GUEST COLUMN: The ethics of self-defense
I feel compelled to write and try to correct some of the false statements that have been made in this paper and others in regards to concealed carry weapons (CCW) in Utah. I will be up front with everyone. I am in favor of sensible gun control. What does sensible mean to me? Those persons who disqualify themselves through commission of crime cannot possess (shoot, hold, touch, buy, carry, conceal) firearms or ammunition. If they do they should be punished very severely. Those who haven’t disqualified themselves can enjoy the before mentioned activities if they desire. Even if you completely disagree with my views on gun control the following information will still be useful in understanding the arguments for and against civilian gun ownership.
Much has been said and written about the possibility that concealed firearms laws helped in the Trolley Square shooting. I don’t think CCW permits helped end that shooting any quicker. Those who believe otherwise need to understand this one fact. A police officer was in possession of the concealed weapon and as a result would have been above the laws regular citizens are required to follow. He likely would have had his firearm regardless of whether or not normal citizens are allowed to carry.
On the other side of the issue many say that only police should be allowed to carry concealed weapons because they have a lot more training than regular civilians. I recently read in The Statesman that all police officers receive 14 weeks of training with firearms and one year in the police academy. I investigated this claim on Utah’s POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training) Web site. To become a certified law enforcement officer in this state requires three months of training. That sums up to a grand total of 12 weeks not counting days off. During that time police officers need to be trained on law, investigation, patrol, driving, restraint, and of course firearms (three types). I don’t know exactly how much time is spent on firearm training but it isn’t even near 14 weeks.
If anyone doubts that our police are better trained than civilians you may rest at ease. The Brady Center actually invested money to find out whether or not CCW permit holders receive as much training as police officers. Well, in case you missed it, they don’t – and for that matter don’t need to. A CCW permit is designed to give individuals the ability to defend themselves and those in their immediate surroundings. As a result, situations requiring civilian use of a firearm are a lot less complex than those a police officer may face. A civilian is only authorized to brandish or employ their weapons when they feel they are in imminent and immediate danger (not while in the commission of a crime). Police officers on the other hand are required to deal with situations immensely more complex such as traffic stops, drug busts, domestic disputes et cetera. A police officer responds in a coordinated effort while the CCW permit holder is merely trying to survive long enough for the police to arrive. That is why police require more training.
The statistics war has also been reintroduced as a result of the recent tragedy. The Brady Center’s statistics proving that CCW permits cause increases in violent crime has found its way into the newspapers again. I would believe these figures but the NRA constantly quotes statistics proving how CCW permits decrease violent crime. If I was trying to be taken seriously I wouldn’t use either of these sources in any attempt to prove anything about guns. That would be like asking tobacco companies whether or not they add addictive substances to their cigarettes. The answer is just going to be too biased to take seriously. Don’t get data from people who have too much at stake with the answer.
Another argument against firearms is that normally responsible persons when angry or under the influence of alcohol can escalate a situation with a firearm. This is an accurate statement. Anyone who uses a firearm under the influence of anger, alcohol, illegal drugs or even prescription drugs is putting everyone at risk. In a civilized society this behavior cannot and should not be tolerated. That means these “responsible people” whether they are police, military or regular civilians should be punished for engaging in irresponsible behavior. People make mistakes but that fact is not grounds for depriving everyone of the use of firearms, not even the police officers who are also known to consume alcohol and get angry.
The Trolley Square shooting has also brought up the issue of weapons bans. Before writing and publicly declaring one’s feeling on the matter it is necessary to understand the weapons you want banned. One recent editorial in The Statesman called the weapon used in this shooting a “rapid fire shot gun” and an “assault weapon.” The weapon in question was a pump action. That means the weapon ejects and loads new shells manually. While this is still a lethal weapon, it does not fall into the realm of “rapid fire” nor “assault weapon.” It would be better described as a hunting weapon.
Currently there is proposed legislation in the house for the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban. A careful reading of this would reveal this shotgun is not on the banned list. Also, anyone who champions this bill needs to address the legitimate uses of these weapons. They are useful for hunting, self-defense, target and competition shooting. To formulate a legitimate argument against these weapons one needs to have a basic understanding for what they are being used for. It is not sufficient to say they have no use.
The purpose of the Second Amendment was not designed to facilitate criminals in murdering unsuspecting civilians. From my research the Second Amendment was designed to give “the people” the responsibility and ability to protect themselves, their communities and their nation. As a nation we have drifted from this responsibility. We now consider ourselves just to leave those duties solely in the hands of paid professionals. I can think of few things more unethical than sending a police officer to face possible death when we ourselves are unwilling to take the same risk and face the same danger.
Brigadier General John McAuly Palmer explained why this attitude is so dangerous in a republic. “Standing armies threaten government by the people, not because they consciously seek to pervert liberty, but because they relieve the people themselves of the duty of self-defense. A people accustomed to let a special class defend them must sooner or later become unfit for liberty.”
It is imperative that we reexamine our own attitudes. A government by the people will not work if enough citizens constantly avoid the responsibilities of citizenship. Just because a responsibility is easier to contract out (such as gun ownership) does not mean we should.
Dan Call is a member of the armed forces and a student at USU. Comments can be sent to dancall@cc.usu.edu.