Govern Policy Decisions by Logic, Not Emotion

There are not enough adjectives to describe the massacre in Connecticut on Friday -- horrible, evil, or unthinkable don't do it justice.  The sadness of the day, especially for the families of those who died, demanded our respect in not rushing to turn our thoughts to political matters; I thought the White House's decision to defer discussions regarding the implications for gun policy to another day was very gracious and appropriate.  But it is a discussion that is going to be undertaken, and it is an important discussion.

Whenever tragedies like this happen, the most immediate reaction seems to be an (understandably) emotional response that "something needs to be done".  It is important, however, that we base our response not on emotion but on sound logic.  Responding to a tragedy out of emotion rather than with careful, measured consideration may make us feel better in the short run, but it leads to decisions that do not solve the problem at hand, and may actually create more problems. In this case, the (in my opinion) largely emotion-driven response from numerous sources is to demand stricter gun control, in some cases calling for a complete ban on guns.  

First, this does not solve the problem (or problems) at hand:  Even a complete ban on guns, even in the unlikely event that it were successful at actually removing all guns from society, may reduce the severity but would not eliminate terrible cruelty like what we saw on Friday.  A tragic case in point is the report from China on the same day that a man armed with a knife attacked over 20 school children.  Guns are not necessary for evil men to do evil things.  

This leads us to the second problem that stricter gun control doesn't solve, and this one is crucial: it in fact would not remove all guns from society; it would not even come close.  Criminals would only obtain guns on the black market if need be, and there will still be gun violence; as I pointed out in an earlier post, Great Britain has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, yet still has rampant gun violence.  Likewise Chicago and D.C. here in the U.S.  The option of tightening gun control laws does not solve either the problem of people doing bad things, neither does it disarm criminals.  

Secondly, while not solving the problems it is intended to address, it in fact would create more problems.  As just stated, stricter gun laws would not disarm criminals, but at the same time, it would disarm law-abiding citizens.  If gun ownership were made illegal, for example, most law-abiding citizens would not seek out black market gun dealers to arm themselves, and they probably would not carry a firearm illegally.  So the net effect is that, aside from making it somewhat more costly for criminals to obtain guns, stricter gun control would have little effect on criminals, but would primarily impact law-abiding citizens.  Criminals would by and large continue to be armed while citizens who chose to obey the law will be disarmed.  In other words, making it harder, or illegal, for law-abiding citizens to obtain guns would give a major advantage to criminals.

Take as an example a homeowner who is the victim of a home invasion.  It is beginning to become more common to hear of the would-be assailants becoming the ones running for their lives as armed homeowners fight back.  (In two of the stories linked in the previous sentence, the innocents whose lives were saved by having a gun were youths.  I recommend doing a Google search for "home invasion intruder shot" to see how many lives have been saved in this way.)  Now, picture such a situation where the criminal forces his way into the home to find himself facing a homeowner armed with a gun.  Now, imagine walking into that home and taking the gun from the homeowner's hand, but leaving the criminal with his gun (or knife for that matter), then leaving the homeowner and his family to the mercy of the intruder.  That is, in essence, what tightening gun control would do. 

Nonetheless, what is the policy that is pursued in our schools?  To disallow any kind of weapon on school grounds.  On the surface, this may sound sensible, but clearly the animal who murdered those children and teachers did not care in the least about breaking that rule!  In fact, because of that rule, he knew when he went into that school that he would be the only one there armed, and that he would therefore be able to carry out his sick plan unimpeded; he only stopped his attack when first responders arrived. 

I was shocked recently to find that teachers are not even allowed to carry so much as a can of mace on school grounds!  This means that teachers are not equipped to protect themselves (or their students) from an unarmed assailant, let alone one who is armed.  This is unconscionable.  Some people bristle at the thought of teachers being armed, but I'm not suggesting handing them out at the weekly staff meeting!  Teachers who possess a concealed carry permit, at least under South Carolina law, would have been required to undergo training in firearm safety and use.  I wouldn't be opposed to requiring additional training to be allowed to carry on school grounds.  But declaring schools a weapons-free zone is wishful thinking of the most dangerous kind.  It only guarantees that the deranged person who manages to bring a weapon (gun, knife, whatever) into the school will be the only one armed.  

According to reports, the school's principal died when she courageously lunged at the attacker in an attempt to stop him.  (This hits me close to home, because I have a very dear friend who is a principal whom I could imagine being so brave.)  What if she had been allowed to possess a concealed weapon?  Perhaps she would have been able to save those others who were killed, and maybe she would have even survived herself. 

Post Script:  Assistant Principal Joel Myrick at Pearl High School in Mississippi had access to a handgun when a gunman attacked his school in 1997.  Sadly, two students had already been killed, but Mr. Myrick was able to subdue the shooter without firing a shot. 

Michigan is a Right-to-Work State

Score one for jobs!  Michigan is now a Right-to-Work state!  Maybe this will be a turning point for Michigan in its economic comeback. 

Poor Judgment by Costas

During the Dallas-Philly game last night, NBC aired a halftime segment, regarding the murder-suicide of KC Chiefs player Jovan Belcher and his girlfriend Kasandra Perkins on Saturday.  This was a horrible tragedy, and it was touching to see the players comforting each other following their win against the Panthers yesterday.  I hope we will all remember both Belcher's and Perkins's families and teammates in our prayers, especially the young child that they had together. 

I was expecting Bob Costas's comments after the segment to follow in the pathos of the somber post-game statement by the Chief's coach (who witnessed Belcher's suicide) in the video and the inspirational image of KC and Carolina players kneeling together in prayer after the game.  Instead, Costas decided to use this tragedy to step onto his soapbox and bring a political slant to the moment.  Aside from the fallacious nature of his statements, his using the moment to make an appeal for stricter gun control was in incredibly poor taste.  Even in responding to Costas's comments, I want to be very respectful: two people are dead and a child is orphaned.  Nonetheless, I can't disregard his comments. 

Are we to believe that domestic violence would not occur if handguns did not exist?  Apparently, Costas does.  Would murders no longer occur if guns were illegal?  Some of the highest rates of gun violence in the U.S. are in Chicago and D.C., which have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.  Even Great Britain, which has some of the strictest restrictions on gun ownership in the world, has rampant gun violence.  So apparently, more gun control is not going to stop murders from occurring.  I have often said (not that it is original to me) that making gun ownership illegal would just mean that only criminals would have guns: criminals, by definition, disobey the law, so they would have few qualms about possessing guns, while law-abiding citizens would be unarmed, hoping that, should they ever be the victim of a crime, a police officer would by chance be standing nearby to defend them.  

In truth, I haven't been a big Costas fan since the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics when he talked over the entire ceremony raising a tattered U.S. flag recovered from the ruins of the World Trade Center; the entire crowd was silent in somber reverence while Costas chattered away.  Even so, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt - perhaps Costas just doesn't like guns.  Maybe he would just prefer that people chose not to own them rather than that they be outlawed.  I can respect that.  However, his final comment, "If Jovan Belcher didn't possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today," is dangerously naive.  Fatal domestic violence tragedies occur everyday, sadly; in many of them, guns are not even a factor.  Costas, or columnist Jason Whitlock, whom he was quoting, making such a statement minimizes this horrible tragedy.