MISSOURI WATCH: RIGHT TO CARRY: THE JOHN WAYNE TEST

By now Missourians have heard the pros and cons of Proposition B, the referendum to allow citizens the right to carry concealed weapons upon completing several hours of training and instruction in the use of firearms. Except for the usual number of distortions from both sides, the facts of the issue are fairly reliable:

-- Permitting the carrying of concealed weapons does not constitute a major threat to the general safety of the public.

-- Crime has decreased in virtually all states where concealed weapons are allowed, although crime has also decreased in states where concealed carry is prohibited.

-- Most law enforcement officers appear to oppose concealed carry even for qualified fun owners, although some police are supporting the issue.

-- Having the right to carry concealed weapons has received the most support from some citizens whose occupations place them at greater hazard than the rest of the public.

-- Proposition B supporters say that concealed weapons will deter criminals from armed attacks on innocent citizens, although this presupposes that intoxicated or drug-induced criminals will use common logic or personal discretion in planning their attacks or anticipating armed civilians.

-- The principal force behind concealed carry is the National Rifle Association, generally recognized as a trade organization composed of gun manufacturers and supported by gun retailers, hunters and citizens opposed tow hat they view as repressive governmental rules. The NRA has every right as a legitimate business group to promote its commercials interests, while basing much of this validity on the Second Amendment, written at a time the founding fathers feared that the colonies, soon to become states, would be no match for King George's colonial troops and thus made provisions for a civilian militia.

-- The most flagrant example of dollars-before-integrity has been a statement released by Anheuser-Busch of St. Louis, which endorsed concealed carry with the words "We have a practical business issue at stake." Fearing a boycott by Prop B proponents, the company explained that it has been tarred with a reputation of favoring gun control. It was undoubtedly this same boycott fear that prompted beer barons to oppose lowering the state's blood alcohol limit for motorists to .08 percent. Let nothing interfere with A-B's "practical business issue," even deaths of citizens at the hands of their beverages.

-- According to statistics compiled by the Missouri Department of Mental Health, the state has 34,685 persons in alcohol and drug treatment programs, with conservative estimates that Missouri has at least 225,000 persons who are not receiving help for their addictions. Presumably all of the 34,687 men, women and teenage children enrolled in state alcoholism and drug treatment programs would be denied the right to receive a concealed weapon authorization -- if information is always available and if no clerical errors are made. But what about the 225,000 addicts who have not acted to cure their addiction and are still operating cars and still packing heat? Who denies members of this group who have no paper trail and whose addiction is unknown to approval sources? There is no provision in the proposition to deny privileges on a hunch of the issuing authority, which means that the 14.7 percent of the age 18-25 population that has been classified as regular drug abusers will be unhindered in any quest for a concealed weapon approval.

-- Sponsors of Proposition B have properly included requirements for the completion of a training course before right-to-purchase is granted, although one can worry whether beginning gun users will have become proficient enough to preclude injury to innocent bystanders or themselves. High school students who receive many more hours of driver training education still make up the most lethal driving group on today's highways. Many of the motorists who regularly ignore speed limits, even at points of congestion, and who run red lights at traffic signals have received prior instruction that such behavior can endanger the lives of others, as well as their own. Training is only a part of being a safe driver -- or a safe weapon carrier.

-- The most troubling aspect of Proposition B is that no control over the user's physical or mental state is possible. An intoxicated or drugged weapon carrier, while perfectly rational under normal circumstances, becomes a different person as a result of substance abuse, one often devoid of rational thought or responsible behavior in trying circumstances. Motorists who use their automobiles as a weapon to punish real or imagined infractions of other drivers may not hesitate to reach for a weapon to vent their anger.

-- No on really believes Proposition B will return our state to the wild and woolly days of Jesse James, who probably would never have bothered with any kind of permit to carry out his war against the state's banks. And no one believes that career criminals will follow the procedures outlined in Proposition B and thus risk police attention. Much of the crime now being committed in Missouri is carried out by drug traffickers and abusers and those desperate individuals who have a long criminal past -- individuals whose behavior is the proper domain of dedicated police and trained therapists.

Missourians have long placed their safety in the hands of trained law enforcement officials and dedicated professionals. Proposition B would create another group, unseen and minimally trained, whose presence may place innocent citizens in extreme danger. This is hardly the logical path to greater public security. When those tough cowboys in Wild West movies were ordered to give up their six-shooters before entering the bar, didn't everyone feel better about John Wayne's safety?

~Jack Stapleton of Kennett is the editor of Missouri News & Editorial Service.