Last week, a mentally unstable man with a gun entered the State Capitol in Denver, and was fatally shot by security guards. As Rocky Mountain News columnist Mike Littwin pointed out on July 17, this was made possible in part by the fact that the Capitol's metal detectors had been removed:
They used to have metal detectors for a while after 9/11, but eventually the legislators voted to remove them. They had no choice, I guess. The legislature was in the process of passing concealed-carry laws, and how do you explain that guns aren't the problem if you insist on putting a metal detector on your own door?
After reading Littwin's column, I came across a related story from District Township, Pennsylvania, reported in the Reading Eagle on July 20:
Roland Van Tongel, a handgun protruding from his hip, took the floor and launched a verbal attack on District Township supervisor Ed Overberger at a recent township meeting.
...
It wasn't the zoning issue as much as Van Tongel's demeanor that troubled the 25 or so people at the July 12 meeting.
"It really shook up the folks who were at the meeting," Overberger said. "People told me they had things they wanted to bring up, but they were afraid to talk."
Van Tongel said later that he has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, and that he brought the 9 mm Glock handgun to the meeting because he had received telephone death threats.
He attributed those threats to his outspoken manner on controversial issues, but he could not identify the source.
One attendee "asked the supervisors if they could prevent a person from bringing a weapon into a public meeting." Indicating that they were clearly worried by the presence of an angry man with a loaded weapon a contentious municipal meeting.
It's often difficult to understand the "all-or-nothing" approach to gun laws in this country. The gun industry lobbyists who pressured the Colorado Legislature into passing concealed-carry laws may have also convinced lawmakers that they risked being branded hypocrites if they did not permit weapons in the Capitol. It's not hypocrisy to draw a line, to set boundaries, and to enact sensible rules. The battle over gun laws shouldn't be a question of permitting "all guns, all the time" versus "no guns anywhere."
Anyone who thinks that limits are inherently hypocritical or automatically ineffective helps enable a mentally-deranged man armed with a lethal weapon to walk unimpeded into the State Capitol in Denver. Or into a classroom in Blacksburg. Or an office in Troy, or a diner in your own hometown. This viewpoint says that a few deaths -- regardless of whether the dead were bystanders or mentally ill people in need of help -- are unavoidably acceptable because of the need to allow "all guns, all the time."
(Note to readers: This blog entry, as well as past blog entries, are co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and www.huffingtonpost.com)