Op-Ed: Banning guns is not the answer

[Editor's Note: In 2006, a woman who identified herself as representing the NCJW testified against legislation which eventually codified Ohio's statewide preemption law. Just last week, the NCJW testified against HB45, Ohio's Restaurant & Car Carry Rules Fix legislation.]

by Kenneth S. Kabb

The National Council of Jewish Women's thinly disguised polemic in the article "Reforming gun safety laws a moral imperative" (CJN, Jan. 21) against gun ownership misses an important point. Making yet another rule banning guns will not protect us against violent crime, nor will enforcing a witch hunt against those deemed mentally defective enhance our security.

Without minimizing the pain of Tucson, tragic incidents do not negate the value of armed and trained citizens as a deterrent to crime. Simply put, they make it more risky for criminals. In states with concealed carry laws, violent crime has been steadily decreasing. Had one trained and armed citizen been present in Tucson, the loss of life might have been reduced.

The right of self-defense against violent crime and tyrannical government is meaningless without an effective means. It is fundamental to free people. Relying on government to keep us safe makes about as much sense as wishing on a star. If we truly want to remain free, we must support the right to keep and bear arms.

NCJW and the Progressive Policy Institute are committed to banning guns. The process is simple: 1) Ban "assault weapons" 2) Define whatever you don’t like as an assault weapon 3) Presto – ban huge categories of guns. "Reasonable regulation" has all too often been the first step in disarming citizens who were later murdered by the millions – some in ostensibly civilized countries.

The Second Amendment exists to enable citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals and tyrannical government. Using politically loaded terms like "gun show loopholes" and "assault weapons" ignores the fact that the vast majority of gun dealers and owners are honest.

Guns of all types have always been available to criminals on the street. Making it difficult or impossible for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves will not reduce crime, and will have not the slightest effect on criminals and violence-prone persons. High-capacity magazines and "assault rifles" are red herring issues – large capacity magazines do not render a firearm unsafe. Expert shooters can change low-capacity magazines faster than the eye can follow.

Keeping guns – or anything else – out of the hands of those the NCJW deems "mentally challenged" isn't so simple. Who makes that determination, on what facts, and by what due process? Ohio law requires an adjudication of mental incompetence. Not everyone with a psychiatric diagnosis poses a risk of violence. The invasions of privacy that would be required to deprive all persons with a psychiatric diagnosis of the right to own a gun would be enormous – and unacceptable to most Americans.

Click here to read the entire op-ed in The Cleveland Jewish News.