It is the duty of the State to prevent as well as to punish crime and to protect its weak and vicious citizens, so far as it can, from the temptation to do wrong. We would not tempt men to steal by affording them easy opportunities for theft, especially if we knew that they were either weak or wicked. And yet, we make absolutely no effort to keep deadly weapons out of dangerous hands. We do attempt to forbid their concealment. Practically this attempt is a failure and, in effect, we permit men to carry deadly weapons which may be successfully concealed until the very moment they are brought into use.
A great deal of the lurid literature has grown up around the pistol. The cowboy with his gun play has always been an attractive character in fiction. No doubt there is a time in the pioneer life of a community when there seems to be some excuse for the use of the revolver. But a dispassionate view of this subject, having in mind the welfare of a settled, organized State, every part of which is pervaded by law and within its restraining influence, points to the conclusion that the time has come to legislate revolvers, dirks and brass knuckles out of existence.
QUEERS THE TOWN.
The elaborate display of revolvers, dirks and brass knuckles in shop windows creates a most unfavorable impression on visitors. Many travelers like to walk to their hotels for the exercise after the long journey from the east.
They get their first impression of Chicago from a walk up Clark or State street.
On all sides they see revolvers, bludgeons, sandbags and slung-shots. "Ah! This is the West at last," say many. "Now look out for Indians and grizzy bears."
Upon Chicagoans who witness these exhibitions of criminal tools daily the effect is most depressing. It makes them think that civilization is still far off. In New York there is an ordinance forbidding pawnshops to display such weapons in the window.
The accidental shootings, alone, caused by the careless handling of pistols, would justify a law preventing their manufacture and sale. What possible benefit can be suggested to offset the evils which we have spoken of? Certainly the idea of individual liberty cannot be carried to the extent of making it the duty of a State to afford a man the facilities for the commission of crime. There is no right involved in the matter which is worthy of respect. Let me give you a few illustrations:
A negro carried his revolver with him to a ball. This was customary. During a lull in the dance, while talking with his companions—men and women—he pulls out this revolver and shows it around for the admiration of his friends. He is under the impression that it is not loaded. He places it playfully at the head of his sweetheart, pulls the trigger, and she drops dead.
That chamber happened to be loaded. It was determined to be a case of wanton carelessness on his part and he was sentenced to two years in the penitentiary. Why should a man like that be allowed to carry a pistol at all? Under what possible circumstances could he use it in any legitimate way?