Guilfordian
page 6
S Editorials
Forum: Two Views on Handgun Control
By John Cox
Statistics show that the use of
handguns in violent crimes in this
country is outrageously exten
sive. The most direct way to fight
such violent crime is to ban
handguns—is that not logical
enough?
Handguns are not a problem
per se; crime is. And crime is not
an ill so much as an evil. Hence
let us hold no delusions that
handguns control is some sort of
panacea for the national
malaise; fewer guns will not help
people "interface" or
"self-actualize" (whatever that
is). I am for handgun control
because I think it might be
effective in curbing the violence
that is rampant in this country.
Oponents of this new Prohibi
tion raise two arguments against
it. They "often" say that it is
unconstitutional and also that it is
bound to be unsuccessful even if
instituted. As for
constitutionality anyone who can
read can see that the Founding
Fathers were trying to ensure the
people's right to a militia in the
2nd Amendment, not their right
to play Clint Eastwood.
In 1982 the town of Morton
Grove, Illinois passed an or
dinance prohibiting the sale and
possession of handguns. Two
federal courts have already
upheld the law as constitutional.
Judge William Bauer of the US
Court of Appeals has written,
"According to its plain meaning,
it seems clear that the right to
bear arms is inextricably con
nected to the preservation of a
militia."
Even if handgun controls were
to be enacted, however, would
they work? Critics point out that
the citizenry in places where such
legislation has been effective is in
general more deferential to
authority than are we
Americans. It's the culture, they
say, not the laws, that keeps low
the number of handgun crimes;
and besides, since we cannot win
our national battles against drug
smugglers and illegal aliens, how
can we possibley root out an in
stitution as omnipresent and
quintessentially American as the
Six-Shooter?
Those are indeed good points.
The simple if hard to swallow
answer is that we must begin
somewhere. The frontier men
tality of the 1800's—essential then
and important in many respects
today—will not by itself pull us
through the next century. Certain
changes in our mentality must
take place.
Short of an absolute ban on
handguns, there exist other
measures which should be
applauded and further studied.
Increased waiting periods for
buying guns and more detailed
background checks on the buyers
can help reduce the number of
guns bought in anger by ruffians.
Florida and Michigan have
started a mandatory sentencing
policy of more years in the clink
for people who use guns in the
commission of a felony.
Some law enforcement officers
suggest more stringent
March 15, 1985
regulation of concealed weapons.
Some propose the prohibition of
"dangerous and useless" guns
such as the Saturday Night
Special, the hoodlum's dream
tool which is of no value to law
abiding citizens.
It might well be that the
promulgation of sticter laws
controlling who gets what type of
gun and how they use it will be
effective in slowing the torrent of
violent crime in the US. That
would be wonderful; we could
then leave sportsmen, collectors,
and Mr. Joe Average Citizen
alone, as ideally we should. I
carry no torch against hunters
and historians.
I also have some general pro
blems with federal
"prohibitions," You see, I
distrust big government. So did
the Founding Fathers, and with
good reason, I too resent
government interference in my
private life. If the Feds ever
require me to wear a seatbelt, for
example, I'll balk heartily. But,
as the saying goes, my right to
swing my fist ends, where thy
nose begins. When we're dealing
with the integration of schools,
the protection of the consumer
from fraud and poison, and the
prevention of free shooting
anarchy in the streets, the
Federal government has a
greater range of action. To a
certain extent the national good
preempts individual rights; such
as is the price we all have to pay
for leading social lives. Thus, any
legislation that lashes at a
virulent problem and is well
within accepted standards or
correct American jurispurdence
should be welcomed.
I do not like the idea of buying
solutions to problems at a gun
shop. I want something better.
And I hear of few thieves nailed
by indignant gun-toting
houseowners, but I hear of plenty
of spouses blown away
accidentally and children slain
by curiosity. Although handguns
might make people feel more
secure, I am not convinced that
they actually make anyone safer.
On the contrary they add a higher
level or risk and explosiveness to
an already frustrated and self
indulgent society.
Ty'SaCf"
or
FANCY
-.-ZallL:
By Charlie Neill
Recent events in the United
States have once again helped to
ignite the well-intentioned but
misguided faction in our society
that foresees a reduction of
domestic violence through
legislation designed to eliminate
the private possession on
handguns.
The necessary brevity of an ar
ticle of this type permits only a
brief reference to several key
points that, though infinitely
arguable, are simply going to be
stated as provable and positive
fact: The Constitution of the
United States guarantees the
right of American citizens to
possess handguns (Keep, not
Bear, is the key word), the
Supreme Court has upheld the ex
istence of this right, and every
citizen has both the legal and
moral right to defend his or her
life from violent attack with
equivalent deadly force.
Now that these points have
been stated, it seems quite ap
propriate to examine some of the
more prominent myths that the
antihandgun establishment
presents as "evidence" that sup
ports the necessity of a ban on
handguns.
The belief that handguns have
no sporting value and are
intended primarily for use
against humans is basically true.
Although there are many
handguns designed solely for
hunting and/or target shooting,
none can equal the performance
of a rifle or shotgun. Instead,
handguns are primarily designed
to protect the life and property of
their owner from a violent
criminal attack. The fact that
they are often used in criminal
activities doesn't change their
intended purpose any more than
a homicide by a drunk driver
alters the intended purpose of his
automobile. The problem of
criminal handgun usage lies not
with the inanimate weapon, but
the operator's behavior. Those
who accept this argument but
stress the need for handgun
control due to the uncontrollable
human element participate in the
repressive and dangerous
practice of "a priori judgement,"
the root cause of such atrocities
as racial prejudice.
A definite concern that has
become twisted into an argument
against handgun ownership is the
hazard that a handgun presents
in a home environment. There is
no doubt that handguns are
dangerous instruments. So are
automobiles, kitchen knives,
medicines, electricity, Drano,
and Scotch whiskey. Owning and
using any of these products in a
safe manner requires
responsibility and a thorough
knowledge of the products and
their hazards. This is especially
true with a handgun. Many
individuals, like myself, were
thoroughly instructed in the
proficient and safe methods of
handling firearms prior to
puberty, but many other gun
owners are untrained,
inexperienced, and irresponsible.
These people are the ones that
have the vast majority of
accidents, and the weapon is
rarely to blame.
On the other side of the coin,
the possibility of an encounter
with an armed victim is a huge
deterrence to criminals.
Massad Ayoob, the noted New
Hampshire police sergeant and
criminologist, conducted a 1983
survey of 3,500 New York state
inmates who were incarcerated
for burglaries and violent crimes.
Eighty-eight percent of them
stated that their number one fear
when contemplating a crime was
the possibility of encountering an
armed victim or homeowner.
Their reasons were simple: a
homeowner has a brief period to
prepare for an encounter, he is in
timately familiar with the en
vironment, and in all probability
is so frightened that he will begin
shooting without giving the in
truder a chance to surrender. The
absence of this threat would un
doubtedly result in a sharp in
crease in these types of crimes.
Washington, D.C. is a fine exam
ple.
In 1977, the District of Colum
bia enacted legislation that vir
tually outlawed the private
possession of handguns within its
boundaries. Since the enactment
of this legislation, D.C.'s
homicide rate has increased 30%
and its armed robbery rate has
increased 62%. Their Assistant
Chief of Police recently admitted
that "I personally don't think gun
control laws work." This
legislation has only effectively
reduced the number of handguns
in the possession of homeowners
and other law-abiding citizens,
while criminals are having a
"field day."
Let me state here that I am not
advocating the use of violence or
vigilante techniques to curb
domestic crime. There are vast
ly superior methods of crime con
trol that should be employed if at
all posssible. However, any
dried-out junkie or criminal that
would crash through one's win
dow at 2:00 a.m. is usually no in
the mood for negotiaton. In a
situation such as this, a Colt .45
automatic pistol crammed full of
fat, nasty hollowpoints is
guaranteed to procure his im
mediate and undivided attention -
one way or the other. You don't
have to take my word for it. Ask
him, he'll tell you.
In conclusion, I would like to
say that I am aware of the at
titude of many individuals who
would submit passively to
violence without responding in a
violent manner. Although I per
sonally could never do this, I cer-
(ImilfflrMan
Editors-in-Chie! Tracey Clark, Don Kaplan
Assit. Editor-in-Chief Moira Taylor
Features Editor Julie Yindra
Editorials Editor John Cox
Sports Editor Doug Drotman
Art Editor Jessica Liebow
Layout Editor Jennifer LaFleur
Business Director • Pete Spaulding
Advertising Manager Clay Tyson
Stall Holly Hobbs, Charles
Kline, Dave Owens, Doc Roberts,
Iris Velvin, Martha Clark, Kenneth
Goldwasser, Debbie Fry, Hans Kipfelfresser,
Megan Trend, Tom Hisser,stephen Spaulding, Lois Haas, Kerry
Carol Nieukirk, McKay. Ken Tagious, and
Guest Columnist: Jeaneane Williams and Charlie Neill
The Guilfordian reserves the right to edit all articles, letter
and artwork for taste, veracity, and length. The deadline for
copy is 12:00 p.m. on Saturday preceding the Wednesday of
publication. Material may be left on the office door upstairs
Founders, or mailed to Box 17717. The opinions expressed by the
staff are their own and not necessarily those of the paper or of
Guilford College.
tainly respect their right to live
(or die) in any manner that their
conscience dictates. I only re
quest the same consideration in
return. However, there are
others out there who will admit
that gun control probably would
not work, but are in favor of it
anyway. These individuals need
to sit down and take a long, hard
look at themselves. This is the at
titude that frightens me the most.
Stow It
By Tracey Clark
Rumour has it that Guilford
may consider selling the Photon.
Personally, I feel such a move
would be unwise. A great many
students have enriched their
Guilford College educations by
participating in projects under
taken on the Photon, and on trips
where students have interacted
and learned much from each
other in the unique Photon en
vironment.
Prospective students would
have to find a boat that was ac
cessible to them sometime during
their stay at Guilford and an
appealing feature. Appealing
features have to please a College
which prides itself on its ability to
put its signature on each
student's education.
If the issue is financial I might
be more inclined to be sym
pathetic; that is, if there were
some weird financial reason the
College couldn't keep the boat I
would accept its sale. If it's a
case of losing money, however,
I'm afraid the ideals I'm forming
while in College in inexorably tell
me that the benefits to students
(and in the long run to the College
and its ideals) have to offset any $
losses from the Photon's
operation.
Do students feel the need for a
'Save the Photon' campaign as a
continuation of my very ar
bitrary hypothesis?