Joe Painter

Painter is a lawyer in Blacksburg.

My father, who was an educated man, used to often tell me that "you can't argue with ignorance." As I grow older these words seem to ring loud and clear at an alarming frequency.

The commentary by Larry Gaber and Polly Archer ("Shooting holes in gun proponents' arguments," June 1) is but another common example of this adage. I have also noticed several letters to the editor that reflect the same.

Gaber and Archer must think themselves wise on the topic of firearms and our culture. Their lack of logic is astounding. They probably buy every false statistic and lie put out by the Brady Institute.

Their rejection of the deterrence factor of firearms has been refuted over and over again by academic research. John Lott, an economist, researched the relationship of firearms ownership and crime while he was a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Chicago. His research, which has never been refuted, found that firearms ownership reduced the crime rate in cities where citizens were permitted to have firearms. His later book, "More Guns, Less Crime," expands on this thesis. Lott was not a gun owner nor an NRA member when he did his research. I defy anyone to challenge his findings.

Holding out the United Kingdom and Australia as examples is, to use their word, "specious." The ban on handguns in those countries and the extremely limited ownership of long guns has proven to be a mistake. What they fail to mention is the dramatic increase in the crime rate since the bans. The robbery rate in the United Kingdom has tripled.

I am not prepared to say that the tragedy at Virginia Tech would have been avoided by more guns on campus. As a criminal lawyer, I know we live in a dangerous world. Simplistic solutions as offered by Gaber and Archer are unrealistic.

I often see writers state that the Founding Fathers did not envision semiautomatic or other modern weapons. Such statements demonstrate a total lack of knowledge as to the intent of the Founding Fathers with respect to the Second Amendment.

Some even say that the Second Amendment is antiquated. I even had a distinguished professor at a highly prestigious university tell me that the Second Amendment was the product of the 18th-century mind. He may well be one of the leading experts in his field in the world, if not the world's expert, but his words struck me as odd. Guess what? The Bill of Rights was the product of the 18th-century mind. By his logic, we should junk the Bill of Rights. I do not think so.

Gaber and Archer make fun of what they called a National Rifle Association mantra "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Gun bans in this country have never reduced crime. The so-called assault weapon ban of 1994 did absolutely nothing to reduce crime. It has since expired and there have been no adverse consequences.

The Washington, D.C., gun ban is another example. It did nothing to reduce the highest murder rate in the country. Recently, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (which is by no means conservative) ruled it unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds. The best the dissent could do was to argue that it did not apply to D.C. because it was not a state. There goes the Bill of Rights.

There have been approximately 80 law review articles on the Second Amendment. Some 70, by distinguished law professors, have concluded that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

Critics of the NRA should understand the reason it was started. Shortly after the Civil War, former Union generals founded it to promote marksmanship and to oppose the infamous "black codes" that sought, among other things, to prevent gun ownership by freed slaves. These laws were the first attempt by government at gun control.

The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they wrote the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights stands as a monument to freedom.