Russ Helms' commentary on the Second Amendment ("Gun Control Costs Innocent Lives," April 3) may well provoke controversy from those who seek to paint him as a right-wing lackey of the senator who shares his name. It need not do so. Mr. Helms is right on the money.
An important point to note is that the notion of a peaceful, unarmed citizenry protected from crime by the ever-watchful presence of competent law enforcement is a relatively recent one; well into the 19th century (and, in some parts of the British Empire, well into the 20th), law-abiding citizens routinely carried firearms and were not shy about using them to protect themselves.
More than that, though, such a notion is an illusion; as Mr. Helms notes, particularly in the modern inner cities are residents vulnerable to violent assaults that could well be stopped by the intended victim's possession of a firearm (a high percentage of violent crimes are committed by criminals not carrying guns). Sadly, in most violent crimes -- be they in the inner city or on the jogging trails of Chapel Hill -- the victim is unarmed, and thus attackers often escape long before the police show up.
For further reading on the subject I recommend Jeffrey Snyder's 1993 essay "A Nation of Cowards," which can be read by entering the title into any decent search engine. Among other arguments, Mr. Snyder makes the case that violent assault involves an attack on one's dignity as well as on one's person, and thus a moral obligation exists to defend oneself rather than asking a police officer to put his or her life on the line instead.
Mr. Helms will probably take his share of lumps on this, but I commend him for making a well-reasoned argument. It has been proven in blood again and again that as long as madmen roam free, decent, freedom-loving citizens will be called upon to stand up and resist, with lethal force if necessary.
R.J. Beatty
Chapel Hill
Class of 1998
