Fri, Mar 30 2007

26 years ago

I was reminded that today is the anniversary of the 1981 assassination attempt on the life of President Ronald Reagan. John Hinckley Jr. has been living at St. Elizabeth's Hospital, but the Washington Times reported earlier this week that Mr. Hinckley has enjoyed a bit of increased freedom recently. And now he is seeking permission to venture out without the currently required two-week notice.

Sarah Brady, whose husband Jim Brady was also wounded in that shooting, called today for legislation that would help restrict gun sales to those who are involved in illegal trafficking. There is a waiting period now for purchasing firearms, but I don't know if that would have helped prevent the March 1981 shootings. Mr. Hinckley had apparently owned guns for at least several months prior to the assassination attempt.

The subsequent trial of John Hinckley Jr., and his acquittal, accomplished something a lot more far-reaching than gun control. It shocked and enraged those who felt a sense of injustice and caused public opinion and lawmaker policy to turn against using the insanity defense so often in the trials of those accused of violence against others.

I can understand the worry of those who plea for guns to be kept away from criminals. It might make them feel better to think there could be some sort of ban on dangerous objects. But where do we draw the line? Part of maintaining a free society means embracing standards that err on the side of too much freedom rather than on the side of too little. A background check for those purchasing a firearm seems a fair path to me. But frightened people who want to ban private gun ownership from all law-abiding citizens frighten me a lot more than guns do.

posted at: 13:34 | category: /Miscellaneous | link to this entry