| Posted on Fri, Mar.
29, 2002 |
 |
 |
Have
gun will travel [net version]
When a gun intrudes
[print version p.B7]
By LEWIS W. DIUGUID
The Kansas City Star
My wife, Valerie, and I didn't find out until later that
people we had invited into our home for the first time for
dinner had carried a gun with them for "protection."
One of our daughters or their friends could have stumbled
over the woman's purse where the gun lay concealed on the
family-room floor. A curious child could have picked up the
firearm and discharged it, hurting or killing someone.
The male guest said the woman he was with carried the gun for
protection. The questions that lingered in my mind are from whom
were our guests protecting themselves and what had made them so
afraid?
No good answers came to mind then or when the Missouri House
last week approved a bill that would allow residents to keep
concealed firearms in their vehicles.
I don't expect the Republican-controlled state Senate to
bravely vote down this measure and resist the cash-larded
lobbyists for the National Rifle Association.
I'm counting on Missouri Gov. Bob Holden's sensible veto to
keep people in this state safe. A veto would uphold the public's
mandate of three years ago.
Despite a multimillion-dollar pro-gun campaign, voters
defeated the ballot measure known as Proposition B. Prop B would
have let people legally carry concealed weapons. Nothing
indicates that the voters have changed their minds, though the
legislature seems not to notice. More weapons on the road will
make people more fearful and less safe.
Firearms advocates say the ballot proposal won a majority in
104 of the state's 114 counties. But the more heavily populated
urban areas of St. Louis and Kansas City ensured Prop B's
defeat.
Gun proponents have returned, this time to claim that the
Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and a public sense of "personal
vulnerability" are behind the latest push for concealed
weapons legislation in Missouri. I don't doubt it.
High above Missouri roads are passenger airliners, where many
pilots say they also need firearms in their cockpits "for
protection." Unlike guests entering homes or motorists,
airplane passengers are thoroughly searched. So is their
luggage.
But that's not enough for pilots. Flight attendants will
settle for stun guns. The consequences of firearms discharging
in pressurized cabins would be dire.
If the concealed-weapons bill passes in the General Assembly,
vehicles being searched before they can be parked at Missouri's
major airports will likely have guns that people forgot about.
What would folks rushing on the highway to airports do when
the realization hits them? Grab the gun from the glove box and
toss the weapon out the window to keep from missing a flight?
It sounds farfetched, but I used to think the same thing
about the possibility of someone carrying a gun into my home.
But these are meaner times. Too often people view others as the
enemy instead of fellow human beings.
I also fear the globalization of weapons' use as
problem-solving tools. Examples are the war in Afghanistan, the
escalating violence between the Israelis and Palestinians and
the threat of a new war in Iraq.
President Bush doesn't make people feel less vulnerable and
more safe by labeling North Korea, Iran and Iraq an "axis
of evil." Bush also said he'd use nuclear weapons against
an enemy thought to be preparing to use weapons of mass
destruction.
Attorney General John Ashcroft's actions also are perplexing.
Ashcroft has refused to allow the FBI access to records to
determine whether any of the hundreds of people held since the
Sept. 11 tragedy have bought guns.
Ashcroft has been a gun-rights proponent since elected to
offices in Missouri. The Second Amendment guaranteeing people
the right to bear arms goes untouched under Ashcroft while other
civil liberties are trounced in this climate of fear of
terrorism.
Thank goodness Holden is our governor and not Ashcroft, who
used to be. Ashcroft's shielding the Second Amendment while
gutting the rest of the Bill of Rights makes about as much sense
as guests carrying a gun into our home. It makes as much sense
as Missouri lawmakers passing a concealed-weapons bill after
voters said "no way."
Nonviolence makes good sense, too, locally and globally.
Lewis W. Diuguid is a member of The
Star's Editorial Board. His column appears on Wednesdays and
Fridays. To reach him, call (816) 234-4723 or send e-mail to Ldiuguid@kcstar.com.
|
|
From: Don
Dycus
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 12:46 PM
To: Ldiuguid@kcstar.com
Subject: A few corrections
Dear Mr. Diuguid,
There are a number of inaccurate or uninformed
statements in your Have Gun Will Travel column I'd like to
address. It's unfortunate whenever a responsible journalist such as
yourself commits mistakes in print and I'm confident your personal and
professional integrity prevents you from knowingly promulgating
falsehoods. As they say, you're welcome to your own opinion, but not to
your own facts, right?
From: <ldiuguid@kcstar.com>
To: <ddycus@kc.rr.com>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 6:07 PM
Subject: RE: A few corrections
Dear Mr. Don Dycus:
Thank you for the e-mail and the lengthy feedback. You and I
will have to agree to disagree.
[Ed. translation: I don't care
what the facts are.]
Sincerely,
Lewis Diuguid |
You began the column with the conjecture that a
"curious child could have picked up the firearm and discharged it,
hurting or killing someone." This is extremely unlikely when
responsible adults instruct small children to never handle a firearm and
instruct older children in their safe handling. This is the only
responsible alternative, since we do not and will never live in a
utopian, gun-free world.
Next, you wonder, "from whom were our guests
protecting themselves and what had made them so afraid?" I doubt
your guests were afraid of their hosts, but surely you don't suppose
there is nothing to fear beyond the safety of your home. Do you not read
your own newspaper? I don't know in which neighborhood you reside, but
also don't know of any that are exempt from crime. Your guests' fear of
criminal assault is wholly rational. The courteous thing would have been
for your guests to ask if you mind firearms in your home and for you,
given your firearm phobia, to make sure every visitor knows your
feelings on the subject. Perhaps you could post one of those
"firearms prohibited" symbols on your front door, like the
post offices do.
Next, you state, "voters defeated the ballot
measure known as Proposition B. . . Nothing indicates that the voters
have changed their minds . . ." Prop B was narrowly defeated,
primarily by votes in Kansas City and St Louis. It's likely that the
massive voter-fraud that occurred in those cities during the 2000
election also affected the Prop B outcome in 1999. With fewer deceased
Democrats voting against it, Prop B probably would now be law. If
"the legislature seems not to notice," perhaps that's because
they represent all 114 counties, 104 of which handily passed Prop B.
Citizens in those counties haven't changed their minds, either.
Next, you state, "More weapons on the road will
make people more fearful and less safe." That doubtless applies to
some people, but by no means all. Currently, most of the weapons on the
road are in the hands of criminals. Surely, that makes many others,
including yours truly, feel "more fearful and less safe." I
wonder if the unarmed 19 year-old who was murdered recently during an
attempted carjacking felt safer.
Next, your statement, "The consequences of
firearms discharging in pressurized cabins would be dire," is
erroneous outside of Hollywood movies. Real-world aeronautical engineers
dispute the notion that conventional firearms can cause catastrophic
failure of either the fuselage or windows in a pressurized airliner
cabin. Regardless, specialized ammunition currently on the market, such
as the Glaser Safety Slug, is designed to penetrate soft tissue but
shatter harmlessly against rigid surfaces like metal and
plastic.Furthermore, you imply that the majority of pilots who wish to
fly armed are somehow unreasonable. Do you seriously believe that pilots
who are trusted with hundreds of lives and multi-million dollar
aircraft, and most of whom have military training, cannot be trusted to
use firearms responsibly during a terrorist attack?
Next, you criticize John Ashcroft for refusing
"to allow the FBI access to records to determine whether any of the
hundreds of people held since the Sept. 11 tragedy have bought
guns." The Brady Law, which established the national instant check
system for firearms purchases, specifically forbids these records to be
used for any purpose other than verifying the buyer's qualification at
the time of purchase, or to be retained in a database. I know it's an
alien concept, especially so soon after the Clinton administration, but
until it's amended by Congress, Gen. Ashcroft is acting properly by
upholding the law as written.
That's it. I hope you'll find this useful and respond
if you're so inclined. I'm inclined to take issue with many of your
opinions, also, but what would be the point?
I'm with you on one point, though: as long as you can
get the murderers, rapists, thugs, and thieves to cooperate, nonviolence
is the way to go.
Best wishes,
Don Dycus
Midtown
|