Questions, Questions
It should have been expected, with the initiation of the new law regarding lifetime concealed carry permits here in Indiana that there would be those who were uneasy with the decision. The Indianapolis Star has made sure several of these concerns have graced its editorial pages since the beginning of the week as well as a couple of rebuttals. I thought it worth reviewing some of those concerns in the spirit of understanding and trying to dispel the myths that come along with it.
One such letter noted a concern over the increase in the length of the term of a concealed carry permit helping to make Indianapolis and by extension the state more the “Murder Capital of the U.S.” First, I might remind the writer that the highest murder rates have been in cities where guns are largely banned like Washington D.C., New York and Gary’s neighbor, Chicago. Anyone who’s actually spent any time in northwest Indiana knows that Gary itself doesn’t see many “home-grown” murders, not more than any town its size, really. Most of the statistical murders are Chicago transplants. Gary is a convenient “drop-off”, because of its large industrial and warehouse districts and murders are just as regularly counted by where the body is found if they don’t know where it occurred.
The gentleman in question also sees us as a “small, but vocal minority”. While a majority of Hoosiers may not be permit holders, I can with some degree of assurance inform him that they do own firearms in their home. Not that you’d want to go knocking on doors to find out who’s who (a little reference to the sleeper ‘Deal of the Century’ from the 1980’s). And as I ask anyone who broaches this topic, how is limiting the time of the permit going to reduce crime? Do you honestly think the gang bangers won’t take their guns out if they can’t get a valid permit or if they’ve let their existing one lapse. Do you honestly think they get permits? Who really is that naïve?
Another fellow has mixed emotions about the new lifetime permit. He asks “With crime on the rise, how wise is it to make it easier for someone who has never been convicted to have access to a handgun with the assumption that it will never be used in a crime?” I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around that question. So people without criminal records shouldn’t have an easy time accessing firearms? So because I’ve been a good citizen, obeyed the law and want to defend myself, I shouldn’t have an easy time of it because there’s a risk in assuming I’ll never break the law? You might as well never give out drivers’ licenses to prevent traffic accidents or vehicular homicide. How about never giving anyone matches and/or gasoline so they won’t be at risk of wanting to commit arson? It’s the exact same logic. Just because someone MIGHT abuse their freedom at some point is no reason to take it from them, well, unless you wish to operate in a tyranny. Then, that’s sort of expected.
Yes, amazingly with freedoms come responsibilities and being human and imperfect some of us will abuse those freedoms and act improperly. Whether it’s with a gun, a knife, a car or a book of matches, bad things can happen to good people. If you can’t handle that, head for your crawl space, curl up in a fetal position and await the end because honestly that’s about all that’s left for you.
Lastly, he does lecture on that same responsibility, even though originally he seems to imply that we don’t possess that instinct as gun owners. Of course guns should be kept out of reach of children and thieves, but accidents will happen. Again, amazingly, that is the difficulty that is life and stupid people will show us time and again that no matter how much we try to idiot proof life sometimes a guy will just stick his finger in the socket. I lock up my firearms and try to teach gun safety to my family. If I didn’t, should that preclude me from a concealed carry permit? I don’t think it should. Rights come with responsibilities more than they do restrictions and that’s something I wish more people understood.
Lastly, we have a writer who just flat out thinks this whole thing is
It should have been expected, with the initiation of the new law regarding lifetime concealed carry permits here in Indiana that there would be those who were uneasy with the decision. The Indianapolis Star has made sure several of these concerns have graced its editorial pages since the beginning of the week as well as a couple of rebuttals. I thought it worth reviewing some of those concerns in the spirit of understanding and trying to dispel the myths that come along with it.
One such letter noted a concern over the increase in the length of the term of a concealed carry permit helping to make Indianapolis and by extension the state more the “Murder Capital of the U.S.” First, I might remind the writer that the highest murder rates have been in cities where guns are largely banned like Washington D.C., New York and Gary’s neighbor, Chicago. Anyone who’s actually spent any time in northwest Indiana knows that Gary itself doesn’t see many “home-grown” murders, not more than any town its size, really. Most of the statistical murders are Chicago transplants. Gary is a convenient “drop-off”, because of its large industrial and warehouse districts and murders are just as regularly counted by where the body is found if they don’t know where it occurred.
The gentleman in question also sees us as a “small, but vocal minority”. While a majority of Hoosiers may not be permit holders, I can with some degree of assurance inform him that they do own firearms in their home. Not that you’d want to go knocking on doors to find out who’s who (a little reference to the sleeper ‘Deal of the Century’ from the 1980’s). And as I ask anyone who broaches this topic, how is limiting the time of the permit going to reduce crime? Do you honestly think the gang bangers won’t take their guns out if they can’t get a valid permit or if they’ve let their existing one lapse. Do you honestly think they get permits? Who really is that naïve?
Another fellow has mixed emotions about the new lifetime permit. He asks “With crime on the rise, how wise is it to make it easier for someone who has never been convicted to have access to a handgun with the assumption that it will never be used in a crime?” I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around that question. So people without criminal records shouldn’t have an easy time accessing firearms? So because I’ve been a good citizen, obeyed the law and want to defend myself, I shouldn’t have an easy time of it because there’s a risk in assuming I’ll never break the law? You might as well never give out drivers’ licenses to prevent traffic accidents or vehicular homicide. How about never giving anyone matches and/or gasoline so they won’t be at risk of wanting to commit arson? It’s the exact same logic. Just because someone MIGHT abuse their freedom at some point is no reason to take it from them, well, unless you wish to operate in a tyranny. Then, that’s sort of expected.
Yes, amazingly with freedoms come responsibilities and being human and imperfect some of us will abuse those freedoms and act improperly. Whether it’s with a gun, a knife, a car or a book of matches, bad things can happen to good people. If you can’t handle that, head for your crawl space, curl up in a fetal position and await the end because honestly that’s about all that’s left for you.
Lastly, he does lecture on that same responsibility, even though originally he seems to imply that we don’t possess that instinct as gun owners. Of course guns should be kept out of reach of children and thieves, but accidents will happen. Again, amazingly, that is the difficulty that is life and stupid people will show us time and again that no matter how much we try to idiot proof life sometimes a guy will just stick his finger in the socket. I lock up my firearms and try to teach gun safety to my family. If I didn’t, should that preclude me from a concealed carry permit? I don’t think it should. Rights come with responsibilities more than they do restrictions and that’s something I wish more people understood.
Lastly, we have a writer who just flat out thinks this whole thing is
posted by Rob Beck | 6:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home