Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 1 Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend (1 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   10 comments

Diary (Diaries are not moderated)

Let's Cut the "Law-Abiding Citizen" Crap

By       Message Amy Fried, Ph.D.     Permalink
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group

View Ratings | Rate It

Author 3066
Become a Fan
  (8 fans)
If laws and regulations aimed at preventing crime are seen as an affront to "law-abiding citizens," then civilization is impossible.


- Advertisement -

WikiCommons: Guns per Country per Capita by By Miketwardos (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (], via Wikimedia Commons
Tonight, President Obama is expected to talk about his administration's efforts to curb gun violence, highlighting the survivors of several tragedies. One of the favorite - and most ridiculous - arguments against gun control by the gun lobby is that it is somehow an affront to "law-abiding" citizens, to ask for any restrictions on the sale and use of lethal weapons.

I have always found that argument puzzling. After all, all laws are aimed at those who are prone to break the law, and hurt their fellow citizens. Those of us who are not so prone accept those curbs in a variety of areas, knowing that they protect us from the criminal and unstable among us. Carried to its logical extreme, the argument can only be seen as a call to anarchy. I thought it would be interesting to translate the "law-abiding citizen" line to other areas of life. Such as:

Why do law-abiding citizens have to obey speed limits? Shouldn't law enforcement leave them alone and trust them to drive safely?

Why do law-abiding citizens have to submit to security checks at the airport? We should just prosecute terrorists after they attack, and leave the rest of us alone.

Why should law-abiding doctors and pharmacists have such restrictions on the prescription of controlled substances and other powerful drugs? Can't they and their patients be trusted to use their judgement?

Why should law-abiding food companies be required to test their products and disclose their ingredients? Why can't we just punish those few "bad apples" after people get sick from tainted food? (I realize that, in this case, many would argue that there is already too little regulation in this area.)

And finally: Why should law-abiding rape victims and other women be subjected to non-consensual invasive medical procedures (which are themselves legally classified as rape), before they choose to avail themselves of a constitutionally protected procedure?

The gun lobby needs to adjust its righteous indignation meter.
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -

Amy Fried is the author of "Escaping Dick Cheney's Stomach." She received her Ph.D. in Organizational Behavior, and has been an advocate for church-state separation and other civil liberties issues. She writes on women's issues, media, veganism (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -
Google Content Matches: