Plaxico Follies, or: Infering the Wrong Lessons

In his latest column, Newsday's Wallace Matthews calls for a fair and honest sentencing for Plaxico Burress free of any celebrity clout - a reasonable request for our system of justice. But in doing so he shows his vitriol for firearms as a whole, ignoring vital statistics and resorting to tired stereotypes.

Before we go any farther, let us be clear on a few things. Burress, by carrying a loaded unlicensed firearm in a nightclub, broke a number of laws of the city and State of New York. Second, by not carrying his firearm in a secure holster and by mishandling it as it began to fall down his pant leg, he demonstrated an amateurish and unacceptable respect for the firearm.

That being stated, Matthews wastes no time in moving beyond the simple facts of the case and his desire for equal treatment under the law and into his general distaste for firearms.

• The very first sentence of his column that by carrying a firearm Burress was "thinking he was Tony Montana." So no one can use a firearm for the safety of themselves and their families without being reduced to a fictional and violent film character? Millions of concealed permit holders and their history of lawful behavior would beg to disagree.
  
• He also refers to New York's gun laws as "sensible." These "sensible" laws currently only see connected politicians and international celebrities arbitrarily being given a permit carry firearms within city limits. That is neither sensible nor is it equal application of the law to all citizens.
• "There's a reason the gun laws in New York were written the way they are - to ensure that people who shouldn't have guns don't have them." Again, the laws in New York are written to ensure that only those affluent in political connection and celebrity have them. There is no mechanism by which even a properly trained, tested, registered, lawful, fingerprinted, and background-checked average citizen could obtain a permit to legally carry a firearm within the city.
• "But even if we can laugh at Burress today, we wouldn't be laughing if that Glock 9 bullet had found some innocent bystander's head or chest instead of Burress' thigh." This tired argument is brought out in any place where concealed carry is proposed or any gun law is about to become more permissible, but studies and evidence show that concealed carry does not increase accidental/bystander shootings.
  
• "He strutted into that nightclub like some character out of 'Scarface.' He was wheeled out like some fool in 'The Pink Panther.' When his case is finally resolved, he'd better not walk out of that courthouse as if he's Michael Corleone..." Way to end on a high note Wallace. Instead of debating the merits of the legal system and the archaic and draconian patchwork of firearms laws in New York we can reduce the discourse to ugly characterizations.

Again, based off of the facts that have been disclosed, it appears as though Burress is guilty based upon the laws of New York as they currently stand. But much like an argument made against the drug war, we are potentially making felons out of otherwise upright citizens. I do not think that Burress was performing an act of civil disobedience, it is more likely that he was concerned about being a target due to wealth and status. But there is nothing to suggest that if New York had a process for lawful citizens to carry handguns that he would not have complied with such a law. If this were the case, we could be arguing about real 'sensible' issues such as the carrying of firearms in a place where alcohol is served, or the charges available if a person's negligence causes the accidental discharge of a weapon. Instead we are talking about a mandatory minimum sentence for exercising a right that is valid and cherished in a super-majority of the United States.

Obama Says Science Over Ideology, But Does it Apply to Guns?

The Associated Press is reporting that President Obama signed a memorandum today "restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making." The president's statement included these words:

Today, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation. It’s time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America’s place as the world leader in science and technology. (emphasis added)

While many people across the nation, and perhaps the globe, breathed a collective sigh of relief, one has to wonder if this fact based scrutiny will be applied across the board or just to projects and special interests close the President's heart. This statement was released in conjunction with the administration's reversal of the Bush era stem cell research limitations, so clearly it applies to that. A bit of peeking into Obama's platform and some extrapolation would lead you to believe that it will apply to climate change as well.

So the question at hand is: will the restoration of science over agenda apply to less favorable issues such as firearms? As we have covered in the past, scholars such as Gary Kleck and John Lott have shown that more guns create less crime and concealed carry reduces crime rates. Those in opposition have at best been able to come to the conclusion that while laws such as concealed carry and castle doctrine may not reduce crime, they at the same time do not increase it in any way. The National Academy of Sciences also came to the conclusion that concealed carry at the very least does not increase crime or accidental shootings. (full disclosure: They do recommend additional research methods be undertaken to get more robust data. Conversely, one of the members in the study dissented with this finding, arguing that this argument is not made when the results more favorably support the Academy's position, i.e. capital punishment.)

If we take these studies, along with the evidence from the 38 States that have adopted shall-issue concealed carry, we would hope that President Obama will rethink his stated positions on "assault weapons" and concealed carry. We encourage the administration to err on the side of personal freedom and look to the scientific research we have on hand to support him when facing the anti-gun component of his party. Hopefully, with this new scientific rigor, we will never again hear the President make statements such as these, which so boldly fly in the face of science:

I am not in favor of concealed weapons, I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.