RIGHT OF CENTER: SEEKING A SAVIOR IN WASHINGTON

If only President Clinton would have implemented his vaunted crime bill sooner, Bud Brown of Jackson would still be alive. Mr. Brown, a model citizen and family man who was a quiet servant of his community and church, was slain last week, apparently for the money his used pickup could bring at a used-car lot.

Come on, Eastlick, you say, you can't expect the federal crime bill to prevent a senseless murder in Jackson, Mo. Of course I can't. But if the "smartest, toughest federal crime legislation ever" (Clinton's words) doesn't deter crimes at the local level, what good is it? Why pass legislation that costs $30 billion of taxpayers' money without it benefiting the communities in which those taxpayers live?

The killing of Brown is a tragic incident. But it serves to illustrate the absurdity of federal solutions to local problems. Whether local crime-control efforts could have prevented the crime is another question. But doesn't it stand to reason that folks who rely on the government to solve all their problems are less likely to take measures on their own to prevent crime, particularly when the same federal government restricts their ability to do so?

Consider Los Angeles in the wake of the first Rodney King beating trial. When hoodlums went on a spree of looting and destruction, shopowners who didn't already have weapons faced a waiting period to purchase arms to protect their property. Law-abiding merchants were left with a dilemma: Either take their chances that the punks would pass over their businesses or break the law to get the weapons necessary to protect themselves.

The most effective deterrent to crimes against persons and property is an armed citizenry ready to defend itself. If the federal government wants to do something about rampant crime, why doesn't it do something to make it easier for citizens to protect themselves? How about tax breaks for heads of households who can show they are well-armed and able to use their weapons. After all, criminality affects us all. Property crimes drive up insurance costs, and victims of violent crimes drive up health-care costs. And when the bad guys are caught, taxpayers foot the bill for our ponderous and unproductive criminal justice system.

Why not reward those who send a succinct message to criminals: You mess with my family or my property and you will suffer the consequences. No judge, no jury, just you -- a nameless, faceless intruder -- me, and a 12-gauge scatter gun.

Mr. Brown, a devout man who put his trust in God, might not have been the type of person who would have thought someone taking his for-sale truck on a test drive was threatening. Mr. Brown might not have even owned a gun. But if enough of his neighbors and fellow Jackson residents did, it would be difficult for a criminal to discern who was and wasn't a defenseless, easy target.

Oh but that sounds like the ranting of some NRA nut, you might say. I know plenty of gunowners who are members of the National Rifle Association. But they aren't kooks. They simply enjoy hunting and shooting and collecting guns. They also revere the Second Amendment to our Constitution. Although I have never owned a gun, nor do I hunt or shoot, I share their sentiments about the Second Amendment.

One reason I choose to live in Jackson is that it is a small, usually safe, community. The more unsafe it becomes, however, the greater the likelihood I will take the protection of my property and family into my own hands and purchase a gun or guns. I certainly don't expect the smartest, toughest crime bill in history to dispose of the threat.

Jay Eastlick is news editor at the Southeast Missourian.