Letters to the Editor
MacK..
Published Letters: 477 Editor's Choice: 49
-
Gary Owen
[Read the article: Why Democrats dumped gun control]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It would be nice if you knew what you are talking about --
I shoot, indeed I was a nationally seeded rifle shot. I will stack my shooting skills and ability to field strip anything from a pistol to a light-machine gun against yours anyday.
But you are simply a fantasist and peddler and swallower of myths. Your gun does nothing to guarantee US democracy and widespread gun ownership in numerous countries, Iran, Iraq, pre-revolutionary Cuba, Czarist Russia, Soviet Russia, Weimar Germany, Nazi Germany, Syria, the Congo, Somalia, Afghanistan, Liberia, Francoist Spain, Mussolini's Italy, pre-war Hungary and Romania, etc. etc. did nothing to protect democracy and a lot to allow the anti-democrats to take over. If you look around the world, effective gun control exists in liberal democracies all over the place, while many tyrannies and failed states have no serious gun control.
A state that wanted to tyranise you has a simple solution, make your hands "cold and dead" using its massive ability to apply force -- your gun does not make a difference. The Nazis and the Bolsheviks were defined by their willingness to use ruthless force against opponents, who like them were well armed.
Those are the facts, refute them, don't just rant.
-
Hate to burst your bubble
[Read the article: Why Democrats dumped gun control]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But if you won the NRA championship in 1962, I would suspect that I would outshoot you -- age does have that side effect unforatunately.
Meanwhile, Mr Owen, while hyperventilating, you have not answered the question about Germany or the Soviet Union, i.e, backed up the "liar" statement. Since you can't, well, how much credibility do you have? Less than none? Certainly I would regard someone who yelled something so rude as liar at another person, who lacked the moral integrity to withdraw it when incorrect as beneath contempt and very untrustworthy.
The simple point is I shoot, I have shot a wide variety of weapons, I shoot as a sport, I hunt from time to time. I am not, despite your blowhard insinuations, in favour of banning gun ownership. Hell, I want more liberal laws in some of the places I live.
What I am in favour of is some common sense about gun ownership -- a recognition that guns in the wrong hands are dangerous, that no one should be allowed a gun who is too young, too deranged, too untrained, too irresponsible, to safely own and control one. No-one should be allowed to keep guns without adequate precautions for their security (i.e, a gun locker) and that really silly stuff like hunting with assault rifles be frowned on by all sensible gun enthusiasts. A situation where gun owners bring their guns to a licensed gun smith regularly for a safety check (and to make sure they still own and control them.) If you own a gun, and do not secure it, you should be at least civilly liable if it is stolen and used in a crime and if you make an unauthorized transfer you should also be criminally and civilly liable (my recollection is that the stats show 80% of criminal use of guns is with legally sold guns supplied to the criminal by a friend or relative.)
In this case, the VT killer bough the gun completely legally, but without the knowledge of his family or VT. If he had to have a permit, which included naming an address where the gun would be kept, with a requirement that the address be owned by a licensed gun owner or he have the consent of the home owner, his parents would have known about the purchase -- that could well have stopped this tragedy.
The US had 11,000 gun murders last year and 17,000 suicides (the latter often kids with parent's guns.) Vanishingly few gun owners actually used a gun to defend themselves -- that said, I am happy and inclined to keep a gun in my house, in a lock-box (I do not have one now because they are illegal in the cities I live in.) But I also recognise that buying a gun should be conditioned on my showing I can be trusted with it. My own view is that give that some 60 million Americans own guns, the evidence is that 0.05% of gunowners per year misuse them to the point of killing someone, or over the 40 year period someone might own a gun, only 1.8% of gun owners should not have them (assuming they misused a gun once which is probably low.) A well designed gun control law would have to take guns away from that one in fifty to have a serious impact on the carnage -- even if you throw in other gun crime you are still not talking about taking a lot of guns away. In fact, if you set requirements like gun training, safety lockers, etc. you probably would find that few gun enthusiasts would have a problem at all.
I also pointed out (to which Mr. Owen's bilious and substanceless response was "liar") that the idea that gun ownership protects democracy is a myth, and that personal gun ownership deters invasion is also a myth, and that the guns that won the American Revolution were not for the most part personal firearms but guns from militia arsenals. There is simply no substance to the canards that are regularly trotted out that guns=freedom. Gun ownership is a lifestyle choice for most people, a necessity for some, but in reality widespread gun ownership is more prevelant in non-democratic and authoritarian regimes, while gun control is prevanlent in democracies. Worse still, widespread uncontrolled ownership of firearms has in fact been associated with political violence, authoritarian coups and failed states, and indeed a key precipitating factor.