No Justice, No Peace

Glenn Beck really got under my skin today, so it’s time to dismantle another arch-conservative argument. Up for debate this time: the Second Amendment.

Why conservatives hold this amendment sacred, and not the First, Fourth, and Eighth Amendments, I will never understand. Conservatives are eager to suspend the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unlawful search and seizure under the guise of protecting the country from the specter of terrorism, but refuse to consider losing the Second Amendment in order to halt violent crime. Violent crime, by the way, kills a lot more Americans every year than terrorism has in its history.

Provoking this particular discussion is a ban on handguns in the District of Columbia, a city whose urban area has long been among America’s most violent.

Beck invited John Stoessel on the program to discuss whether college students should carry loaded weapons in an effort to stop school shootings. Their conclusion: arm everyone, and everyone will be safe.

We can look at a similar policy of lethal deterrents, and note that the death penalty has had no effect in reducing violent crime in this country, and that Canada, Japan, and all countries in Western Europe, where the death penalty has been abolished, all have much lower rates of violent crime. In most of those places, they don’t allow concealed weapons either.

So, we can consider Beck’s argument that, in his words, “It doesn’t reduce crime to take away guns,” to be entirely fallacious. From New York to Baltimore to Atlanta, the last of which can hardly be considered a liberal stronghold, mayors and police departments have been joining forces to get guns off the streets.

At both Northern Illinois and at Virginia Tech, the aggressors used weapons that they had purchased legally. They passed background checks, accepted the waiting periods, obtained their registered firearms, and committed their crimes. Do Beck and Stoessel honestly believe that these two young men would have killed 37 people between them if they were unable to purchase guns cheaply and easily?

On to the next horrifying assertion. Stoessel: “In most states it is legal to carry a gun, on your person. And those states have no more crime, because criminals know, if you rob somebody, you might be packin’.” This is the most ludicrous assertion I have ever heard. No more crime? Stoessel has claimed that there is no longer crime in the following states, where anyone who meets the legal criteria may carry a concealed weapon: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Somehow, that doesn’t seem correct.

Beck later says, “These gun-free zones, doesn’t it say, ‘Ok, nobody here to stop you.’” Stoessel agrees, so let’s break that one down next.

I highly doubt that criminals evaluate whether a homeowner has a gun before robbing them. I can only assume that Beck has a sticker on his front door, which reads, “If you come a’robbin’, I’ll come a’shootin’.” Otherwise, how are criminals to know he has an armory in his linen closet? Sean Taylor, the late Redskins safety, had a gun in his home. The men who robbed his house knew this. He was armed with a machete at the time of the assault. He was shot and killed regardless. They shot him through the bedroom door. He would never have had the opportunity to shoot them first.

It should never come down to a case of quick-draw. Basic probability states that you’d only win 50% of the time. The other 50%, you’d be dead, with your gun still in your back pocket. I can’t imagine finding many people willing to play those odds.

In suggesting that the general public begin carrying guns in order to reduce violent crime, Beck seems to advocate a system of vigilante justice -- one where anyone with a gripe dishes out his or her personal brand of justice. He prefers this to a system in which we resolve personal disputes without saber-rattling (literally) or lethal violence, and where we entrust our police officers with the public safety.

Dearest Glenn, do you truly believe that the police are incapable of preserving law and order? Is the national consortium of urban mayors and law enforcement professionals who have banded together to reduce gun-ownership wrong? Are we to believe you, Glenn, or the people we trust to serve and protect?

John Stoessel cites the Appalachian Law School (ALS) shooting, where armed students subdued a shooter in 2002, as an instance of more guns resulting in fewer deaths. It is the only example he cites of students ending a shooting with their own firearms.

Stoessel neglects three important points regarding the Appalachian Law incident:

First, the two students who subdued the shooter retrieved their firearms from their cars. They were not carrying weapons at the time of the shooting, thus this is not an example of the efficacy of a concealed carry law, as the weapons were not concealed on their bodies, and would not fall under the jurisdiction of a concealed carry law. In most states, a person does not need a concealed carry permit to keep a weapon “safely encased” in his or her car.

Second, the three people (two armed, one unarmed) who subdued the shooter at ALS fired a total of zero shots. The shooter dropped his gun as he was confronted, and was then tackled by a group of students who held him in place until local officers arrived. Thus, the fact that the confronting students’ weapons were loaded had little to do with the eventual resolution. Stoessel also ignores important counter-examples, such as the 1999 Heath High School shooting, where a group of unarmed students gang-tackled the shooter after he began firing.

The third point that Stoessel ignores is by far the most important. At ALS, the two men who subdued the shooter were off-duty police officers. One was an active member of the Grifton Police Department in North Carolina, the other was a sheriff’s deputy from Asheville. These were not just college students; they were police officers who had been trained and drilled in the proper use of a firearm, and who had passed through the rigors of law enforcement.

This was not an example of two ordinary students pulling weapons from their backpacks. These were trained officers who were fortunate enough to be at the right place at the right time, retrieved their personal weapons from a safe location, and calmly ended the confrontation. How can we believe that anyone else would exercise the same restraint and sober decision-making as these two police officers? Furthermore, how many times might we see someone become involved in a drunken confrontation at a frat party, and pull out a licensed and legally-possessed weapon in retaliation?

It is worth noting that the officers who prevailed at ALS did not feel it necessary to carry guns on their bodies. They’re police officers, and would have been within their rights by doing so. No one understands the dynamic of concealed weapons better than members of the law enforcement community, and these two chose to leave their weapons in a safer place.

Neither Stoessel nor Beck seems aware of the primary fallacy of their argument. Three students died at Appalachian Law before the shooter was subdued. Yes, the armed officers prevented the shooter from killing more people. However, simple mathematics argues that the shooter would have killed three fewer people if he had been unable to procure a gun in the first place.

How many more students will lose their lives at the hands of people who should, under no circumstances, be trusted with a firearm, but who we allow to possess one at all times? What would prevent a controversial debate, a professor-student confrontation, or a large gathering from turning into a shooting gallery? Dueling organizations might well turn a campus into the Wild West.

If aggressors could not obtain guns in the first place, what need would there be for anyone to use a gun in self-defense?

Glenn Beck is concerned about my right to own a gun, and cites John Adams’ statements about my inalienable rights. What about my right to live free of fear, and not be caught in the crossfire as I walk down Fraternity Row? Given the choice between the inalienable right of owning a gun, and that of pursuing happiness, I’d much rather have the latter.