FYI (copy below):
http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe174-20020520-03.html
AOL users click here
=======================================================
The Last Days of Gun Control: Vermont Carry Shows Why

by Charles Novins
[email protected]
Copyright May 2002

Special to TLE

For those of you sufficiently uninformed to think gun
control is a good idea, I have disastrous news for you: The
Democrats, on seeing that there aren’t quite enough of you
to be useful to them, are cutting you loose.

This has been written about a few times now in the mass
media. The latest broadside may be found at the Christian
Science Monitor:
www.csmonitor.com/2002/0510/p02s02-uspo.html

This is a common peccadillo for the two parties who, in
terms of principle, represent nothing. Any of you who were,
for whatever reason, opposed to capital punishment have
undoubtedly already noticed that the Democrats cut you loose
decades ago. A person opposing the death penalty
understands precisely what is meant when it is argued that
there isn’t a “dime’s worth of difference” between the two
parties.

If your pet-favorite issue is the subject of that “dime’s
worth,” just keep in mind that your issue could be next, so
watch where you invest both your campaign funds as well as
your illusions.

The reason for this about-face on guns seems petty
straightforward; several analysts have shown convincingly
that, had Al Gore not supported gun control, he would
probably have been elected president.

(A pro-gun control USA TODAY article noted this at
www.usatoday.com/news/e98/raasch/r086.htm)

And the big news is that the Republicans have capitalized on
this with the administration’s revolutionary announcement
that the Second Amendment is what it says it is.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=514&e=5&cid=514&u=
/ap/20020508/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns_3

But there’s much more to this seemingly-sudden national
shift.

The MONITOR story cited above soft-pedals this, but
Democrats (and Repubs) have long known that many gun
advocates are one-issue or critical-issue voters. On the
other side, the gun-control people are a more generalized
lot. They tend to want government controls on many things,
so a freedom-oriented candidate is not an option even if
their favored candidate takes little or no position on guns.

Many gun advocates feared that the various school shootings
would bring the same parity to their cause, but it never
occurred. There are a number of reasons why.

I believe that September 11 was a big one. Many on the
gun-control side of the debate are there because they’ve
implicitly accepted pacifism. That’s an easy error to make
when you have the advantage of living in one of the most
peaceful places on Earth, which the United States is.

September 11 re-acquainted Americans with the notion that
violence in defense of your country, or your family, or even
your person, is no vice. The nation’s been a
century-and-a-half without domestic warring except for two
singular assaults. But one of them was, well, just the
other day.

But the really huge problem for gun-banners has been right
there in front of them for decades, and there is simply
nothing they can do to stop it, argue against it, or refute
it.

It is, of course, Vermont.

The central idea that propels gun-control is that you simply
cannot let guns loose. People (and by that we always mean
“other people”) simply cannot be trusted to own and use guns
safely. Guns must be regulated and carefully watched by law
enforcement. In at least some significant degree, this is
how it is done everywhere.

Except, of course, in Vermont. No gun laws in Vermont.
Period.

There are indeed jurisdictions that allow many people to
carry and use guns, but those exist in far-away,
culturally-odd places like Missouri or South Dakota.

But you can drive from Manhattan to Vermont in a few hours.

And we are told that it is certainly guns that are the
problem, not people. If guns are freely available, it
stands to reason that there’s going to be more violence and
more crime.

But somehow, in Vermont, there’s less of both than anywhere
else in the United States.

Where is the “common sense” on Vermont? Are people there so
different that they don’t draw guns in traffic disputes and
kill one another? Isn’t this scenario what’s supposed to
happen when guns are unrestricted? Why doesn’t it happen in
Vermont any more often than anywhere else? And then ask
yourself why it actually happens in Vermont LESS often than
almost anywhere else?

How is it that Vermont has flirted with this dangerous idea
of leaving people free for all these decades and remained
unscathed?

On the gun issue, the ignorance is both deep and wide. The
world’s number-one newspaper – The New York Times – employs
a fellow named Bob Herbert to write opinions for them.
Yesterday, he said:
www.nytimes.com/2002/05/09/opinion/09HERB.html

“I had a .45-caliber pistol hanging low on my hip many years
ago when I was in the Army. And I can tell you, I’m not
anxious to think about that kind of weapon (or something
smaller and easier to conceal) being in the pockets and the
purses and the briefcases and the shoulder holsters of the
throngs surrounding me in my daily rounds in Manhattan.”

This is such a statement of vile ignorance that the
residents of Vermont would be understood (though not
forgiven) if they indeed made Herbert’s nightmares come true
during any visit he might make. But they do not, and have
not, and would not. Too bad Herbert is so utterly outside
of reality that he can’t imagine how that might be so.

Vermonters needn’t worry, however, since Herbert, if he is
sincere, will stay, comforted, in the gun-safety of NYC.

- – - For more information on the facts alluded to in this
article (for example, that Vermont has the lowest rate of
crime in the nation), the best source is John R. Lott Jr., a
scholar who has produced research on these issues. His
latest commentary in USA TODAY can be found at:
www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20020509/4097089s.htm