Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, November 8, 1993 TAG: 9401140016
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A6 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: WILLIAM H. MASHBURN SR.
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
A column by Associate Editor Geoff Seamans (Feb. 16, 1992, entitled ``Maybe it's time to repeal the Second Amendment'') suggested that the answer to crime is to simply abolish the Second Amendment - the one dealing with the right to bear arms. Abolishing that right will not accomplish the desired results. We must also allow police to conduct searches of homes and confiscate guns. Unauthorized searches are now protected by the Fourth Amendment.
So now we have in jeopardy the Second, Fourth and Fifth amendments.
Stricter gun control is an emotional issue. There are no statistics to prove that any legislation restricting gun ownership by law-abiding citizens has had any effect in reducing crime. Under Gov. Doug Wilder's leadership, Virginia passed the one-a-month handgun law. He convinced citizens and legislators that Virginia was the leading gun supplier to Washington and New York. An Oct.12 editorial in this newspaper entitled ``Virginia (happily) loses a lead'' stated that a report by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms now shows for this year - January through July - Maryland has been the leading supplier of firearms to those areas. Virginia's law did not go into effect until July.
The one-a-month gun legislation was emotional, but also insignificant to gun owners. That's why it passed. It's also insignificant in the reduction of crime. Supporters knew this. Then why was it initiated - to pave the way for further restrictive legislation?
Politicians in the just-concluded campaign tried to make hay of the emotional issue of guns in schools. In Virginia, a five-day waiting period on gun purchases has been proposed as the answer. Colorado took an approach based on facts. That state passed a law that will radically change the state's juvenile-justice system. It will make juvenile justice swifter, surer and tougher. The previous system - which every other state has, including Virginia - was set up some 30 years ago to protect immature kids who might get arrested for truancy, shoplifting or joy riding. It's essentially a license to kill. No matter how awful the crime, violent youngsters rarely get more than a suspension or year or two in jail.
In an editorial on the new Colorado law, The Wall Street Journal said, ``Ironically, the most publicized feature of the new law is the one that will probably have the least deterrent effect: a ban on possession of handguns by anyone under the age of 18.''
A gubernatorial task force, commissioned by Gov. Wilder to investigate crime related to assault weapons, found that only 7 percent of crimes committed with firearms were with assault weapons. Despite these numbers, several task-force members termed the figures ``substantial'' and argued that assault weapons pose an abnormal threat to public safety. Is this a top priority for reducing crime? Statistics don't show it, but still the emotional issue is pursued.
When did the increase in crime and the moral decay of the country really start? Figures show that sometime in the '60s crime began an upward climb. There was also an increase in divorces, the sexual revolution, less respect for authority, removal of religious heritage from schools. Citizens obtained the right to gun ownership when the Constitution was written more than 200 years ago. So where is the correlation between gun ownership and increased crime? There is none.
Those who say individuals need not be concerned about self-protection, that police will protect them, failed to notice an article in the Feb. 23, 1989 issue of this newspaper. It was entitled ``Public protection not a right, high court says.'' The article said: ``... the Supreme Court concluded the Constitution imposes no duty at all on state and local officials generally to protect private individuals from violence against each other ... Only if a state or local government actually takes an individual into custody - as in prison or jail or mental hospital - does it assume a constitutional duty to protect that person from harm by other private people.''
Women are beaten or killed daily by estranged husbands or lovers after their requests for help go unanswered, because police cannot act until a crime has been committed. Bottom line: Police are obligated to avenge, but not protect you.
So why do politicians continue to make gun control an issue by proposing such things as a five-day waiting period? Because it appeals to the masses who base their decision-making on emotion rather than facts.
We should beware of people who want leadership positions if their decisions are also based on emotion rather than facts. We should beware of those who favor an expansive role for the government, who urge the state to employ its full powers to ameliorate any number of perceived social ills. In contrast, the hallmark of conservative politics has been its affection for a constitutionally limited government that respects the rights of the individual.
\ William H. Mashburn Sr. is a professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Virginia Tech.
by CNB