Opinion - The myth of the law-abiding citizen

Covering the state Capitol, I've come to realize that even if I'm only half-listening to a politician's floor speech, certain buzzwords or catchphrases can instantly signal his position on a given issue. If someone mentions "sanctuary cities," it's a good bet he favors a crackdown on illegal immigration. Hear the words "woman's right to choose" and you know you're listening to someone arguing against abortion restrictions. And if the subject is guns, it's only a matter of time before a Second Amendment enthusiast invokes the image of the "law-abiding citizen" fighting to preserve his constitutional right to bear arms in the face of government oppression.

In fact, it was only a few hours after the Jan. 8 shooting in Tucson, Ariz., that state Sen. Mitch Seabaugh, R-Sharpsburg, attempted to burnish his NRA bona fides by releasing a statement warning that, "Restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens will not stop random acts of violence."

Frankly, I'm not reassured. The accused gunman in the Arizona shooting, Jared Lee Loughner, was a law-abiding citizen, albeit an apparently bat-shit crazy one. And the suspect in the Nov. 18 killing of businessman Rusty Sneiderman in front of a Dunwoody day care was likewise a law-abiding citizen — until he allegedly wasn't.

My problem with the way gun-rights advocates talk about the issue of gun control is their eagerness to divide the world neatly into two distinct classes of people: criminals, who seemingly enjoy unfettered access to weapons no matter what laws are on the books; and law-abiding citizens. There's little acknowledgment of the crimes of passion and random violence by crazies that are made easier and more deadly by the easy access to high-powered guns afforded to those who, at that moment at least, are on the right side of the law.

Congress may soon debate a ban on high-capacity magazines, like the 33-round clip that Loughner allegedly used to kill six people in Tucson. But resistance is bound to be fierce. As a law-abiding citizen myself — no felony convictions yet, knock on wood — I find it astounding that any proposed gun restriction, no matter how modest or reasonable, is immediately met with claims that such an action will put the country on the inexorable path to Stalinism. It seems nuts to me, literally insane, that the provision for a "well-regulated militia" has somehow morphed into the imperative that law-abiding citizens be able to buy and stockpile assault rifles and other automatic weaponry with a minimum of fuss and bother.

Yes, serious gangsters can find ways to get guns illegally, but the ease with which law-abiding citizens can acquire guns also makes it easier for common street hoods and crazy people to get weapons.

There's a vast difference between outlawing guns entirely and regulating them sensibly. Government should start giving due consideration to the latter.