PERSPECTIVES ON GUN CONTROL : . . . Maybe, but Not in Cities : If we must have liberal carry laws, at least set high permission standards and allow for urban-rural differences.

To carry or not to carry, that is the question. In the last decade, 28 states have enacted laws allowing qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons, and more are likely to follow. Contrarily, police forces in urban areas are relying increasingly on “stop and frisk” campaigns to keep guns off the streets. Yet no coherent debate on gun carrying ought to proceed until certain myths are dispelled.

Myth No. 1: The Constitution’s 2nd Amendment protects citizens’ rights to defend their homes, families and properties from criminal predators. The 2nd Amendment was intended to ensure the government’s ability to raise an armed militia to meet domestic and foreign crises. Of the four Supreme Court cases and numerous lower federal court rulings that have interpreted the amendment’s meaning, none has recognized any constitutionally based right to armed self-protection. But American and British common law long have recognized and sanctioned self-defense.

Myth No. 2: Lawful gun carrying helps police and dampens crime. In urban areas, at least, police forces dislike these so-called carry laws. Police in New York, Indianapolis and Kansas City have directed patrol officers to watch for any infraction that might allow for a stop and search of individuals and of cars. Their purpose is to seize illegal guns, discourage gun use in the commission of crime and keep guns off the streets. Kansas City reported a 50% drop in gun crimes in the areas where this policy was carried out. New York City precincts report a 41% drop in handgun murders, surpassing an overall murder rate drop of 31%. Criminologist James Q. Wilson is among a growing number of stop-and-frisk advocates who believe that gun mayhem can be curtailed by vigilant police. Yet even lawful gun-carrying may provoke a rise in deadly crime. A recent University of Maryland study of homicide rates in urban areas in Florida, Mississippi and Oregon found that homicide rates rose with liberal carry laws. On the other hand, legal gun-carrying surely poses a smaller overall risk in less populated areas.

Myth No. 3: Most people would at least feel safer if more law-abiding citizens carried guns. A recent study by the Harvard Injury Control Center found that among gun owners, 40% report feeling more safe with greater gun ownership, but 41% report feeling less safe. Among people who don’t own guns, only 8% report feeling more safe with more gun ownership; 85% report feeling less safe.

Myth No. 4: Guns are the only viable form of personal protection for the average citizen. Those who trumpet the gun for self-protection almost never consider other alternatives, including Mace or pepper spray (carried by many college public safety officers), dogs, security systems, window bars, improved locks, better lighting, whistles, neighborhood watch groups and, of course, a better financed and staffed police force.

Despite the potential and actual drawbacks to an armed public, America’s gun culture, especially as it thrives in rural areas, will continue to support gun-carrying in state legislation. To that end, such laws should at the least set a high permission standard, incorporating demonstrated skill and need. And they should recognize the different needs and perspective of rural America and urban America.