Following last week's outstanding decision by the D.C. Circuit that the Second Amendment is an individual right, comes this excellent column at the Patriot Post.
(Christian) Trejbal (a writer for the Roanoke Times in Virginia) is the Don Quixote de la Roanoke, who jousts with government-database windmills using the Freedom of Information Act lance. In an editorial last Sunday celebrating "Sunshine Week, the annual week in which we reflect on the importance of open government and public records," Trejbal boldly went where no man had before. "To mark the occasion,” he wrote, “I want to take you on an excursion into freedom of information land."
And that he did.
In the interest of public safety, Trejbal and the Roanoke Times would have done a fine public service by launching, say, an Internet database listing paroled violent felons, stalkers and murderers. Instead, however, he went after what he apparently considers an equally dangerous lot.
Trejbal wrote, "A state that puts sex offender data online complete with an interactive map could easily do the same with gun permits, but it does not... There are plenty of reasons to question the wisdom of widespread gun ownership, too."
That’s right. After obtaining a list of all 135,789 Virginians who are permitted to carry a concealed weapon, Trejbal and his employer posted them in a searchable online database.
According to Trejbal, "People might like to know if their neighbors carry. Parents might like to know if a member of the car pool has a pistol in the glove box. Employees might like to know if employers are bringing weapons to the office."
One would hope that someone in the Roanoke Times editorial room would have weighed the risk that stalkers, rapists and murderers might also like to know whether a potential victim had a carry permit. Trejbal unintentionally created a "do not mess with" list of Virginians, but what about all the folks who are not on that list?
The paper’s publisher, Debbie Meade, says that she, Editorial Page Editor Dan Radmacher, and Trejbal discussed the pros and cons before posting the database. "I think Dan would say that we probably underestimated the kind of response that this would prompt," Meade said. "I think we could have asked for a broader and deeper discussion."
The Patriot Post writer doesn't bother going into Trejbal's comparison of sex offenders with gun owners, but focuses on the effect the database would have on criminal activity.
I contacted Trejbal and asked him to outline his views on Second Amendment rights, but received no answer. I suspect he doesn’t know that by conservative estimates, handguns are used more than 1.3 million times each year in self-defense. He must not know that convicted violent felons tell researchers that they choose victims they believe are least able to defend themselves, avoiding those likely to have a gun.
Trejbal may not realize that his chances of becoming a victim are significantly reduced by the fact that violent offenders do not know who is likely to be carrying a weapon—well, before Trejbal identified who, in Virginia, is not permitted to carry a concealed weapon.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the criminal use of firearms declined as the number of states issuing concealed-carry permits increased. Yale researcher John Lott addressed the relationship between gun possession and crime, and summed up his research with the title of his book, More Guns, Less Crime.
Here in Texas, where people are practically issued a gun at birth, gun ownership is not a big deal. Most people I know own them, many owning more than one. The fact is that criminals are less likely to strike at places where they aren't sure whether someone will be armed. There's no reason for them to, because there are plenty of people willing to advertise their lack of protection. All those gun control bumperstickers must be very helpful.
But I'm also quite disturbed that Trejbal really can't see the difference between a database for sexual offenders--people who have already proven they can be a threat to society--and gun owners. While some gun ownership might be illegal--say, a person who suffers mental illness or possesses a machine gun--most gun owners are the sort of law-abiding people you want society to encourage. The comparison is worse than apples to oranges. It's more like apples to hand grenades.
UPDATE: Amanda at Pandagon has to have the dumbest argument posited by a gun control nut for why people would want guns for protection:
Well, the “home protection” argument appeals for classist and racist reasons. Having a handgun in your bedside table is a constant reminder that you’re a big, important white man who needs to be constantly on guard against the undeserving hoardes who would take the things you deserve and they don’t.
So, there you have it. Owning a gun isn't about protecting yourself and your property. It's because you're selfish and don't want to share your stuff.
|