COLUMN: Concealed weapons act harmful

Published: Thursday, April 10, 2003

According to a recent report, criminal inmate populations grew 11.1 percent last year in New Mexico.

With national incarceration rates at an historical high, seeking to lower the number of felonious perpetrators entering into the prison system would seem to be the next logical step for our governing body to take.

However, a recent bill passed in New Mexico will actually boost criminal activity, increasing the frequency with which rash criminal acts that result in fatalities and injuries occur.

On Monday, April 7, Governor Bill Richardson signed a bill previously passed by the N.M. House and the State Senate that would allow qualified individuals to obtain permits, for a fee, allowing them to carry a concealed handgun on their person.

The very fact that two gun-related incidents struck within close proximity to UNM two times in the past six days should indicate that laws dictating handguns need to be made more stringent, not more lenient.

Saturday morning at Denny's on Central Avenue. an overzealous pancake fan, unwilling to wait the customary 20 minutes for service, began threatening to rob the establishment if a tasty stack of syrup and flapjacks was not procured on his behalf. When the Denny's employees ejected the man, he withdrew a loaded pistol, pointed it at the staff and then dared them to call the police. They complied and the man was arrested.

Fortunately, no one was hurt in the incident.

However, not all instances of handgun misconduct end peacefully. On Tuesday, a man was shot and killed inside Mail Boxes Etc. after an altercation erupted between a pedestrian and a motorist. The affair resulted in the death of the motorist from a gunshot wound to the lower back.

As it stands now, both of these men were illegally carrying concealed handguns. As citizens, it's our duty to ask how and why paying $100 for a permit can change the legal nature of a concealed weapon from a violation to a perfectly legitimate happening.

The fact of the matter is this: handguns in urban settings are carried with the sole intention of harming other people. Any law that legally affords people the privilege of carrying a deadly weapon without an explicit purpose (i.e. protecting and serving) is counterproductive to making our streets a safer place.

"Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you're going to use it," you might say.

If you don't plan on using it, why carry it? For the sake of feeling empowered?

Advocates of the bill claim that toting hidden handguns will actually decrease the amount of aggressive crimes that transpire because, when the threat of concealed armament is presented, violent criminals will think twice before robbing that unfortunate fellow who frequently visits dark alleyways.

This logic, however, borders on idiocy. Any way you cut it, concealing a handgun protects no one and endangers everyone. If the intention is to deter scofflaws from committing criminal acts, it makes more sense to display the firearm than it does to conceal it.

If a criminal can see that a man has a handgun, he won't try to rob him for fear of being shot. This eliminates the confrontation entirely, which is good. Evidence of this: people don't rob police officers because policemen and policewomen wear their firearms in a highly visible fashion, as a deterrent.

But if the handgun is not visible, criminals have no way of knowing whether or not their potential victim is armed and, as the maxim goes, "Criminals is stupid." For that matter, it is highly unlikely that criminals will be dissuaded from their intentions merely because someone "could" be holstering a concealed weapon.

This latter predicament presents far too many opportunities for bloodshed. If the robber has a knife and the victim is a concealed weapons permit holder, the victim becomes legally justified in making the thief's chest resemble the floor of a meat locker. Later, in court, the permit holder can cry, "Self defense!" and get away with a slap on the wrist.

Or not. Given that most thefts take place in poorly lit areas, the victim could overestimate the threat of the would-be thief, send an unarmed petty thief to the morgue, and spend the next 20 years in jail.

Call me a pacifist, but, on the rare occasion that I actually have $20 in my wallet, I would rather forfeit my cash than be responsible for taking another human life. Twenty dollars is a small price to pay for not suffering from the mental anguish of knowing that I sent someone to the grave.

What ever happened to a good, old-fashioned thrashing? Or mace in the face? Or stun guns? Previously, when presented with a menacing individual, people either forfeited their wallet of fought back.

In modern times, many people can succeed in securely asserting themselves on when they possess the necessary means to kill another person. Yes, when someone takes my money, they inconvenience me and violate my personal space, but does that give me the right to flash a pistol in their face or shoot them? Absolutely not.

Imagine how many bar room brawls have ended peacefully for no other reason than a deadly weapon wasn't available at the time of fury or intoxication. Would equipping these people with a deadly but legal weapon have helped to diffuse the situation? Or would it have merely heightened the level of severity and potential for harm?

Rather than increasing the presence of handguns in the community, we should be taking active measures to decrease crime by keeping firearms where they belong: out of social environments. Putting more weapons in the hands of people who do not need them is a solution that will surely have unforeseen and grave consequences.