Conventional wisdom focused on self-defense, guns changes
April 15, 2009

by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

There was a time late in the 19th century and early in 20th when no self-respecting English gentlemen considered himself properly dressed to leave his house unless he had pocketed his trusty pistol for defense.

English ladies of the time also went forth with a small pistol of some sort in their purses.

The conventional wisdom of the time, both in Great Britain and in the United States, was that a man or woman was responsible for their own defense and that a small pistol or revolver was the best insurance policy for that purpose.

But time works changes on cultures, and the conventional wisdom changes, sometimes dramatically. Today, in Great Britain, carrying a handgun on your person is not just frowned upon but is outright illegal. So, too, is the mere possession of most guns. And self-defense itself is also mostly illegal.

Sensible people in England still believe they have a moral and legal right not only to defend themselves from predatory attacks, but to own firearms for defense as well as sport. However, the government and most politicians in England, as well as educators and journalists, share a different conventional wisdom. Not only is gun ownership outlawed, but so is self-defense.

I am told that in Great Britain today, if you are attacked on the street, you are not supposed to even cry “help.” Presumably that is because “help” focuses on the individual right of survival of a criminal’s victim—something that has no place in the current conventional wisdom.

Instead, one is to simply call out “police.” Leaving aside whether a cop is around to help the victim, such a cry is supposed to focus on the societal problem of crime and not just the needs of one victim.

All of this would seem to be absurd to most Americans, even many of those who have bought into the general conventional wisdom exported from Great Britain about guns and self defense.

Americans who buy into such nonsense and allow themselves to be governed by politicians who share their views tend to live in big cities and along the East and West Coasts.

Fortunately, such conventional wisdom is not shared in all other states, precincts and congressional districts of the USA. And good evidence of a different conventional wisdom is reflected in the letter sent to Attorney General Eric Holder by 65 members of the House of Representatives (See story on Page 2 of this issue) who hail from most parts of the country.

Holder, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton may have different ideas about self-defense and guns, ideas that reflect the conventional wisdom of a core Democrat constituency embodied by Chicago politicians. But in order to promote their anti-gun schemes, they will need to have their Democrat majority in Congress in lock-step even with or without the canard about the guns for the Mexican drug wars coming from America.

That block of 65 Democrats, of course, means that Holder, Obama and Clinton cannot count on their majority to rubber stamp any new gun control scheme soon. The Democrats have a significant majority in the House—254—but if that block of 65 which came from all over the US jumps ship on an anti-gun measure, their agenda is at risk.

Of course, there has been no comparable display of similar wisdom in the US Senate, where Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has recently been making speeches about again pursuing her ban on semi-automatic firearms and full capacity magazines. But if the recent actions and statements of Montana’s two Democrat senators, Max Baucus and Jon Tester, are any indication, other Senate Democrats may also march to a different wisdom than Obama, Holder and Clinton.

What is conventional wisdom? Webster’s dictionaries say it is a set of beliefs held by most people.

I would add ‘held by most people, especially the opinion leaders of a particular era, whether the crowned heads of Europe or those modern leaders crowned by the people, whether theologians or journalists.

Conventional wisdom at one time said the earth was flat. But conventional wisdom was proven wrong, and it changed.

Conventional wisdom once said that the sun revolved around the earth. But conventional wisdom was proven wrong, and it changed.

Conventional wisdom once said that the plagues that decimated civilizations were a punishment from God and had nothing to do with germs, viruses or personal cleanliness. But conventional wisdom was proven wrong again, and it changed.

Conventional wisdom over the last hundred years or so has claimed that banning guns will reduce crime. But the research of people like Professors Lott and Mustard, plus many others, and even that of the American Academy of Science has shown that no gun control laws have proven useful in reducing or eliminating crime. Once again conventional wisdom has been proven wrong.

Conventional wisdom at one time held that guns were of no value in defending lives and property. But the reports coming back from the 48 states that have some form of concealed carry law show that the rate of violent crime drops after concealed carry laws are enacted. Once again—conventional wisdom has been proven wrong.

In recent years, the conventional anti-gun, anti-self defense wisdom has been changing, now more and more states have been adopting concealed carry laws. In 40 of those states, the laws are equitable—if not absolutely perfect—“shall issue” laws that have been working. More and more people are now able to protect themselves, their families and their property. The violent crime rates are down. The criminals don’t know who has a gun and who does not and they are not anxious to find themselves staring at the wrong end of guns in the hands of their intended victims.

Slowly but surely, state by state, the prevailing conventional wisdom of anti-gun officials, educators and journalists is being overturned and proven wrong. Illinois and Wisconsin remain the holdouts. And Illinois is moving much closer, even though such legislation faces an uphill battle again this year. But the people of Illinois who seek to legally own guns for defense now have the support of the state Sheriffs’ Association.

Such legislative and political struggles are not easy, but victory is in sight in the Prairie State.

Remember that the people of Ohio had sought an equitable statewide shall issue concealed carry law for many years—so long that perhaps some gave up. Some lawmakers in Columbus supported their cause while others, including the governor and the Ohio Highway Patrol opposed it.

When the Ohio courts ruled in a Second Amendment Foundation sponsored suit in Cincinnati that people had a right to carry firearms to defend themselves and that absent a concealed carry licensing law, anyone could carry openly, Ohio lawmakers who had opposed “shall issue” suddenly found the arguments for concealed carry licenses much more persuasive. They passed the law, and when the Republican governor tried to block it with a veto, they overrode the veto. Needless to say, the people later elected a new governor, a pro-gun Democrat, by the way.

Overrides of vetoes are not as rare as some might think when it comes to the self-defense issue. The Kansas legislature passed that state’s shall issue carry law by overriding a governor’s veto. In neighboring Wisconsin, veto override attempts have failed in two legislative sessions by just one vote.

The Democrat Governor of Wisconsin, Jim Doyle, has been able to fight the popular wisdom of the people of his state and most of the state legislature. But eventually, the people of Illinois and Wisconsin will share the same opportunities to protect their lives, their property and their families.
Return to Archive Index