Home    CCW Info

By JANICE S. ELLIS Special to The Star
05/01/2001

Will you become a pistol-packing mamma or a gun-toting dude? What will be your piece of choice? A pearl-handled derringer? A .44 magnum? Or will you take no chances and carry a 15-round semiautomatic Beretta in your briefcase?

Soon, if left up to many of our Missouri lawmakers, you will have that choice. We all may have a chance to experience many aspects of the good old days of the wild, wild West here in the heart of America.

Whether we like it or not, at any point we could be in the midst of a shootout at the OK Car Wash or witness a live duel at the Dairy Queen.

Imagine getting into a little verbal skirmish in the parking lot and your irate assailant reaching in a pocket, purse or glove compartment and you are not knowing if he or she will pull out some gum or a loaded gun.

Imagine some possible outcomes of road rage. The specter of being hit by a speeding bullet will put dodging potholes in a whole different perspective.

Not to mention the increased number of children who will arrive in the emergency rooms of area hospitals either injured, barely hanging on to life, marred for life, or with no life left in them at all.

All because they, in their innocence and ignorance, picked up a loaded gun carelessly left accessible and that was somehow discharged.

Aren't there enough accidental deaths and acts of violence perpetrated by adults and children? What is to be gained by making it easier to have more guns in public places?

One of the most common arguments is that it will help deter crime and improve self-defense. But will more guns reduce crime and enhance your ability to protect yourself?

What is the likelihood that if you are surprised by a burglar or accosted that you would actually have the opportunity to pull your gun, get the upper hand on the assailant and shoot him or her first?

Imagine walking down the streets or in the park. Will strangers -- even the seemingly suspicious ones -- smile, nod and keep strolling because their mutual belief is, "We both are probably carrying."

If you are approached by a strange or dangerous looking person, whatever that means, are you likely to panic and draw first?

These are not the movies.

Fundamentally, one must answer the question whether "conceal and carry" is more of a gun-control issue or a public-safety issue. Will the proliferation of guns improve the safety of those in our society who need the most protection -- our children, the elderly?

Will giving mostly everyone the right to carry a concealed gun anywhere and everywhere make our schools, neighborhoods, parks, streets, shopping mall, churches and hospitals safer?

When the concealed-carry issue was placed on the state referendum in 1999, the people said "No," albeit not resoundingly, according to some people.

It seems likely that House Bill 853, which would allow Missourians to carry concealed guns, will come up for a vote before the Missouri legislative session adjourns. Many observers think there is a good chance it will pass.

Even if you think passage of this bill will be good for the economy -- because there likely could be a shooting gallery in every mall and a target range adjacent to golf courses and amusement parks -- is that what we want our future economic landscape to be?

Please take a few minutes and contact your state representative and state senator to let lawmakers know how you feel and how you expect them to represent the interests of you, your family and your community when HB 853 is presented for a vote.

If you have access to the Internet, you can find your representative or senator at: www.senate.state.mo.us/zipcode/leg--lookup.htm You can always write a letter and send it to: State Capitol, 201 W. Capitol Ave., Jefferson City, MO 65101. Or call toll free (1)-888-306-7377 and ask to be connected to your state representative or senator.

Do you think passage of HB 853 will be good for our state, its citizens, its children?

More important, are we ready as a society, as a state, as a community, to give in to carrying guns as the best way to achieve safety and reduce crime and violence?

Janice Ellis' column appears on alternate Tuesdays. To reach her, send e-mail to jsellis@kc.rr.com.

Hi Janice,

I saw your KC Star Column on the internet and thought I might take this opportunity to respond to some of your concerns. My wife and I moved to rural Missouri just about two years ago. Prior to that time we had lived in the inner Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. While living there I was one of the folks who helped to get Right to Carry legislation passed in Virginia. As a certified firearms instructor I was also one of the people who worked as a volunteer to help teach prospective Concealed Carry applicants the defensive pistol course required by law; and of course I had carry permit myself.

First off let's be very clear that the population of Viriginia is as divided along urban/rural lines as Missouri. Let's also be very clear that the concerns you stated in your column were also mentioned by some folks in Virginia prior to the passage of Right to Carry. So I'm here to tell you that everything I've seen since we moved here has been just as Yogi Berra said "deja vu all over again".

Now if I might address your concerns?

First off there was actually a decrease in violent crime following passage of Right to Carry in Virginia.  This was especially noticable in the DC burbs where we lived. There was no increase in violent confrontations, there were none of the predicted 'shootouts on streetcorners', and every single case of road rage involved a person illegally carrying a handgun - not a one of them was a permit holder. There was no increase in the number of accidental shootings, nor was there any sudden spate of kids gaining unsupervised access to firearms. In other words, none of your fears proved to be real.

Now there are several reasons none of these things happened:

A. Certification cost time and money. The permit itself cost $50.00 and the required training could run anywhere from $120 (charged to cover costs by those of us who volunteered our time) on up to whatever the commercial firearms instructors charged corporate accounts. The reality of the situation was that a lot of folks (actually about 99% of state residents) decided it wasn't worth the effort.

B. The course of instruction included a great deal of emphasis on safe firearms handling. We also spent a great deal of time stressing the exact legal limitations of allowable use of deadly force in self-defense. In other words people who had gone through the course were well aware of their responsibilities with regard to carrying a loaded firearm in public.

C. We the instructors were *not* required to pass anyone. If someone consistently demonstrated a lack of responsibility generally and/or a specific lack of safe firearms handling we gave them their money back and showed them the door. The group of folks with whom I worked only had to do this twice in the first year - after that word got around and we had no further incidents of this nature.

D. With the passage of Right to Carry there was a concurrent increase in enforcement of the laws against carrying a firearm without a permit, as well as prosecution of firearms related charges in criminal cases. In other words, while Right to Carry was increasing the number of trained armed civilians on the streets, the court system was doing everything possible to take as many armed criminals as possible off those same streets.

E. Overall the experience of several years of Right to Carry demonstrated that, if anything, people started treating each other a bit more respectfully, even though as noted above only about one percent of the state's population was actually taking advantage of their rights under Right to Carry. You see it wasn't the number of people carrying a concealed firearm, but rather the fact that those people whose intent was criminal, as well as those whose intent was merely immature and stupid couldn't predict who in any given crowd might be a legal concealed carry permit holder. It could be the woman executive with a briefcase, it could be the soccer mom in a minivan, it could be the retired gentleman walking his dog, or the twenty-something with bright green hair and three ear rings, or delivery truck driver, or it could be...well anyone with a clean record who'd gone through the training and applied for a permit. Bottom line is that the major effect of Right to Carry was that criminals and losers knew that someone carrying a concealed handgun could be almost any adult, of any age, any ethnic group, indeed any sexual orientation. Because of that violence decreased, people felt *and were* significantly safer, and many of the criminals decided to go elsewhere - in order to find a place where they could be certain their vicitims couldn't fight back.

So yes, please call your state representative if that's what you wish, just be aware that all of us who support Right to Carry will be calling ours as well. Oh, and if you change your mind once the bill becomes law, all you have to do is ask and I'm certain I'll be able to find a number of certified instructors within the KC metro area who will be more than happy to teach you how to safely and effectively defend yourself with a firearm.

yours for liberty,

Arlin H. Adams
Otterville MO
ahadams2@earthlink.net

Home    CCW Info