Have Gun, Have Rules And Penalties
The Los Angeles Times, among other leading urban newspapers, has called repeatedly for a ban on handguns - a call that is neither realistic nor appropriate.
American civilians can reach for an estimated 100 million handguns, and the debate rages over what we should do about this. Perhaps the gunfire has addled our wits. Seldom has so much illogic been applied to a single issue. For example:
If we outlaw handguns, they will eventually disappear from our society. Did the Volstead Act dry up our beer supply? Did the 55 mph speed limit cause us to drive slower? Has any drug law ever made a significant difference?
The claim is often made that handguns have “no legitimate function” in our society. Untrue. Handguns are used for hunting and in target competition at local, national and Olympic levels. They are kept for self-defense in hundreds of thousands of households. You hear about the relative few that are used in crimes; you never hear about the vast majority that are used safely.
The news media’s ignorance of guns is abysmal, but that doesn’t stop them from throwing gasoline on the flames of the debate over firearms laws. In the mid-1980s, when Austria’s Glock company exported the first polymer-framed semiautomatic pistols into the United States, the news media labeled them “plastic guns” and howled that terrorists everywhere would be smuggling Glocks through metal detectors. Because of the media’s limited knowledge, it wasn’t reported that it is impossible to build an all-plastic gun and only the Glock’s frame was polymer; the steel barrel showed up nicely under airport scanners.
Gradually, these facts sank in, and the brouhaha died down. In the end, Congress did not outlaw the Glock, and the pistol is now the sidearm of choice for more than 100 U.S. police departments and 14 foreign police forces.
There are some measures that might improve the situation if they were enacted into law nationally:
Armed crimes should carry drastic penalties and the penalties should be enforced. Long prison sentences may do some good. According to the 1993 FBI Uniform Crime Report, 77 percent of those arrested for murder were between 15 and 34. Young criminals have more to lose if prison sentences are longer.
More prisons should be built to house violent criminals, and repeat violent criminals should be put to death. We deplore the death penalty, but if we cannot rehabilitate violent offenders, we cannot release them into society. Capital punishment seems the only option.
Handgun buyers should have to take proficiency tests, including a test on the laws of self-defense. Handguns are dangerous, and the idea that you should be able to own one without demonstrating that you know how to use it belongs in the 19th century.
Strict standards should be established for gun storage. If you know that you will go to prison if your son or daughter takes your revolver out of the night-stand drawer and shoots a friend with it, you may think twice about leaving it unlocked in the night stand.
Over the past 10 years we have seen a major decline in the number of drunken driving fatalities. The carnage has not been lessened by outlawing automobiles or prohibiting alcohol but by ensuring that if people drive drunk, they run a high risk of getting caught, and that if they get caught, it is very costly. Another reason for the decline is an intensive grass-roots educational campaign. A program similar to this ought to be explored with handguns on a national level.
Prohibiting handgun ownership would not solve anything. In fact, it would limit the rights of millions of law-abiding and responsible gun owners.
We believe in the right to responsible handgun ownership and use, and that it is the proper function of the law to ensure that the concept of responsibility is taken very seriously.
xxxx
The following fields overflowed: BYLINE = Duncan Barnes and Vin T. Sparano Special to the Los Angeles Times