By Steve Chapman
Thursday, July 11, 2013
The headline on last Sunday's Chicago Tribune was stark
and arresting: "A thousand shootings." That's what Chicago
experienced in the first six months of 2013. It works out to more than five a
day.
So what crime issue got Gov. Pat Quinn worked up last
week? The danger posed by Illinoisans holding state permits to carry concealed
firearms. "My foremost duty as governor is to keep the people of Illinois
safe," he said in issuing an amendatory veto of a bill to legalize
concealed-carry in the last state without it.
His changes included a ban on carrying guns in
establishments that serve alcohol and limiting each carrier to one gun with a
magazine holding a maximum of 10 rounds. But in the end they didn't matter,
because the General Assembly overrode his veto. The new law sets up a system
obliging the state to issue licenses to registered gun owners who pass a
background check, undergo 16 hours of safety training and pay a fee.
Quinn responded: "Following a weekend of horrific
violence in Chicago in which at least 70 people were shot and 12 killed, this
was the wrong move for public safety in Illinois." But of those 70
shootings -- or the 1,000-plus shootings that preceded them this year -- it's
safe to wager that few if any involved legal weapons used by individuals
legally entitled to own them.
It's exceptionally rare for a previously law-abiding
person to take a legally purchased firearm, load it, walk out the door and
shoot someone. But that's the specter that dominates the mind of Quinn when the
subject of concealed-carry comes up. It also preoccupies Chicago Mayor Rahm
Emanuel.
The problem of gun violence in the city, though, is a
problem of violence committed by criminals and juveniles who are not allowed to
own guns, much less carry them in public. To worry about legal permit holders
in that context is like fretting that you may have left a faucet running as you
try to escape a flood.
The discussion arises because of a federal appeals court
decision last year striking down Illinois' ban on concealed-carry. Noting that
the Supreme Court says the Second Amendment guarantees the right to have guns
in the home for protection, it concluded there is no logic in denying
individuals that means of self-defense in public spaces.
"A right to bear arms," wrote Judge Richard
Posner, "thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the
home." The court gave the state six months to create a permit system.
Chicago Democrats act as though this is either a) a
surefire formula for more bloodshed or b) a reckless leap into the unknown.
It's neither. In recent years, we have accumulated a wealth of evidence about
what happens when a state establishes a "shall-issue" system under
which qualified citizens may pack pistols.
Since Florida blazed the trail in 1987, state after state
has followed. During that period, the national homicide rate has fallen by more
than 40 percent. Florida's dropped even faster. Back then, its murder rate was
far higher than Illinois'. By 2011, it was lower.
It would be too much to assume that the spread of
concealed-carry accounts for the improvement. Lots of factors have produced the
national reduction in violent crime. But it hasn't gotten in the way.
Opponents, however, never tire of insisting that letting
individuals tote firearms will unleash mass carnage. The Washington-based Violence
Policy Center makes much of the fact that since 2007, by its count, 516 people
have been killed by permit holders.
But a quarter of those were suicides, which are not a
danger to public safety. Though the figure sounds high, it's less than 90 a year
-- in a country with more than 50,000 homicides and suicides annually.
The number of licensees who make lethal misuse of their
guns, likewise, is a microscopic percentage of the estimated 6 million people
who are authorized to carry. The overwhelming majority behave in a responsible,
lawful way. The people behind the epidemic of violent crime in Chicago, by
contrast, don't bother with permits and wouldn't qualify for them.
For this group, the new law is irrelevant. Politicians
who use the ongoing slaughter as a reason to oppose it only confirm that when
it comes to government's most important function, they haven't got a clue.
No comments:
Post a Comment