalists' rights are sacred but the rights of the mentally ill and/or gun owners can be ignored when convenient is nothing other than hypocrisy. Is The Tribune really proposing that we revoke the rights of citizens and ignore a possibly illegal court because it might be "effective"? And by the way, which independent studies show that mental health courts are effective, and what parameters do they use to measure this? I do agree that the Legislature should study existing research on firearms ownership and crime and re-evaluate Utah laws. An objective study would almost certainly conclude that background checks should be eliminated, and that any non-violent person who wishes to carry a concealed firearm should be able to do so -- without a permit. As a result, our Legislature might choose to eliminate the persecution of Utah's gun owners by the Department of Human Services, Gov. Mike Leavitt, the University of Utah, the Delta Center and numerous employers. They might choose to build public shooting ranges to encourage regular practice and safe firearms use. They might even provide tax credits to the 40,000-plus good citizens who accept the responsibility of keeping themselves, their families and neighborhoods safe. Finally, it's of note that Rep. Matt Throckmorton asked for a legal opinion on the legality of mental health courts, and not on the legality or effectiveness of gun laws. His question is legitimate and deserves serious consideration. The Tribune's attempt to taint his concern for maintaining separation of powers by labeling it "rhetoric . . . designed to fulfill a personal agenda" and generating as much "gun hysteria" as possible is reprehensible. The first question that needs to be answered is whether the Mental Health Court is legal. Until that question is answered, any discussion of cost, effectiveness or gun rights is moot. However, it would also be helpful to know which offenses qualify a defendant for mental health court, what "treatment" is proposed, and what sort of informed consent for both the plea bargain and the psychiatric treatment is involved. Finally, Utah Gun Owners Alliance has requested that the Legislature audit all of the administrative rules that affect gun rights and gun owners in Utah. We are pleased that The Tribune seems inclined to support this idea, and hope you will use its considerable influence to encourage readers and legislators to support such a review. _________ Sarah Thompson, M.D., is executive director of the Utah Gun Owners Alliance. http://www.sltrib.com/12092001/commenta/156277.htm