As long as there is no acrimony in American politics . . . .
It may be easier in this state for two opposite sides of a gun debate to talk to each other, because it’s likely that both people talking own a gun. Maybe not concealed, on the body, at that moment. But you’d be safe in betting that a typical Arkansan has a 20 gauge shotgun for dove season somewhere in the back of a closet or in a gun safe. Or a 12 gauge for turkey season. And a .22 varmint gun handy by the garage door, and the 30-30 rifle that Pawpaw left you, plus something bigger for deer season, and something smaller for rabbits. Many of us are only a generation or two from the farm. And it shows. Or maybe it’s heard, in the sounds of the outdoors in November and April.
So let’s have a debate on a gun issue. No snark allowed. After all, we’re all friends here.
Should Arkansas have a “stand your ground” law?
Some of us think not.
A wise editor once told us to take on the strong arguments, not the weak ones. So we will assume that the NRA’s state director, who had a guest column on the Voices page of this paper last week, makes the strongest in favor of such a new law on this state’s books.
Matt Herriman is good at making his argument. He’d make an excellent editorial writer. So let’s not debate, but discuss. As gun-toting, red-blooded, Second Amendment friends.
From Director Herriman’s piece: “Current law says that when you are attacked, you must first try to flee. If you don’t, afterwards—that is, if you’re lucky enough to have an afterwards—you could face prosecution or even be sued by the criminal.
“Think about that for a minute. A bad guy attacks you on the street. You don’t know if he plans to rob you, rape you, or even kill you. But intent doesn’t matter according to current law. The state mandates that you have to turn and run for your life or you could be prosecuted. Simply put, current laws protect criminals instead of victims.”
Try as we might, we cannot think of a time when such an innocent person was prosecuted for fighting off a criminal in the street, as described above. Or as described anything like the above. Not only are there laws in this state—and all states, even the bluest ones—that allow a body to defend himself, but in close cases, DAs tend to look at the public’s possible reaction.
Can you imagine any district attorney in Arkansas, or anywhere in the land, who’d prosecute somebody defending himself?
(Please don’t bring up the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case in Florida several years back. That state does, and did, have a stand your ground law, but George Zimmerman and his attorneys never used it as an element of his defense. The evidence showed he was on the ground—on his back, not standing on it—when he fired his weapon. He was found innocent.)
In this state, you are protected from prosecution if you are defending yourself in your home. Or if you are a cop, an abused spouse, somebody confronting a crook about to commit a felony or other violent crime, or when a citizen has reason to believe violence is imminent.
And that doesn’t take into account the district attorneys who, as real live human beings, can think. Not only about justice but about their political viability. A stand your ground law might be needed if robots made decisions about prosecutions, but that’s not the case here. Or anywhere.
Back to Mr. Director Herriman: “What the gun-control crowd won’t tell you is history is on our side. If you go back to 1977, when data on such laws and crimes first became available, you’d find that states with such laws actually experienced about a nine percent drop in their murder rates. That means, overall, allowing the innocent to defend themselves from attackers without first having to flee has resulted in a drop in violent crime.”
Well, as an econ professor once told us, correlation doesn’t equal causation. Besides, the late 1970s included the beginning of a peak in violent crime in this country, continuing in some categories until the early 1990s.
m “Victims shouldn’t have to weigh out the legal implications in the milliseconds they have to react while being attacked . . . .”
So a stand your ground law could be internally debated in milliseconds?
• At least 25 states have this law, including our neighbors to the north, south, east and west . . . .”
What did mama say about jumping off a bridge?
• As a people and a country, we should not tolerate victim-blaming. Yet, under current law, Arkansas puts blame on the victim . . . .”
We can’t find that anywhere in the statutes. Nary a place.
Our friends who might agree with such a change in Arkansas law might feel that a stand your ground law would make folks feel good, or feel better. If that’s the case, why not just say so? Instead of making up problems that don’t exist?
If we were betting types, we’d bet money that this Arkansas General Assembly will pass such a law anyway, just so members can keep up the bona fides back in the home districts. That’s not a good reason for passing a new gun law, but for many lawmakers, it’ll be reason enough.
We’d also bet that there are more pressing things facing Arkansas just now. And this debate is only useful when it comes to the next round of local legislative elections.
We couldn’t find a friendly way to say that last part.