LETTERS: CITIZENS DESERVE RIGHT OF PROTECTION

To the editor:

I hope everyone read the opposing views of Proposition B on the March 11 Opinion page and noted the stark differences in the two articles. The article by Thomas McClanahan was filled with facts from independent sources, primarily John Lott from the University of Chicago, while the one from Morley Swingle was filled with hysterical personal opinion.

While reading Mr. Swingle's article I could picture Chicken Little running around in circles screaming, "The sky will fall, the sky will fall." Mr. Swingle's position seems to be that he is the grand master of human nature, that we are stupid and reckless and cannot be trusted and that it is his duty to save us from ourselves. He states in the middle of his article that he is opposed to the concealed-carry law because by statute every place in the state was not off limits to concealed carry in the proposal, which makes as much sense as the rest of his arguments.

Mr. Swingle uses statistics very masterfully to distort the truth. When he says violent crime is falling faster in states that prohibit concealed carry, he is telling a half-truth. Let's take Florida as an example. Concealed carry was passed in 1987, 12 years ago. The year before passage of concealed-carry, the Florida murder rate was 32 percent above the national average. The year after, the murder rate was 3 percent below the national average. In order for the Florida violent crime rate to continue to drop at such a rate for 12 years, street thugs would have to be helping little old ladies across the street and giving money to the poor.

Why does Mr. Swingle insist on using data from 12 years after the pivotal point, the point in time similar to where Missouri is now? Could it be that comparing apples to apples does not yield the results he wants? Does anyone remember what happened in Miami after the passage of concealed-carry? The criminals started attacking foreign tourists in rental cars because they were the only people in the city known to be unarmed. Yes, Virginia, criminals do make rational decisions. When the potential cost of their activities go up, they find alternatives.

When the St. Louis South Side rapist was captured, he was living in New Mexico, one of only seven other states that prohibit all concealed-carry by civilians. I wonder. What is the statistical probability of that happening by chance? The recent shooting in Gonzoles, La., which is a concealed-carry state, was perpetrated by a non-permit holder in a church. Like the proposal here, Louisiana forbids permit holders to carry their firearms in a church. Again, what is the statistical probability of the murderer choosing one of the safe areas in the state by chance.

Those who would control our daily lives for our own good, are fond of saying, "If it saves only one life, it will be worth it" as they further limit our freedoms. Well, according to the John Lott study, if all eight states that prohibit all concealed-carry were to pass concealed-carry laws, we could save 1,500 lives annually, not to mention the numerous assaults and rapes prevented.

Overall crime rates aside, when my wife and I are out and about the state for whatever reason, I want to have the ability to protect her from criminal attack.

ROBERT A. CRON

Cape Girardeau