I would like to address some assertions by Teresa Dix in a recent letter to the editor that I think are off mark.
First, the concern about how to tell the ‘good guy’ from the ‘bad guy,’ well if someone is open carrying a pistol securely in a holster and are behaving them selves, then they’re probably not a criminal.
Now say if, someone has a gun poorly concealing in their waistband, hiding their face, and are generally acting suspicious, then they may be up to no good.
Second, if someone wave a gun around in public they’re committing a crime.
If they say they’ll harm someone and have a gun in their possession it’s a crime.
If they do anything that makes a reasonable person feel threatened while possessing a gun then it’s a crime.
There is a higher standard for behavior when one is in public and armed.
Third, the states with the most permissive gun laws have some of the lowest crime rates.
Despite the dire warnings about a return to the Wild West mentality when States started passing conceal carry law, the rivers of blood in the street never materialized.
A recent Harvard study on gun ownership levels and crime rates in different nations found no correlation.
The suggestion that more guns results in a more dangerous community is not really supported by fact
Fourth, the so-called ‘assault weapons’ were found by the National Institute of Justice to only be used in about 2 percent of gun crimes.
The definition of an assault weapon is very arbitrary and often have little to do with mechanical function but simply the shape of the plastic on the outside of the gun.
Fifth, the ideal number of police officers for a community is considered to be one for every thousand citizens. They can’t be everywhere and protect everyone simultaneously and paying for adequate funding to try and do so would bankrupt our community.
There are two factors that reduce crime, the first is short term negative consequences and the second, and more powerful, is long term social-economic benefits of not transgressing others, in short, more real economic opportunity less crime.