7-30-12: A "Good and Substantial Reason" to Carry a Gun

I would like to thank you for your coverage of the recent series of court rulings on the "Right to Carry" in Maryland. I would like to tell you that I began listening to WYPR in the WJHU era when I returned to the area in '91 after serving in the military. I tend to be a right leaning centrist and prefer listening to public radio because of my desire to hear view points with which I may disagree delivered in a civilized manner. Thank you for preserving civility.

If I may comment about the story I feel compelled to point out a glaring misstatement regarding the second amendment of the Constitution. The Constitution goes not "grant" any of the rights listed in that Bill of Rights. The Rights that are described in the constitution pre-exist as basic human rights that are merely enumerated by that document. The central component of Judge Legg's decision is that we posses a fundamental right of self defense and that self defense must occur wherever a person happens to be at that time. The right to self defense is not limited to our home. I also felt that your story was slightly biased against the revision of the Maryland laws and only presented the negative aspects of firearms possession in self-defense without describing the overwhelming number of defensive firearms uses where the weapon was not fired or when only the assailants were injured or killed. Nor did you mention that the evidence overwhelming describes permit holders as among the most law abiding of all Americans in terms of firearm use. I believe that Dr. Lott cites a tiny fraction of one percent as actually committing a violent crime with a firearm. Unfortunately there never seems to be a middle ground presented in the media.

I am, obviously, pro-gun, I am also pro-community, and pro-family (in any form that may be), and I agree that there must be some limitation on the ability for any individual to be permitted to carry a firearm for self-defense. I advocate training, as long as it is a commercially available training course that is accessible to all. I agree that we must ensure that a firearm is secured from being misused by a curious child or available to a person that is prohibited from ownership.

It is my opinion that placing additional barriers to my keeping and bearing a firearm for all legal purposes misses the primary issues at play in the horrible events that have unfolded in the previous few years. First is the poor condition of the behavioral health system in this country. The inefficient access to care and the technical and social failures in communicating when individuals are at risk of committing a violent act. The second, and possibly the most significant is the loss of civility. Essential respect for one another. Rather than follow with a rant about television and celebrity and other social ills, I will rely on objectivity and comapssion.

Rather than cite study after study and point out the flaws in all of them I agree that the research has shown that there is no real evidence to support either side of the argument. The Supreme Court has also ruled, time and time again, that the state has no responsibility to protect the security of an individual. Often quoted are two tired cliches, when seconds count the police are only minutes away, and my own favorite is "I carry a weapon because a policeman wont fit in my holster." I don't believe that a civilian with a weapon would have prevented the loss of all innocent life in Colorado, but it is difficult to argue that the damage could have been dramatically reduced had someone had the training and tools to intervene.

With respect and thanks for your service to my community,

Joseph Lynch, RN