| Editorial Misses Mark |
|
|
|
| Written by Daniel White | |
| Tuesday, 14 February 2006 | |
|
In the online edition of the Winfield Courier, a newspaper based in Kansas, an editorial (really more of a Letter to the Editor) was published railing against the concealed carry bill currently working its way through the Kansas legislature. It never ceases to amaze me how the same arguments crop up each and every time, only to later be proven blatantly false. Don't these people ever look to other states before regurgitating the same propaganda-laced rhetoric time and time again? Sen. Phil Journey, R-Haysville, calls concealed carry an issue of freedom. Actually, it is both. The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected freedom, as well as an issue of both personal security and the security of a free state. (Click 'READ MORE' to continue...) We have freedom. We worship as we wish. We speak our minds. We join political groups — or not. We vote — or not. We criticize our government without restraint. Which is exactly why we need to ensure our own personal safety and security and not delegate that responsibility to a third party.
Which was perfectly illustrated this past summer in the wake of Hurricane Katrina when the authorities were overwhelmed and government services completely broke down, leaving citizens 100% on their own. With no protection from law enforcement, who was left to ensure the safety and security of the populous? Nobody seriously believes that the criminal element simply stopped plying their trade until order was restored. During that time, the only safety available was that which was provided by each person's own skills and tools. We do not need to worry whether the person next to us is carrying a concealed weapon. I have to agree there. We don't need to worry. CCW holders consistently have lower crime rates per capita than the population as a whole. In fact, you need worry more about a person who does not have a ccw license. We do not need to worry that a man across the table at a civic bean feed might spill his coffee, explode in anger and wield a gun. I challenge the writer to come up with even one case where something like this happened. The idea of someone going on a shooting spree over spilled coffee is so far-fetched, they don't even use it in the movies. It is more likely that such a fit of anger would turn our java-deprived friend into a green-skinned fiend than send him on a shooting spree. We do not need to worry that a road-raged motorist might jump from his or her vehicle to terrorize us and our children with a pistol. Again, I agree that this isn't something to worry about. Despite the rather suspect conclusions of an obscure research team using data they refuse to reveal, there is no hard evidence that a CHL holder will threaten anyone in a road rage incident. We do not need to worry that the attorney general might make a mistake and let someone severely emotionally unstable pack a hidden piece. Could this happen? Sure. It is also evenly likely that a police chief could make the same mistake and give that individual a gun and a badge, or a medical board give him a degree and a scalpel. In short, we do not need concealed carry. Maybe the author doesn't, but thousands of innocent victims who are unable to protect themselves from the criminal element do. CHL holders are amongst the most law abiding segments of society. Lower overall crime rates than their unarmed counterparts, fewer negligent discharges and accidental shootings than police officers, lower per-capita child molestation rates than catholic priests, and lower homicide rates than Senators from Massachusetts. Concealed carry works in other states, and it will work in Kansas. |