Letters to the Editor
Xanthro
Published Letters: 522 Editor's Choice: 47
-
Multi-Racial society?
[Read the article: White House and guns: Stay the course]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But no matter. In the end, it comes down to this: I don't think the lives of 33 people in Virginia (or 16 at Columbine, etc.; the list is long) are well-sacrificed simply because you are too scared to live in a multi-racial society without a gun under your pillow at night.
------------------------
You must be projecting, since I've never posted anything about being afraid of a multi-racial society, in fact, I could not care less about someone's nationality or color, nor do I even keep a firearm handy for protection. It's not needed where I currently live, though I have lived in locals where the police response times is measured in HOURS. You are probably someone who's lived his whole life in a city and can't comprehend that some Americans still live in very remote areas and the police are responsible for covering hundreds of square miles per officer.
------------------------------------
"I don't care about your fears, and I don't care about your hobbies. They aren't worth the lives of the victims of even a single "law-abiding gun owner" gone over the edge. Period."
Let's outlaw everything that can kill people, because that's what you are advocating. Freedom by definition means that people have a greater capacity to abuse others, and so living in a free society means there is more risk. I'd rather live with risk and live free than live without freedom. You'd rather be ruled.
I don't fear my neighbors, whether black, white, yellow, republican, democrat, communist, firearm owning or not, or any other combination. I live my life basically fear free, since you keep bringing up fear, I assume that you do not.
------------------------------------
"And sooner or later, demographics will change the red-blue balance; the electoral calculus will shift; and guns will be outlawed in the U.S. It will happen, and each new instance of mass gun carnage will hasten that day, no matter how many letters you write to Salon."
Let's assume that somehow 51% of the people decide to outlaw firearms and this becomes the law of the land. How exactly is this going to be implemented? Have the Federal Government kick open the door of every household and tear it up looking for firearms?
There are more firearms in the United States than people, and a smaller percentage of firearms are used to harm someone than automobiles.
Since cars kill 40,000 Americans every year, and we could all take public transportation, I'll add you to the list of people who want to ban private automobiles.
-
What's with the name repeating?
[Read the article: White House and guns: Stay the course]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First, it's childish, and second it make you look foolish, so I'm not sure why you continue to do so. You feel some compunction to turn everything personal?
-------------------------
"51%? Nice try; but every survey I've seen shows that, depending on the exact wording, between two-thirds (66%) and three-fourths (75%) of Americans want real gun control."
You need to go back and do some studying, as far more than 50% of Americans own firearms. Not only do the majority own firearms, but the majority oppose most gun control legislation when it is spelled out in detail.
When surveyed and asked generic questions whether they support Gun Control a majority of Americans answer yes, but the majority are unaware of existing laws, and they do not as a majority support specific legislation.
Again though you fail to answer the simple question of enforcement. It's illegal to kill people but it still happens.
How do you expect to enforce this ban?
If you can't or won't answer this, then you really have nothing to add to the discussion.
-
Tone of article
[Read the article: Why Democrats dumped gun control]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The problem with this article is that it simply assumes more gun control is better.
"Gun control advocates haven't won a major victory since Bill Clinton was president, and since then the main anti-gun legislation of the Clinton era has either died or been stripped of its teeth."
Since there were numerous gun control measures passed during Bill Clinton's terms, if gun control were effective it should be a simple matter to show empirical data that supports gun control, for example a decrease in the number of deaths per thousands.
This evidence is never presented. Why, because it seems to not exist. To advocate a restriction means you have a burden to prove that the restriction actually produces the result you desire.
For example, the so called Gun Show Loophole. Exactly what percentage of people who have purchased firearms at such shows. If such shows are not leading to firearms deaths, then why bother collectors who attend such shows.
Another example, look at http://www.vpc.org/studies/gunloop.htm
They are greatly concerned about both closing Gun Shows, and reducing the number of FFL, or Federal Firearm License. Why reduce the latter. It means you have to be registered with the Federal Government and keep records on your sales and purchases. Private people do not, which by the way is why at Gun Shows sales between private persons did not require a background check, because they didn't require one because the seller didn't have a FFL.
Notice, if the sellars had and FFL, they would have to do background checks. The two goals are mutually exclusive.
A big deal is made that the number of FFL fell from 245,628 to 69,951. Did firearm deaths drop by 70%? No, they didn't so what's the goal of the policy, to reduce firearm deaths or hinder gun owners?
A law should aim to produce a precise goal, not simply be used as a measuring tool to say something has been done. Passing a dozen gun control laws that do nothing about gun violence solves nothing, but punish legitimate gun owners who have committed no offense.