Letters on free speech, conceal-carry bill

Undermining right to free speech

Voltaire often is credited with saying, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it,” without a qualifying phrase such as “unless I find your remarks to be offensive, ignorant, biased, insensitive or foolish.”

However, under the guise of “political correctness,” we have chosen to add these qualifiers. By doing so, we have completely undermined the right to free speech.

Embedding political correctness in the law makes it possible for the government and its associated institutions, such as universities, to punish people merely because of ideas they express.

The statements made by the University of Oklahoma fraternity students were offensive, ignorant, biased, insensitive and, frankly, quite foolish. The decent members of our society will not tolerate such statements. But the rejection of the remarks, and the rejection of the students, should be on a person-to-person level.

An indecent society cannot be made decent by legal fiat. It can only be made decent if its decent members individually and vigorously reject and oppose offensive, ignorant and biased opinions. It takes the people, and not the government, to make a decent society.

Don’t fear guns

The people who warned of impending doom and of shoot-outs in the streets reminiscent of the Old West when concealed-carry was proposed are banging their war drums again, predicting the same if concealed-carry without a license becomes legal. If it does pass, I doubt there will be any more problems than before.

Law enforcement never has had nor will have any reason to fear an armed law-abiding citizen. I’m sure every officer making a traffic stop or coming in contact with the public uses caution when making his approach and is trained on how to best protect himself.

I think the main difference between those who are against allowing concealed-carry without a license and those who favor it is the faith we have in our fellow citizens.

Those who want to continue the licensing requirement believe that their neighbors and the masses are a stupid and irresponsible drunken or drugged-out horde of madmen incapable of conducting themselves in a civilized manner who need to be protected from themselves.

Those who are in favor of individuals’ right to carry without licensing see their neighbors and the masses as decent, educated individuals who are fully capable of governing and controlling themselves in a peaceful manner.

The truth probably lies somewhere in between. I have faith that the majority of folks are really decent people, and I do not fear one of them carrying a concealed weapon. But I do fear a criminal when he has a weapon and I don’t.

Not peaceful

If we want a peaceful state, increasing the availability of guns in everyday life is the wrong thing to do. I base my opinion on three observations:.

▪  Twenty years ago, my brother was murdered by a criminal’s use of a firearm. You may say he would have been safe if he had his own gun to protect himself. However, my brother was a gun enthusiast with a gun in his car, a gun in his office and several guns at home. Nevertheless, the criminal caught him unawares before he could get a weapon. Having a gun did not increase my brother’s safety.

▪  As a social psychologist, I have studied aggression. There is a phenomenon in social psychology called the weapon effect. Studies have found that people respond more aggressively when angry in the presence of guns than when guns are not present. Therefore, increasing the availability of guns in the state will increase aggressive acts.

▪  Several studies have found that the states with the least regulations on guns have the highest murder rates.

Senate Bill 45 would have an effect that is the opposite of what is intended if public safety is the goal.

This story was originally published March 15, 2015 at 7:05 PM with the headline "Letters on free speech, conceal-carry bill."