Carl Tyler's Blog

Dear Mr. Tyler:

  I was doing some reaseach online about gun-control legislation here in the States when I came across something that you blogged a while ago. As a gun owner and a member of the NRA, I take offense at your referring to members of the NRA as whackos. The NRA is responsible for training police officers and citizens about how to safely use firearms. Without taking an NRA-designed and-approved course, one may not even apply for a license to carry a firearm. The courses themselves are very thorough and informative, covering everything from proper shooting technique, safe cleaning and storage of a firearm, when drawing and/or firing may not be appropriate, and state and federal firearms laws. The very group that you refer to as a bunch of whackos is responsible for teaching law-enforcement officers to protect us and to uphold the law.

  If an Arab, or anyone who is not American citizen for that matter, were found to be in possession of a firearm, it would be necessary for an officer to arrest that person because it is against the law for someone who is not an American citizen to possess a firearm. Also, your assertion that, if WASP Americans were caught with a bunch of guns in their cars, they would be considered a gun enthusiast, is incorrect. There are limits as to how many firearms and how much ammunition one may carry at any given time, so the enthusiast that one sees on the news are usually in violation of some law. For example, in New York City, if I and two of my friends were passing through the city to go hunting in another state and pulled over for a traffic violation, and the officers found more than five firearms in the car, we would all be arrested and charged with conspiring to sell firearms on the black market.

  I am licensed to carry and own firearms for several reasons. I enjoy the shooting sports and am practicing for formal competition. I believe in self-defense, personal responsibility, and accountability.  

Im licensed to carry and own firearms because I do not, by appealing to the best nature of others, expect to be left in peace by every person whom I meet. Most people are honorable citizens and treat each other humanely, but there are people who are not that way, unfortunately.

  For a woman my size, having a gun can be the deciding factor between my being assaulted and murdered and my surviving an attack and going home in one piece. If I were threatened by a hostile creature, human or not, I would not expect that my opponent would be considerate enough to wait for someone to arrive and assist me. Even if I were attacked and able to ask for help, help may be too long in coming. If a threat were mere inches or feet from me and a police and the police cruiser were to start from miles away, I doubt that the cops would do more than collect evidence, which may or may not include my body. If I were attacked, I would not count on the kindness of others because bystanders often dislike getting involved in confrontations between strangers.

  I trust my fellow citizens, except when they threaten to harm me.  

While I understand others apprehension to CCW (carrying concealed weapon) laws, it is my choice whether or not I own and carry a firearm. However, it is not their choice to determine whether or not I do. Why are people scared that others can legally have firearms? Have law-abiding citizens threatened them? Have they been shot by anyone with a CCW permit? Do they think that criminals obey the 'no firearms' signs at stores and shopping malls or the 'gun free' school-zone regulations? I would wager that they do not. A criminal is someone who is, by the very definition of the word criminal, not going to follow the law. So why is there so much interest in disarming the average, law-abiding citizen?

  Do people think that the police would save them? (It would be incredibly ironic, if someone who does not like firearms were to ask for help from an armed officer.) In court cases across the United States, including in the Supreme Court, it has been found that the police has no duty to protect individuals and that its only purpose is to uphold the law. Unless a crime has been committed, one cannot uphold the law. Otherwise, how would one know which law has been broken? Enter the words police no obligation protect into any internet search engine for more information.  

People seem to enjoy using statistics. Those who wish to limit gun rights frequently quote national statistics. National statistics are just that, national. They are not useful in either affirming or denying the relationship between guns and crimes because gun laws vary from state to state. (Some states allow counties and cities to pass their own ordinances.) Compare the crime rate in states that issue CCW permits on a shall-issue basis against the crime rate in those that dont. ("Shall Issue" means that the local licensing agency will issue the permit, as long as the applicant does not have any criminal record or any other disqualifying factor for obtaining a permit.) States that provide CCW permits on a shall-issue basis have a lower incidence of crime, while states with unconstitutional firearms restrictions closer the top. Some cities, such as Chicago and Washington, D.C. do not allow ordinary citizens to own or possess a gun. In 2003, with the ban having been in effect for more than twenty years, more than five hundred people died as the result of gunshot wounds in Chicago.  

I empathize with concern about crime. However, passing laws that would remove guns from the hands of the law-abiding or making it more difficult to legally obtain or keep them would not solve our problem. The solution to the problem is to convict and severely sentence gun abusers. An effective means of deterring criminals who would use a firearm or other weapon as they attempt to do business is allowing law-abiding citizens to lawfully possess weapons, without making it prohibitively expensive for them to do so. It has been effective in the states that issue concealed-weapons permits on a shall-issue basis to their law abiding citizens. It would not take any courage to accomplish this in Massachusetts.  

One who is licensed by the state of Massachusetts to carry a firearm has no felony conviction (lifetime), has never been convicted of any drug offense, has no mental defect or disability, and has passed a thorough criminal-history background check, which includes fingerprinting. Placing restrictions on people who have so proven themselves would do nothing to deter those who have not.  

Criminals do not obey laws. They applaud gun-control laws because they decrease the likelihood of a potential victim being able to defend herself/himself. Such laws mark law-abiding citizens as easy targets, by announcing to would-be criminals that they would be met with less or no real resistance.

I think that its high time that our men and women on beacon and Capitol Hills propose, support, and enact legislation that would target the criminal element and not restrict the lawful right to self-defense.

"Quemadmoeum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca