Page 4
FROM SUITE ONE
THE MICHIGAN REVIEW EDITORIALS
Concealed Carry: Good For Michigan
F
OR TOO LONG, anti-freedom forces have demonized legal gun owners and pro-gun forces with their lies and half truths. Accordingly, those same nefarious forces have sworn to do away with Michigan’s recently passed concealed-weapons law, which for makes them think for some reason that the streets of Michigan will descend into anarchy, a land where the people live and die by the way of the gun. This horrible fictitious future is untrue, of course, for history has shown that those states that have enacted concealed weapons laws have had crime reduced. Anti-freedom foes would have the public think that the new law would allow the common Joe-Schmo to walk into any gun shop and buy a gun and legally carry it. Unfortunately, the public fails to realize the laws numerous restrictions placed on those with a concealed carry permit. While it does do away with the requirement that the applicant specify a good reason for having a concealed carry permit, it, like most states, does not allow those that are mentally unfit and those convicted of felons and a long list of misdemeanors to get a permit, and all applicants have to be at least 21. The law also prohibits permit holders from bringing their weapons to such places as schools, bars, sports arenas, hospitals, casinos, day care centers and churches. So it’s not like this new laws would allow kids to go to class packing heat or allow drunken bar arguments turn into drunken firefights. The opponents of the new concealed carry laws also neglect the crime statistics regarding concealed carry laws. According to a study by Dr. John R. Lott of the University of Chicago Law School, between 1977 and 1992, in the ten states that allowed concealed carry, there was a 5% decline in rapes, a 7% decline in aggravated assaults, an 8% decline in murders, and only a .5% increase in accidental firearm deaths. Since Florida enacted it’s right to carry law in 1987, the handgun homicide rate has gone down 41% while the nation’s handgun homicide rate had gone UP 24%. Although Florida issued 221,443 concealed carry permits between 1987 and 1994, only 18 crimes were committed by those with a permit. Lott’s study also found that due to concealed carry laws, there was an 84% decrease in the number of deaths due to “shooting sprees.” The argument for concealed carry is an old one: criminals are going to get firearms regardless of any law, and it’s only fair that law-abiding citizens be allowed to defend themselves from such criminal elements in society. No gun control law will keep guns out of the hands of criminals because criminals don’t obey the law. The new concealed carry law will not force the state of Michigan to descend into lawlessness as some have predicted, but, as history has proven, it shall emerge as a more peaceful, and probably more polite society than before. MR
January 10, 2001
MSAConstituents Time For ...Constituents?
E
VERY TUESDAY EVENING, in the chambers of the Michigan Student Assembly (MSA), student body representatives convene with the purpose of representing their constituency, the students of this university. Each school is allotted a given number of seats on the assembly in proportion to the number of students in that school, and within the chambers these representatives discuss and vote on policy that will influence both the state of the university and the state of its students. Therefore, it is imperative that students be granted not only the right to decide who their representatives are, but also the right to voice their opinions to to these representatives once in office. Before each MSA meeting begins with official business an opportunity is given to the student body to voice the very opinions they deem important; for example, if the assembly is going to vote on a motion on whether to support a mass, militant march on Martin Luther King Day, students of this university are given the opportunity to speak what is called “constituent’s time” before the meeting. Here, each student who signs up to speak during constiuent’s time is given five minutes to speak his mind and then answer questions. Regardless of that student’s stance on the issue he is given time to speak during constituent’s time. However, what has been taken for granted up until this point, is that the “students” of this university will be speaking during “constituent’s time.” After all, the “students” of this university are the “constituents” of the assembly members. When non-students speak during “constituent’s time,” it perverts the intended purpose of the time. Why would anyone want non-students influencing the programs implemented at our university? For example, on a larger scale, would you want communist Chinese politcalheads influencing domestic US policy? No. And similarly, we should not tolerate the same at the university level. The members of the MSA should, therefore, take the bull by the horns and pass a resolution that would benefit everyone at the university. By allowing only students to speak during constituent’s time, the assembly would effectively increase time that could and should be used for the students of this university to voice their opinions and decrease the influence of non-students, whose ideas and opinions ought to have no bearing on internal university policy and programs. From Suite One to the MSA: do something right for a change. MR