NRA has glorified guns

Advertisement

I just have to praise Carin Gordon. She is the person who wrote the letter titled, “Gun anarchy has arrived” (July 28th).

I have composed many letters in my mind regarding guns, but this letter said exactly what I tried to say.

The NRA has glorified guns to the point that every nut-job in the country thinks he/she has a perfect right to own any weapon, including an AK-47 assault rifle!

The Second Amendment says the country has the right to “a well-regulated militia” (Webster’s meaning of that word is ... “an organization for emergency service”) and that certainly does not mean arming a volunteer block-watch-wannabe cop to gun down an innocent kid minding his own business.

We are teaching our young people that violence, sex and profanity are perfectly fine in any circumstance without restraint. There have been countless instances of gun violence right here in our own backyards — is that right?

Jane Samples

Walla Walla

Comments

Igor 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Anyone that has any knowledge of the history of the 2nd Amendment knows that, at the time it was adopted, "the militia" was "we, the people" and that its purpose was to ensure against tyrannical government. Read Living With Guns, A Liberal's Case for the Second Amendment, by Craig R. Whitney.

Trayvon Martin was not an innocent kid. He was viciously assaulting Zimmerman. Whether Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force was a question for the jury to decide. From all indications the jury made the right decision. Disarming the law abiding will only increase gun violence.

The NRA strives to protect the rights of the law abiding; not the rights of criminals. You should read John Fund's book More Guns, Less Crime if you want to fully understand this issue.

2

paco1234 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Militia means militia, period! Check it again, Igor. This "vicious attack" was concocted by Zimmerman and his lawyers to make a case for "stand your ground" . Zimmerman's 911 recording demonstrates and angry, profoundly aggrieved, predetermined man ready to take "care" of those punks "suspects". He was on a "mission" before hand. Therein the PREMEDITATION entailing malice, from the begining to end. Zimmerman got away with MURDER, period!

The mayority of NRA members, more than 70%, support background cheks on all gun purchases. What's wrong with that?

Nobody is disarming law abiding gun owners. This is a cheap, sleazy scare tactic comming right from gun manufacturers.

If "more guns, les crime" is true Somalia would be the safest place on Earth!

1

Igor 8 months, 2 weeks ago

On the subject of the militia, most scholars, both left and right, disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Whether the Martin killing was premeditated murder was a question for the jury. Certainly Zimmerman had no business following Martin, who appeared to be minding his own business, but that by itself it not evidence of premeditated murder.

Nothing is wrong with private background checks. I think they're badly needed and have always favored them.

Your claim that no one wants to disarm law abiding owners is not what I've read. Many on the left have been clamoring for this ever since I can remember. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

The rate of gun ownership in Somalia is about one-tenth that in the U.S. yet Somalia has a higher murder rate than the U.S. Easy to verify on the internet. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country but one of the highest murder rates.

There is lots of evidence, both anecdotal and statistical, that increased gun ownership by the law abiding deters crime. Not only the Fund book but recent figures from the State of Virginia. Virginia's gun crime rate has dropped as the sale of firearms in that state has soared. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/04/virginia-gun-crime-drops-as-firearms-sales-soar/?test=latestnews

2

PearlY 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Nobody is disarming law abiding gun owners YET -- most of the time. During Hurricane Katrina, police could do little to control crime, but they somehow found the time and personnel to confiscate firearms from people who had committed no crime and desperately needed those weapons for their own protection. Some of those people were assaulted in the process, many had their firearms damaged, destroyed or lost but, most of all, their guns were confiscated.

I disagree with Igor on background checks on private sales, mostly because I see the potential for harm outweighing the potential benefit. Very little gun violence is caused by people who acquired their firearms privately from lawful owners. On the other hand, there's a huge risk that such a system will be abused to aid in confiscation if given the opportunity and to harass gun owners for trivial errors in processing.

1

Igor 8 months, 2 weeks ago

PearlY,

Well stated. I enjoy your thoughtful comments and lucid arguments. Though there are those on the far left that would go the way of those countries that have outlawed the ownership of firearms all together on the theory that if no one is armed, no one would need a firearm to protect herself, most of those places have experienced an increase in crime and violence. Are you aware of these folks? Just asking?

On the subject of private checks, as I'm sure you know, background checks are required now if you buy a firearm from a dealer. But Federal law requires that after the check has been completed, the FBI, which maintains the NICS database, must destroy the information it used to do the check within 48 hours.

That said, my greatest fear regarding background checks, both dealer sales and private, is that our government will somehow use the information given for the check to compile an owner’s registry. Registration, historically, has always been the first step towards confiscation.

Today it was revealed that the NSA actually does have the text of our emails and conversations it claimed two weeks ago it DID NOT HAVE for its FISA investigations. It was only supposed to be metadata to look for patterns to nail al Zawahiri and company. But it gets even worse than this.

Now we learn that they’re giving our emails and phone conversations to the DEA to try and catch drug dealers. While I'm all for nailing all the drug dealers almost any way we can, I'm not in favor of breaking the law and violating the 4th Amendment in the process.

So, while I used to favor private background checks and still would if I thought I could trust our government not to abuse its powers, today I am on the fence. That is, I would like to see firearms removed from people that should not have them, but I also fear that my own government will compile a list and come for mine some day.

Again, I really do appreciate your thoughtful comment and your sincere and sane approach to matters political. You are one in a field of few.

Igor

P.S. If there’s another scandal involving our government agencies and their abuse of their power for political ends then I will definitely be in your camp. Until then, I continue to hope that some sanity will be restored to our system of government and politics and that some day, in the not too distant future, our legal system really can be used to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and those otherwise ineligible.

Igor

1

PearlY 8 months, 2 weeks ago

My more cynical view is: As necessary as they are, no government should ever be trusted. No matter how sane and benevolent it is at any one moment, it is only one bad Congress or power-mad President or corrupt Court or entrenched bureaucracy away from tyranny.

Jefferson said:
Resolved [...] that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights; that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism; free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power; that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no farther, our confidence may go; [...].

1

Igor 8 months, 1 week ago

I can't argue. The system I advocated for in the case of private checks is where the seller has the prospective purchaser fill out the form for the check, takes it to the Sheriff, who's prohibited from scanning, copying or otherwise recording the info on the card. After he's run the check, he initials the card and returns it to the seller. But, of course, I acknowledge the risk that the FBI might not destroy the info as now required for dealer sales and might retain it for illicit purposes. You, like I, have an extreme distrust of government and I can't quarrel with your argument except to say that some government is necessary to protect the rights of decent, law abiding people. The danger in our country today is that those currently running our government could, from all appearances, care less about the rights and well being of the governed. Most, regardless of party affiliation, are in it only to feather their own nests and perpetuate their own power.

0

stvsngltn 8 months, 1 week ago

That's actually a photo of rapper Jayceon Terrell Taylor, not Trayvon Martin. (Of course that doesn't mean Martin wasn't acting like a thug when he attacked Zimmerman, violently bashing the back of his head on concrete and leading to Zimmerman using lethal force to stop the attack.)

0

downhillracer 8 months, 1 week ago

Trayvon wasn't being a thug walking home after getting a tea drink and some candy. He is the one who should have used SYG, but he can't, because Zimmerman shot him to death. What lunacy and ignroanace you continue to spread, Mr. Singlton.

0

namvet60 8 months, 1 week ago

The particular tea drink mixed with the candy and then added to a cough syrup makes a highly addictive drug cocktail. You should check out your facts before pouring egg on your face.

0

downhillracer 8 months, 1 week ago

Oh my goodness, now I've heard everything. a: was this 'cocktail' an issue in the Martin killing? b: were there measurable quantities of this "cocktail" in Mr. Martins system, as documented by the autopsy? c: in case you hadn't noticed, this story is repeated only on such horribly phony "news" sources as WorldNet Daily, Fox and Newsbusters, all of which are vile publications spewing nothing but hate and bigotry, and contributing do the dumbing - down of an already easily mislead audience. The overt racism is astounding.

0

namvet60 8 months ago

Was Racism a part of the Trial - NO - The only racism coming from Sharpton-Jackson combo to stir divisive activity such as you expound!

0

barracuda 8 months, 1 week ago

DownHillracer...... This is not going to be what you want to see, since you nor I were anywhere around this shooting, arrest, or trial all we (you and I) have to go on is the news feeds so, please check this video out.... At least some of this video has some factual stuff in it.... http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/20/bill_whittle_the_truth_about_trayvon_martin_and_george_zimmerman.html

1

downhillracer 8 months, 1 week ago

Then offer a "news" feed that isn't an opinion piece. This is obscene, and framed admittedly by Mr. Whittle himself, "tuned for the tea party". Wow, what a shocker.

0

barracuda 8 months, 1 week ago

Please read my note again.... I simply offered it as an opinion piece.... And you are correct in the fact that it as a single opinion piece, without equal discussion to both sides.

I guess it is the same way some people write in here.... Oh well, I was trying to start a honest discussion.....

0

downhillracer 8 months, 1 week ago

An honest discussion doesn't begin with distorted, fraudulent information presented as "facts". Where in your declaration did you suggest it was anything but a "news" video?

0

namvet60 8 months ago

downhillracer - Why do you post anything then if it is based on facts - obviously Big City "boy" doesn't recognize facts to opinion pieces. Your bigotry abounds.

0

downhillracer 8 months ago

"My" bigotry? You really do live in bizarro world.

0

marketinsider 8 months, 1 week ago

I read in the U-B that a home was invaded by 3 people, if this happens at my home, since I don't own a gun, should I call 911 and hope the police arrive before disaster hits, spray them with pepper spray, ask them politely why they broke down my door, are they here just to rob me and do no bodily harm, run to the kitchen and grab a knife, prey? Or, since I still have my second amendment right for now, buy a gun? I guess I could also think like most people, home invasions happen to other people, but not me.

1

PearlY 8 months ago

If you get a gun for home defense, learn to use it safely, and make sure it has an adequate-capacity magazine. Three home invaders, unless they turn and run at the first shot (which is, thankfully, the most likely scenario), won't be taken out with a 10-rounder.

2

NewInWW 8 months ago

That's an interesting thought - you have the home owner, presumably with his or her family around the TV or doing homework or sleeping in their beds, spraying MORE than 10 rounds around the house? How many rounds do you think he or she should have available - 15? 30? 100? And, of course, you see this pitched gun battle (the home invaders must be returning fire because you've exhausted your 10 round magazine) in one's home as enhancing the family's safety?

I think your comment perfectly puts the lie to the "home defense" argument for large capacity magazines.

I have a 6 round revolver. If I can't take care of what needs to be done with 6 aimed rounds, then shame on me.

0

PearlY 8 months ago

I assume police forces have researched the issue of magazine capacity and accuracy of "aimed rounds" in multiple attacker scenarios, and they generally seem to go with larger capacity weapons with a couple of spare magazines. At home, you'd be unlikely to be carrying around your spare magazines and would be lucky to have time to grab your firearm by itself, meaning ability to reload would be limited.

As for taking care of what needs to be done with a six round revolver, consider the Loganville, GA woman who hid in a crawlspace with her two children from a single home instruder until discovered, and then fired all six rounds from her .38 revolver, striking him five times (oh, and by the way, striking her children zero times). The guy still was not down, and had the ability to get to his car and drive off, before he crashed. Clearly, she was lucky he chose to run away and didn't call her bluff when she threatened to shoot him again. She could have used a few more rounds, and that was with just ONE intruder.

If you have a gun at all for home defense, there is no logic to saying it should only be functional in a very limited way. If you're scared of hitting your kids, why would you be scared with 10 rounds or 17, but not six. And while I guess you could be ashamed if you failed to hit your target perfectly with each round, I'm not sure the solution for bad shooting should be rape, assault or murder instead of a few extra rounds.

1

NewInWW 8 months ago

Paragraph 1 - what the police carry is irrelevant to what's most appropriate for home defense - they are entirely different uses by (normally) folks with entirely different levels of training.

Paragraph 2 - I tend not to make my decisions on samples of 1.

Paragraph 3 - Somehow you seem to think that an extra 3 or 11 rounds will assure hitting your target; thats a bit like assuming that buying a few extra lottery tickets will assure riches. Moreover, you're assuming extra rounds equals extra protection. The simplicity of operation of a revolver (no need to check a safety, no need to cock a single action semi-auto, jams are cleared by squeezing the trigger again) is a pretty good offset to its lower capacity when confronted with a sudden need to protect yourself, possibly out of a sound sleep.

Non-existent Paragraph 4 - You never explained how spraying 17 plus rounds around your house improves family safety, or the safety of your neighbors. If, in your hypothetical 3 attacker scenario, it takes 17 (or more) rounds to solidly hit three targets, presumably there are 13 rounds flying who knows where. I'm not sure that makes anyone safer.

0

PearlY 8 months ago

Since when does having 17 rounds mean you have to use them all? If six rounds takes care of the job, I can and would stop there. If six rounds doesn't take care of the job, you're effectively unarmed, while I've still got 11 rounds available.

And while I visit the range regularly and would hope to do better than missing 13 out of 17 shots if confronted by three attackers, I can't think of anything worse than leaving one, two or all three of them uninjured or lightly injured and me obviously out of bullets.

I use hollow-points for home defense, which reduces the risk that missed shots will go through several walls and end up in my neighbors' bedroom. I'll grant you that revolvers are more reliable than some semi-autos, but you can get very reliable semi-autos with no external safeties to worry about. I've put hundreds of rounds through my main home defense semi-auto with not a single jam (while I have another useless PO* .380 that jams at least once per magazine).

At least I gave you one sample. You haven't produced a single instance of neighbors or children being accidentally shot during a home defense against one or more intruders because the defender fired more than six or 10 rounds. Do you even know of one such instance? If not, how DID you make your decision?

Do you really think police officers switch to six-round revolvers for their own home defense? I doubt it. And their training somehow manages not to enable them to hit their target every time they shoot, anymore than anyone else. Based on studies done in NY and LA, police hit their intended target in actual shootings only around 30% of the time, and only about 18% of the time when the target is shooting back. You obviously think you're better than the average cop, and maybe you are. I'm not so sure about myself, so I prefer a little more capacity. There's probably only one of us, though, wanting to dictate to the other how much capacity we may have.

1

NewInWW 8 months ago

You appear to be incapable of discussing this topic without making it personal. I'll try to do better.

It seems silly to debate revolver versus semi-auto for home defense purposes here. People much more expert in the field than I, and likely you, see benefits to each: http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob97.html

We're on the same page with hollowpoints. I use Hydra-Shok's myself.

As for examples of harm to bystanders, I don't need an example. I have a mind, I understand the power of firearms, and can easily see the potential for harm to unintended targets. If you dismiss all of that for lack of an example, you're more cavalier about it that the home defense expert on the cited page, who is very much concerned about the possibility of harm to bystanders. Perhaps he's foolish to do so; but then again, maybe he's got a modicum of common sense as well.

1

PearlY 8 months ago

Hey, I came to political consciousness back when "The Personal is Poltitical" was the catch-phrase of the day! (Not that I thought it made much sense even then.) But I do think you are perhaps ignoring the beam in your own eye on that criticism.

You can easily see the potential for harm to unintended targets, and I've obviously given the matter some thought in my selection of ammo and in my stated intention not to shoot off all my available rounds UNLESS NEEDED. I can easily see the potential for harm to me, however, in having fewer rounds THAN NEEDED. You seem to be either denying that possibility or telling me to suck it up and take my punishment from home invaders if I need more than six rounds to chase them off or put them down. That seems a little cavalier on your part.

I offered you one example of a situation in which six rounds was barely adequate against one invader. You dismiss that as pointless to you, being only one example. It isn't pointless to me because, bringing it down to the personal, I can easily see myself in that woman's shoes. Likewise, while your concern about the increased danger to bystanders from a home defender having more than six or 10 rounds is theoretically valid, for all we both know it may be so rare an occurrence you wouldn't have been able to find an example if you looked.

In spite of your resistance to the personal entering into this discussion, it's possible our disagreement really stems from something as personal as temperament. I'm predisposed to have not just a Plan B but a Plan C, and hate to run out of anything, whether it's mayo, gas in my tank, or ammo in my magazine. You may be more of a happy-go-lucky guy. I'm not asking you to change; stick to your six-shooter if you want. Just don't ask me to change, either.

0

NewInWW 8 months ago

You are, once again, making unwarranted assumptions about my personality or planning. That said, for me, and many experts, the best home defense weapon is one the home owner feels most confident using.

0

PearlY 8 months ago

"May" is to "is" as "speculation" is to "assumption". I was speculating, not assuming.

But at least we agree on one thing!

Thanks for the Ayoob article; I always enjoy his explanations.

1

barracuda 7 months, 4 weeks ago

Where is the outrage over the poss. race component in this Latest Oklahoma shooting..... Three black young men... Shooting a white young man in the back.... Just because..............

2

Sign in to comment

4 free views left!