Letters to the Editor
-
Would a gun ban really help?
Mr. Shapiro, I dispute the premise of your article calling for a repeal of the Second Amendment.
First, you state that "without the Second Amendment, firearms could be regulated by the federal government in the same fashion as any other potentially dangerous devices". While this may be true, it does not support the conclusion that limiting access in this fashion would decrease the probability of future attacks. Attacks like the one at Virginia Tech tend to be planned very methodically by determined individuals. If the attacker had decided to commit to this course of action, more strict government regulation would not have kept a gun out of his hands. He was a legal citizen with no criminal history. More paperwork would simply have taken him more time. It is not a deterrent. On the other hand, individuals who determine that they need a weapon for self defense may find that the process denies them this protection, or delays it until it is too late:
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html#T11
Beyond that, even if you believe that I am wrong, and that the attacker may not have been able to obtain a firearm, nothing would stop him from attacking with other weapons, such as pipe bombs and shrapnel. Imagine the horror of an attacker placing several backpacks containing pipe bombs in a cafeteria, or tossing one into a crowded classroom. Repealing the second amendment would not have stopped the attacker, but would have deprived innocent people of the opportunity to defend themselves.
Guns don't cause violence, and guns aren't the only weapon in the world. Taking away guns won't make people less violent, it will only make them seek out other weapons. Those weapons may be even more horrific and may cause even greater casualties than handguns.
Perhaps people would suggest tighter regulations less often if more press were given to self-defense cases, but that's not the way it is.
It's a shame that we need guns. Really it is. There is no glory in guns and violence. I'm as mad as hell that we need guns, but until the world is right, I will vigorously defend our rights to have them.
-
And really, by the way, murder is against the law
The best way to reduce the odds of another blood bath like the one at Virginia Tech is to amend the Constitution and abolish the right to bear arms.
This argument is nonsense because it ignores the determination people like this have to see their fantasies through to the end.
If someone is willing to violate the laws against murder, then I think that person would probably also be willing to violate the laws against buying or owning guns.
I'm afraid of what stupid things my own party is capable of doing when people get under the influence of traumatic thinking like this.
Trauma makes people get tunnel vision. Let's imediately change the whole world to prevent THIS kind of trauma.
When you change the world to prevent one trauma, you can create others in its wake.
IT's never good to make laws under the influence of recent trauma.
-
Repeal the 2nd Amendment....hmmm
And what would this do? Well lets see, law abiding gun owners who each own guns that are properly and legally registered would be forced to turn in their firearms. Ok, now what to do about the hundreds of thousands of illegal firearms that are owned by those who routinely use them to break the law? I guess their conscience will be pricked and they out of their intense desire to conform to the letter of the law and out of the good-ness of their own heart they will turn in their firearms, you know those firearms that they have filed the serial numbers off from.
Yeah, while I'm not an NRA member I am a firearms owner, and to take away my right to own a shotgun that is used for hunting purposes, will only leave firearms in the hands of those who use them to break the law.
Maybe the smarter idea would be to address the root causes that drive people to use guns in destructive ways, but no its much easier to pretend that making something against the law will eliminate the problem just like laws against drunk driving have eliminated the number of accidents caused by drunk drivers, and just like the war on drugs has eliminated the drug trafficing in America. oops, maybe those didn't work, so maybe the answer lays somewhere else.
p.s. I own a gun and guess how many laws I've broken with it? Hint, the answer is less than 1.
-
America and guns
Dear Editor:
Let's just face it - when it comes to guns, the United States is one seriously sick place.
Sincerely,
Shaun Narine
-
How about the manufacturers?
Just as we seek to limit access to weapons of mass destruction on the international level, why not do the same locally? We say it's okay for Country X to have tanks, planes, big guns, armies, etc., but draw the line at nukes because of their destructive power. So what's wrong with forbidding the manufacture of guns like the Glock for sale to the public? This is a weapon that has the capability to kill far beyond any rational need for a normal citizen.
And please, don't say an armed citizenry is protection against a government gone wrong. If things ever got that bad here, a few Glocks wouldn't make the difference.
-
Another specious argument
Why is it one never reads in the news about armed citizens foiling crime? Does it ever happen? Maybe, but it sure stays under the radar. Compare this to the number of people who are killed accidentally, or by family members or crazed strangers on a rampage. THAT, one reads about all the time.
So spare us the argument that citizens should arm themselves against crime.
-
Control is pointless
Are we are arguing about is the relative water level of acceptable atrocities. There are some here who would do nothing until gun deaths are the leading cause of death in the US, by their own admission when they drag out heart attack deaths and car accident deaths and so on.
Ok, I call that bet. Let's watch gun deaths climb to 450,000 a year until we act. I'm fine with that. Everyone understands that any root cause isn't completely evenly distributed. It's a big country and it probably won't hurt me pesonally. So, I'm with you. That's 50 people an hour every day, the whole year. I promise to be untroubled until it reaches that level. But then I expect you to make good.