Grim's Hall

Guns & Free Men:

The Washington Post today prints this letter explaining why no one stopped a man from being beaten to death in Maryland. The short answer is this:

But I also understand the reluctance of unarmed bystanders to confront a large man in a homicidal rage. This is called "disparity of force," and it provides legal justification for the use of deadly weapons in self-defense.

Unfortunately, because of Maryland's strict gun control laws, no bystander was likely to be armed.

Police officers cannot be present at all violent crimes, but victims, by definition, always are. Without weapons, the weak will always be at the mercy of the strong.

Maryland's gun control laws--I've had occasion to look into them lately--are far more stringent than the norm for the United States. There is no "shall issue" permit for carrying a firearm, but rather permits are issued only if the state police agree with your reasons for going armed (apparently, "because people are getting beaten to death" isn't a good enough reason). Even if permits are issued, the fees are shockingly high--some seventy dollars even to consider the permit, which is good then only for two years, and must be renewed at fifty dollars a year thenceforth. In Georgia, the fee is three dollars a year, just to cover the administrative costs of the background check. Further, the permit is "shall issue," which means that the state is obligated to give you the permit unless they can prove you are disqualified under the law. They can't turn it down just because they want to.

But Georgia is a backwards Southern state, right? Well--it's a Southern state, but it looks to be ahead of the trend. All but 18 states now offer "shall issue" permits, with crime rates dropping in all such states after the change in the law, and by a more or less uniform percentage. Guns in law abiding hands seem to limit crimes, for just the reasons cited in the letter above.

Of course, if Maryland is bad, the situation in D.C. is far worse. However, that may be about to change.

(Full disclosure: I'm no utilitarian--I believe in the right of free men to keep and bear arms as a point of honor and tradition. I would back it even if it increased crime rates, simply because the right to bear arms is indivisible from the actual fact of being free. A man who is forbidden arms is not free, not only because he is prohibited from exercising a traditional liberty, but also because he must thereafter be at the mercy of the strong, or the many.)