Citizens need guns for their protection
By Bill Ferguson
(Published September 23, 2000)
I just got off the phone with the California
Department of Justice in Sacramento. It is
responsible for enforcing the California
Assault Weapons Registration law, set to go
into effect Jan. 1. I asked how many of the
roughly 200,000 legal owners of such
weapons, now legally classified as
"dangerous," had registered them under this
law. As of Aug. 31, about 6,000. What does
this mean to the people of California?
Those who favor gun control will tell you
gun owners are a lawless bunch and are the
cause of crime. Law-abiding gun owners
will tell you they fear a government that can
easily confiscate legally purchased firearms
that have never been used in crimes.
Regardless of who is right, we are faced
with an act of civil disobedience
unprecedented in state history.
Unless a deluge of gun owners are waiting
until the last minute, we will have over
190,000 new criminals as of the first of the
year facing misdemeanor charges.
Criminals are exempt
Unfortunately, convicted felons are exempt
from this law. They cannot be prosecuted for
failing to register or for possession of an
unregistered weapon, as that would violate
their Fifth Amendment rights against
self-incrimination. While this is certainly
discriminatory, the bigger question is, why
would politicians pass a law that doesn't
apply to criminals?
Gun control is not about crime; it's about
rights. Senators Dianne Feinstein and
Barbara Boxer, with full support from Bill
Clinton and Al Gore, constantly pound out
plans to remove guns from the hands of
law-abiding citizens, but absent from their
many schemes are plans to remove guns from
criminals. They obviously believe legally
owned, lawfully used guns are the problem.
If gun control is not about crime control, it
must be about something else.
Sen. Feinstein and state Sen. Don Perata, the
author of the registration law, have
concealed-carry permits. Outspoken
gun-control advocate Rosie O'Donnell thinks
it's OK for her bodyguard to carry a gun,
while Clinton and Gore will have Secret
Service protection forever. While these
prominent public figures have protection few
working-class Americans will ever afford,
they clearly believe the little people cannot
be trusted to make sound judgments
concerning the proper possession, storage
and use of firearms. This attitude cannot be
construed as anything but liberal elitism.
What are the facts concerning civilian gun
use?
In defending themselves with firearms,
Americans kill 2,000-3,000 criminals each
year; three times the number killed by police.
Private citizens mistakenly kill innocent
victims 2% of the times they shoot someone.
The error rate is 11% for police; five times
as high. It's rare that a woman, confronted by
a man with a knife, would shoot the wrong
person.
Firearms kill 30,000 people each year,
including suicides and murders committed by
criminals. Firearms are used to defend
citizens up to 2.5 million times a year, over
6,000 times a day, and in 98% of those
cases, no one gets shot; either a warning shot
of merely displaying the weapon is enough to
deter the criminal, according to Yale Law
School professor John Lott. Any fair analysis
of firearms must include their benefits as
well as the evil they do.
Jeffrey Snyder, in his 1993 essay, "A Nation
of Cowards", wrote, "While it may well be
true that a society in which crime is so rare
that no one ever needs to carry a weapon is
civilized, a society that stigmatizes the
carrying of weapons by the law-abiding,
because it distrusts its citizens more then it
fears rapists, robbers and murderers cannot
claim this distinction."
What will come of our new class of
"criminal" gun owners? The same thing that
will happen to their weapons. Either we
change the law or they'll be taken away.
Politicians who enable this are the real
danger here; not your neighbors who own
guns.
Bill Ferguson is a resident of Fresno.
http://www.fresnobee.com/searchSite/0,1906,197605,00.html
By Bill Ferguson
(Published September 23, 2000)
I just got off the phone with the California
Department of Justice in Sacramento. It is
responsible for enforcing the California
Assault Weapons Registration law, set to go
into effect Jan. 1. I asked how many of the
roughly 200,000 legal owners of such
weapons, now legally classified as
"dangerous," had registered them under this
law. As of Aug. 31, about 6,000. What does
this mean to the people of California?
Those who favor gun control will tell you
gun owners are a lawless bunch and are the
cause of crime. Law-abiding gun owners
will tell you they fear a government that can
easily confiscate legally purchased firearms
that have never been used in crimes.
Regardless of who is right, we are faced
with an act of civil disobedience
unprecedented in state history.
Unless a deluge of gun owners are waiting
until the last minute, we will have over
190,000 new criminals as of the first of the
year facing misdemeanor charges.
Criminals are exempt
Unfortunately, convicted felons are exempt
from this law. They cannot be prosecuted for
failing to register or for possession of an
unregistered weapon, as that would violate
their Fifth Amendment rights against
self-incrimination. While this is certainly
discriminatory, the bigger question is, why
would politicians pass a law that doesn't
apply to criminals?
Gun control is not about crime; it's about
rights. Senators Dianne Feinstein and
Barbara Boxer, with full support from Bill
Clinton and Al Gore, constantly pound out
plans to remove guns from the hands of
law-abiding citizens, but absent from their
many schemes are plans to remove guns from
criminals. They obviously believe legally
owned, lawfully used guns are the problem.
If gun control is not about crime control, it
must be about something else.
Sen. Feinstein and state Sen. Don Perata, the
author of the registration law, have
concealed-carry permits. Outspoken
gun-control advocate Rosie O'Donnell thinks
it's OK for her bodyguard to carry a gun,
while Clinton and Gore will have Secret
Service protection forever. While these
prominent public figures have protection few
working-class Americans will ever afford,
they clearly believe the little people cannot
be trusted to make sound judgments
concerning the proper possession, storage
and use of firearms. This attitude cannot be
construed as anything but liberal elitism.
What are the facts concerning civilian gun
use?
In defending themselves with firearms,
Americans kill 2,000-3,000 criminals each
year; three times the number killed by police.
Private citizens mistakenly kill innocent
victims 2% of the times they shoot someone.
The error rate is 11% for police; five times
as high. It's rare that a woman, confronted by
a man with a knife, would shoot the wrong
person.
Firearms kill 30,000 people each year,
including suicides and murders committed by
criminals. Firearms are used to defend
citizens up to 2.5 million times a year, over
6,000 times a day, and in 98% of those
cases, no one gets shot; either a warning shot
of merely displaying the weapon is enough to
deter the criminal, according to Yale Law
School professor John Lott. Any fair analysis
of firearms must include their benefits as
well as the evil they do.
Jeffrey Snyder, in his 1993 essay, "A Nation
of Cowards", wrote, "While it may well be
true that a society in which crime is so rare
that no one ever needs to carry a weapon is
civilized, a society that stigmatizes the
carrying of weapons by the law-abiding,
because it distrusts its citizens more then it
fears rapists, robbers and murderers cannot
claim this distinction."
What will come of our new class of
"criminal" gun owners? The same thing that
will happen to their weapons. Either we
change the law or they'll be taken away.
Politicians who enable this are the real
danger here; not your neighbors who own
guns.
Bill Ferguson is a resident of Fresno.
http://www.fresnobee.com/searchSite/0,1906,197605,00.html