I am writing in response to the editorial on June 5 regarding concealed-carry reform in Ohio. The basic premise of this article, apparently, is that Ohio citizens are somehow less intelligent or less able to handle firearms than residents of 44 of the 50 states in the Union — as Ohio is only one of six states that does not allow concealed carry of firearms.
The paragraph regarding the requirements for a permit implies that the application requirement is simple; in fact, the Ohio bill is much more strict than existing laws in surrounding states like Indiana, where you might be a resident for only hours and no training is required before acquiring a concealed carry permit. I am failing to envision the "nightmare situations" that might follow the passage of this bill; few Ohioans, percentage-wise, will bother to apply for a concealed-carry permit, and the ones who do will have to qualify with a 12-hour firearms safety and training course. The passage of a law that allows concealed carry permits to be issued is hardly going to force every Ohioan to purchase a pistol and strap it on the next day. However, it would allow interested Ohioans to protect themselves and others.
The next paragraph (about bloody shootouts involving "panicked, inexperienced shooters") is simply hype. As I mentioned above, 44 of the 50 states allow concealed carry already; how many times have you heard about OK Corral-style shootouts in the news? The shootouts that do happen do not involve law-abiding citizens, but rather criminals breaking laws. Criminal acts are stopped each day by citizens in other states using a concealed weapon, without gunfights in the streets.
Finally, the "sleeper terrorist" statements; does anyone honestly think that terrorists bother to apply for licenses to make their actions legal? Oh wait, now I remember — terrorism isn't legal! Why, then, would a terrorist care about breaking one more law, when homicide is grounds for capital punishment? Using terrorists as an example here is just an attempt to scare people, and is in my opinion irresponsible journalism.
This bill is not about creating a "wild west" atmosphere; this bill is about allowing Ohio citizens to protect themselves and the people around them. The only arguments I have seen to the contrary have been based on feelings and not facts; the facts have shown for years that states that allow concealed carry have had decreased violent crime. Claiming that, in 44 out of 50 states, the decrease in crime has been caused by "dozens of factors that [contribute] to the behavior of a state's criminals" is akin to saying "drinking and driving isn't really dangerous, as there are dozens of causes that contribute to car wrecks." I think the most important fact, however, is that concealed carry has not increased the amount of violent crime — which means that it is not hurting the general public. If it doesn't hurt the general public, why shouldn't it be legal?
— Joshua Blanton,
jblanton@cs.ohiou.edu
17 Archives
