Legalizing concealed weapons could help prevent violence
Friday, May 7, 1999 | byDAVID M. GOLDEN
The recent tragedy in Littleton, Colo., has many unexpected twists, including the opportunity for the United States to learn from the Israelis how they stop evil like this.
While moderate gun control may prevent an average child from bringing a firearm to school in response to fear, no amount of gun control can stop the truly evil. The two killers in Littleton planned the attack for at least one year.
A five-day waiting period to acquire a firearm would not have altered their plan. They had the tools and time to modify the shotguns into a more lethal form. A trigger lock would be irrelevant. Raising the age to 21 for all gun purchases might have slowed them down, but as shown by the rash of copy-cat pipe bombings we now see, must we also license the sale of pipe, nail and matches?
It's hard to believe that a pair as bright, motivated and organized as Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris would be stopped by such restrictions.
The Littleton coverage brought back frightful memories of the PLO attacks in Israel. Schools make very attractive targets for deranged domestic gunmen as well as foreign terrorists. They are "soft" targets that garner media attention.
Just last week, an NBC spokeswoman distributed press releases showing how this massacre pushed up their ratings—a macabre dance on the graves of the victims. Experts in terrorism have argued for decades that media coverage spurs yet more terrorist incidents, but there is a buck to be made.
The worst of a series of PLO attacks in 1974 took place in Ma'alot, Israel. Nearly 100 kids and their teachers were taken hostage. During the rescue attempt, the gunmen sprayed machine-gun fire and detonated explosives, resulting in 25 dead and 66 wounded.
After this, a debate broke out in Israel regarding guns and self-defense. Ultimately teachers, parents and army reservists with a clean criminal record were issued concealed-weapon permits.
By 1984 the situation had changed dramatically, as told by Israeli criminologist Abraham Tennenbaum when commenting upon the July 1984 massacre at McDonald's in San Ysidro, Calif. He described an incident in Israel, some weeks before the San Ysidro massacre:
"Three terrorists who attempted to machine-gun the throng managed to kill only one victim before being shot down by handgun-carrying Israelis. Presented to the press the next day, the surviving terrorists complained that his group had not realized that Israeli civilians were armed. The terrorists had planned to machine-gun a succession of crowd spots, thinking that they would be able to escape before the police or army could arrive to deal with them."
Similarly, a 1997 school shooting spree in Pearl, Miss., was stopped by an assistant principal, who retrieved a handgun from his car. Still, anecdotal evidence cannot resolve the question of whether allowing law-abiding and trained citizens to carry concealed handguns will save or cost lives.
Recent national polls have provided the shocking realization that armed citizens do deter violent crimes upon themselves and their family members, with guns used defensively—although rarely even fired—somewhere between 760,000 and 3.5 million times per year, far more than criminal use of firearms.
Thirty-one states—excluding California—now have right-to-carry laws, although only a tiny fraction of the population exercises this right and consequent responsibility.
In such states, criminals grow afraid to confront citizens and tend toward less dangerous property crimes. Andcontrary to popular misconceptions, holders of concealed handguns are virtually never involved in the commission of a crime, let alone murder.
Two University of Chicago professors took this research further, using data from throughout the United States for a 19-year period. They found that right-to-carry laws also deter multiple-victim shootings. Multiple-victim murders fell by 89 percent in the 14 states that adopted the most liberal right-to-carry laws between 1977 and 1995.
As can be seen by both the 101 California Street and the Littleton massacres, police SWAT teams rush quickly to the scene but are unable to intervene in time. In both massacres many victims bled to death during the hours that the SWAT team took to slowly clear the building, fearful of setting off bombs in the case in Littleton or fearful of the gunman himself in the 101 California incident.
SWAT teams cannot be blamed for this; for police officers are under no legal compulsion to prevent death or destruction, nor according to Jewish law, is there a religious mandate to sacrifice oneself.
In recent years the Jewish community of the Bay Area has moved to the forefront of the gun prohibition movement. This projects weakness, and combined with well-intentioned but counter-productive gun laws like the 1000-foot gun-free zone around all schools. Such laws make students easier prey for criminals.
The Jewish community should support the right-to-carry for law-abiding, responsible adults. As victims of violence throughout history, the Jewish people are keenly aware of the omnipresence of violence.
However, what Jewish ethics fear most is the potential moral price attendant upon responding to violence with violence, as reflected in the story of Jacob's fear of meeting his brother Esau after Jacob betrayed him, a fear for both lives.
Violence is repulsive and at best is a necessary evil. However, Jewish law requires that one commit violence in the defense of one's own life or in the defense of an imperiled party. The Talmud states, "The Torah has decreed: If a person comes to kill you, arise and kill him first" [Exodus 22:10]. And according to Maimonides "It is a commandment: Do not take pity on the life of the pursuer."
In other words, killing a potential murderer is necessary to protect the sanctity of the life of the potential victim.