OPINION: Relaxing gun laws is not sound public safety policy

The general trend among elected officials in Georgia these days is to loosen gun restrictions and, thus, encourage more gun possession in public.

Gun debates are generally framed as a matter of “law-abiding” citizens versus “criminals.” And there are certainly many of both. In a certain percentage of cases, the law-abiding citizen will perform heroically against a horrific criminal threat in public, providing some validation to legislators’ move to promote more vigilantism. Such cases are not that common. And they are big news when they happen. Meanwhile, the accidental shooting or the hollering match that suddenly turns fatal are very common, less sensational and less newsworthy.

We hear ugly crime news and want to arm ourselves in public against that high-profile, horrible, premeditated crime. That’s understandable. But if legislators aim to increase the number of folks packing heat and the places where they can do so, do they also open the door to more impulsive shootings?

Ultimately, do more guns equal more safety, or is the opposite true?

While the “let’s arm more law-abiding citizens” is the attitude of state lawmakers, I don’t think you can so easily categorize people as good or bad. I think a lot of people bounce between the two. There are many well meaning, generally “law abiding” people who may be prone to bad decision making, particularly when they’re hot-headed after feeling humiliated or disrespected. Many people who cross over to the “criminal” category break the law in an impulsive, not planned way. If they’re armed at the time of the bad choice, the consequences are a lot worse for all.

We have laws against firearm possession at public gatherings for good reason. For instance, I feel more secure in a contentious zoning hearing if there is an armed deputy at the back of a room. However, if legislators opened the door for 150 people to pack heat at a meeting, I’d feel much less safe, even if I carried a Glock to the gathering, too, and even if we all went through an elaborate licensing process to get those guns in the room.

We talk about protecting the Second Amendment. But I’ve never known anyone who really objects to America’s basic defense of property, that a person is entitled to keep a firearm in his home, so long as he has not committed a felony. Most people who note the tragic statistics related to gun accidents in the home will still object to any talk of stripping homeowners of the right to bear arms.

You’re scared of an intruder? Load up and wait. We have that right, as we should.

But once you leave your property, what rights should you have to pack heat? And, on the flip side, what rights do you and your children have not to be around guns in public, if that’s your preference?

These are legitimate matters of debate that shouldn’t be sabotaged by simplistic, “liberal vs. gun nut” hollering.

Unfortunately, simplistic warfare is politically effective. For instance, state legislators are so scared these days of the “liberal” smear — the adult version of the “cooties” — that they seem very eager to bow down to the gun lobby to earn political points.

But improved public safety can’t come on the cheap. Law and order are not served by relaxing established gun restrictions and encouraging vigilantism.

If we really want to improve safety, we have to man it up and fund more officers, provide more law enforcement training and work within the laws we already have.

Anything less, well that’s just a misguided shot in the dark.

Zach Mitcham is editor of The Madison County Journal.