Letter - Guns are inanimate objects

Advertisement

I am a certified NRA instructor, range safety officer and the facilitator of the Walla Walla Chapter of A Girl and A Gun Women’s Shooting League. “My Safety, My Choice — If I fall down, I don’t wait for someone to pick me up. If I’m hungry, I feed myself. If I’m in danger, I’ll protect myself. It’s my life to defend.”

I have the right to carry a gun. Waiting for response from authorities is not always practical.

The Santa Barbara shooter’s parents had him in therapy, and his mother had called authorities twice after seeing his violent rants online. Her last effort to intervene came on Friday night, after she went to her son’s YouTube channel and found a disturbing video.

She called police, and both parents raced to Santa Barbara, but arrived after the bloody spree had ended.

There were so many signs of what his intentions were, yet no one intervened. In this case, three of the victims were stabbed, yet no one is calling for a ban on knives or blaming the manufacturers of the knives.

To say college students having a party, and assume they are drinking and doing drugs, are going to shoot someone because of something that is said or done is a scenario. If that’s the case, then alcohol consumption and drug use should be addressed, not whether or not they are allowed to have guns on campus.

There are a variety of things that can be used to kill someone if you are intent on doing such a thing, not just guns. It’s foolish to think that it’s the “gun” causing the deaths.

It can’t load itself, it can’t pull the trigger. It is a totally inanimate object. It takes a person to do this. Banning guns is not the answer.

Stacy Alexander

Walla Walla

Comments

chicoli 6 months, 1 week ago

Stacy, no one is proposing BANNING guns. What we "leftist" are proposing is taking guns away from mentally unstable people, spouse abusers, alcohol and drug addicts, felons with violent records, and from people with proven impulsive rage. For this we need evidence base information, and is reasonable to ask for the NRA and its members to cooperate in coming up with a plan for such. Moreover, if a good guy with a gun turns into a drug addict, his gun needs to be removed. An "inanimate object" like a gun, in the hands of a spouse abuser is a potential murderer!

About the concept of inanimate object is really childish. All those unstable people I mentioned above can load, handle and pull the trigger of very dangerous weapons. Please remember that a military tank, a bazooka, a RPG are all inanimate objects, my friend! Do we want these things around our community? After all they are inanimate objects!

1

PearlY 6 months, 1 week ago

"What we "leftist" are proposing is taking guns away from mentally unstable people, spouse abusers, alcohol and drug addicts, felons with violent records, and from people with proven impulsive rage."

No, Paco, that's not what you're proposing, because those laws already exist, and the leftists currently in charge of enforcing them don't seem very interested in doing so. What they want is to go after the people who are none of those things, and make gun ownership more expensive, more inconvenient, more legally dangerous for us - like the poor man in DC with NO criminal record or mental health issues who was prosecuted for possessing an empty shotgun shell and 25 inert bullets (inert because they lacked primers and therefore couldn't be fired except in antique muzzleloaders, which he did NOT possess). He now has a criminal record, must register as a "firearms offender" and had thousands in legal fees to pay.

YOU may not want to ban guns (although everything you've written suggests otherwise) but many in the gun-control movement have made it crystal clear that they would like to and are doing what they can to move us in that direction, so please stop with the "no one is proposing banning guns" fib. It's beneath you.

3

salexander 6 months, 1 week ago

Pretty much the things you addressed are already in place: 'As a general proposition, there is a bright line rule (black and white) under federal law that prohibits any person convicted of a felony from purchasing or possessing any type of firearm. While there is a provision of federal law that would allow certain felons to have their rights to purchase and possess firearms restored, Congress has not funded his provision of the law. As such, ATF has no ability to use this legal mechanism.

Over the few decades state and federal penal laws have proliferated, and a whole class of crimes heretofore that were not felonies now fall into this class. There are pervasive arguments advanced for allowing non-violent felons to have their firearms rights restored. However, outside a pardon, these positions have yet to gain legal traction and be implemented.

In addition, under the Brady law, a person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence is also so prohibited from purchasing, possessing and/or carrying firearms. State and federal law does not differentiated between handguns and long guns. This distinction generally applies to a person who must have a license to carry a handgun.

There are a number of other categories of people who are prohibited possessors, such as persons dishonorably discharged or adjudicated mentally defective. ' 'attorney Bryan L. Ciyou, Ciyou & Dixon, P.C., Indianapolis, Indiana'

This is my point. There are already laws on the books. They need to be enforced. Period.

1

fatherof5 6 months, 1 week ago

"If I fall down, I don’t wait for someone to pick me up. If I’m hungry, I feed myself. If I’m in danger, I’ll protect myself."

When I read this, I think, God forbid something ever happen in your life that makes you vulnerable. The loss of a job, a bankruptcy due to a health crisis, the loss of family members or some debilitating disease. Sometimes people need a helping hand. The Bible is full of charity and there is no shame it in, only compassion. We all need help at some point in our lives.

As for the main point of the letter, chicoli's response above is well said. No one is proposing banning guns. It is a strawman argument.

1

NewInWW 6 months, 1 week ago

I've noticed that no one on the side of "guns everywhere, all the time" has weighed in on the SPU volunteer security guard who was able to tackle the shooter when he had to reload after 4 rounds.

Tell me again why magazine capacity doesn't matter in these situations. I may have missed it.

3

barracuda 6 months, 1 week ago

NewinWW....

Watch these small video's on you-tube.

It shows that with practice, reloading can be done in a very short period of time, that is if you have time to practice this procedure.

Most of us don't have the money or time to gain this precision timing. So a bigger magazine is attractive!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUqaXjnRUBc

0

PearlY 6 months, 1 week ago

Not to mention that if magazine capacity is reduced, a lot of people trying to defend themselves will find it's their attackers who have a chance to tackle them while they try to reload. And who, waking up from sleep to confront an intruder, is likely to grab an extra magazine or two along with their firearm?

In case you want to know how many rounds it can take to defend yourself, consider the Georgia lady who hid with her two young children after an intruder broke into her house. When he opened the closet door where they were hiding, she emptied her .38 revolver (six rounds) hitting him five times and managed to get away with her kids. Meanwhile, the intruder was able to get out to his car, though he crashed not far away (thankfully not hurting anyone in the process). He survived. Thankfully, he was sufficiently disconcerted by five rounds to allow them to escape and thankfully he was alone. Otherwise that woman and her children might well be dead. But that would merely be collateral damage to the gun-control crowd.

2

NewInWW 6 months, 1 week ago

"But that would merely be collateral damage to the gun-control crowd."

True, there's nothing that pleases the gun control crowd more than innocent lives lost.

By the way, how does a story about a woman who successfully defended herself with a six shot revolver in any way justify large capacity magazines?

1

PearlY 6 months, 1 week ago

If you can't figure it out from the story, you're being willfully obtuse. As usual.

2

salexander 6 months, 1 week ago

There is yet another example of a man who defended his family against someone who broke into their home. Used his 6 shots, wounding/killing him, only to have another coming in the house the other way. Now his gun is out of ammo and that leaves him and his family in harms way...

0

PearlY 6 months, 1 week ago

The "no one is proposing banning guns" fib is WAY beneath you, fatherof5.

2

fatherof5 6 months, 1 week ago

To clarify, no one I know of with the power to do anything about it is proposing banning the kinds of guns that civilians traditionally own. All of the recent serious national proposals for gun control have supported the 2nd Amendment and have only sought to curb the proliferation of military-style weapons and ammo, particularly among those who have forfeited their right to own them. How's that?

This letter concludes with "banning guns is not the answer." I see that as a strawman argument that causes folks to get riled up against enemies of the 2nd Amendment who largely do not exist.

0

PearlY 6 months, 1 week ago

You are ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court, with just one (1) more Obama appointee, whom you would have favored, would have maintained the DC ban on just about everything. Not exactly a pro-Second Amendment position. Please don't pretend it is.

People should get riled up as much as possible against enemies of the 2nd Amendment, who currently control the Democratic Party and exist in substantial numbers.

1

salexander 6 months, 1 week ago

What is the definition of 'military style weapons and ammo' ?

0

PearlY 6 months, 1 week ago

On weapons, it's anything that looks scary, has been used in a Bruce Willis movie, or has lots of gadgets on it that people don't understand. On ammo - who the heck knows?

0

salexander 6 months, 1 week ago

Assault is an action, not an object

0

fatherof5 6 months, 1 week ago

Let's put it this way, if you can kill 30 people in 30 seconds, then it isn't for hunting or self-defense. It is for military use.

0

salexander 6 months, 1 week ago

An AR is a rifle just as a .223 is a rifle just as a 10/22 is a rifle. They can be used for hunting, self-defense, target shooting, competition, varmints and plinking. I have fired them, know what they can do and frankly they are a lot of fun to shoot. ANY thing in the wrong hands can be dangerous...gun violence has less to do with guns more about the people who use them for such things.

1

fatherof5 6 months, 1 week ago

Yes, but when the wrong weapons get in the wrong hands, which they clearly do, the result is the deaths of many innocent lives. This is also why there is an effort to regulate gun sales to the best extent possible to responsible citizens like yourself.

0

salexander 6 months, 1 week ago

wrong weapons in wrong hands. Knives, cars, vases? Anything can be used as a weapon. As far as regulating gun sales, there are numerous things in place, back ground checks, laws as to who can and cannot purchase, etc. I know that if you pawn your gun, when you go to pick it up, you have to pass the background check. If you don't, you don't get it back. More is not what we need. Common sense is what we need. How many of the shootings have taken place in a 'gun free' zone? There are some of these people that would have or did pass all the background checks, etc. If people are intent on killing, they will find a weapon and do it.

1

salexander 6 months, 1 week ago


12 shots in under 3 seconds with a single reload...on target. Does this make a Smith and Wesson revolver one for military use? He and his entire family are competitive shooters and hold many records...

2

PearlY 6 months, 1 week ago

Maybe YOU can kill 30 people in 30 seconds with a 30-round magazine, but I'm pretty sure that would make you a uniquely skilled individual, unless you could get them to line up in rows for you and stand still.

I have a 17-round pistol. I figure it's barely enough if two to three home invaders kicked in my door, assuming I had it loaded with HP and none of them were too fat, muscular or hyped on drugs. You may disagree with me, but can you PROVE I'm wrong? If not, shouldn't the decision on how I protect myself be mine?

1

PearlY 6 months, 1 week ago

fatherof5, do you understand that the Washington DC city government used to, for all practical purposes, ban guns and still would like to? And do you understand that four out of nine of our Supreme Court Justices found that to be just fine and our current President agreed with them? How can you keep on repeating the "no one is proposing banning guns" claim with a straight face? It's a lie and if you don't know it it's only because you haven't bothered to think about it for 10 seconds.

1

salexander 6 months, 1 week ago

I have experienced some of those things you mentioned, including holding my mother's hand as she took her last breath. If my family or I am in danger, I don't intend to wait an extensive amount of time waiting for the authorities to get there. Sometimes you have seconds to react when 'help' is minutes away.

And I think if you look into it, you will see that there are those that would like to 'ban' guns...I don't think it's a stretch to think that is the goal.

0

namvet60 6 months, 1 week ago

fatherof5 - I'm not sure if I read your post correctly? Are you saying that there is something wrong with a positive, strong, independent person who demands to stand on there own two feet? Not everyone is going to pull themselves into a cocoon just because they are afraid something might happen. I believe Ms Alexander is doing quite well for herself and all the more power to her in her future endeavors.

This post is in response to your post way up yonder. :)

0

pdywgn 6 months, 1 week ago

Ybarra was involuntarily committed on two separate occassions at Swedish Hospital in Seattle. Jon Meis did a great job in a very bad situation. Just a quick questions for the posters on here. If Jon Meis had a firearm would he have been justified in shooting Ybarra while he was in the process of reloading or would he have had to use the pepper spray and tackle Ybarra?

0

fatherof5 6 months, 1 week ago

Yes, Meis would have been justified. No one I know would argue otherwise. But Meis wouldn't have needed a machine gun or a 30-round clip to take the shooter down, and presumably he could have passed a background check. Thankfully, the shooter didn't have a 30-round clip or more students would probably be dead.

1

PearlY 6 months, 1 week ago

Even passing a background check wouldn't have authorized him to carry a firearm on the SPU campus. That's a "gun-free zone" AKA "shoot-at-will zone".

Don't you ever read the articles about how many rounds police often discharge when they find themselves in a shoot-out with an armed (or the occasional unarmed) suspect? Do you notice them confining themselves to one responder shooting only two or three rounds? If police who, at least in theory, practice regularly with their firearms and are knowledgeable about the effects of hits don't think it's wise to limit themselves, why should I?

Is there a 30-round clip available for shotguns?

3

barracuda 6 months, 1 week ago

What if Meis was 25" farther away from Ybarra? Would he still be a hero?

Based on the story, no.... He would have most likely been a statistic!

He was at the right place/time and did an incredibly brave thing!

1

jubilado 6 months, 1 week ago

Stacy--As several people have pointed out no one is asking to ban guns. They banned handguns in D.C. and the Supreme Court (District of Columbia v Heller) said that city ordinance was not legal, that it violated 2nd Amendment guarantees. However, in a dicta the court said: "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."[46]

Second Amendment purists do not do themselves any favors with statements which say "they" (whoever they are) are trying to ban guns or actions like taking AR-15's into restaurants, both of which hurts your cause.

0

PearlY 6 months, 1 week ago

jubilado, the Heller decision was 5-4, meaning that four Justices voted that the ban was legal. Do NOT pretend that if Obama appoints a Justice to replace one of the five, the next vote will be 5-4 to ban them. So much for the "no one wants to ban them" lie.

3

PearlY 6 months, 1 week ago

Obviously, I meant to say, "Do NOT pretend that if Obama appoints a Justice to replace one of the five, the next vote will not be 5-4 to ban them."

2

chicoli 6 months, 1 week ago

Well, Pearl, this is the AMWAY. Even if the second amendment is given the original intent interpretation, there will be guns around for ever, hopefully in good hands, like yours. In Israel (a Country at war) and in Switzerland there are more guns per capita than here, but are scrupulously kept in safe hands by sensible laws. They don't have the equivalent of the second amendment, and they have a fraction of gun fatalities when compare to ours.

After all we do not need a second amendment for every piece of property we own

0

salexander 6 months, 1 week ago

1 Over the past 20 years, gun sales have absolutely exploded, but homicides with firearms are down 39 percent during that time and “other crimes with firearms” are down 69 percent.

2 A study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy discovered that nations that have more guns tend to have less crime.

3 The nine European nations with the lowest rate of gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times greater than the nine European nation with the highest rate of gun ownership.

4 Almost every mass shooting that has occurred in the United States since 1950 has taken place in a state with strict gun control laws…

With just one exception, every public mass shooting in the USA since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns. Despite strict gun regulations, Europe has had three of the worst six school shootings.

5 The United States is #1 in the world in gun ownership, and yet it is only 28th in the world in gun murders per 100,000 people.

6 The violent crime rate in the United States actually fell from 757.7 per 100,000 in 1992 to 386.3 per 100,000 in 2011. During that same time period, the murder rate fell from 9.3 per 100,000 to 4.7 per 100,000.

7 Approximately 200,000 women in the United States use guns to protect themselves against sexual crime every single year.

8 Overall, guns in the United States are used 80 times more often to prevent crime than they are to take lives.

9 The number of unintentional fatalities due to firearms declined by 58 percent between 1991 and 2011.

2

salexander 6 months, 1 week ago

10 Despite the very strict ban on guns in the UK, the overall rate of violent crime in the UK is about 4 times higher than it is in the United States. In one recent year, there were 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the UK. In the United States, there were only 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people during that same year. Do we really want to be more like the UK?

11 The UK has approximately 125 percent more rape victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does.

12 The UK has approximately 133 percent more assault victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does.

13 The UK has the fourth highest burglary rate in the EU.

14 The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.

15 Down in Australia, gun murders increased by about 19 percent and armed robberies increased by about 69 percent after a gun ban was instituted.

16 The city of Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States. So has this reduced crime? Of course not. As I wrote about recently, the murder rate in Chicago was about 17 percent higher in 2012 than it was in 2011, and Chicago is now considered to be “the deadliest global city“. If you can believe it, there were about as many murders in Chicago during 2012 as there was in the entire nation of Japan.

17 After the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring every home to have a gun, the crime rate dropped by more than 50 percent over the course of the next 23 years and there was an 89% decline in burglaries.

18 According to Gun Owners of America, the governments of the world slaughtered more than 170 million of their own people during the 20th century. The vast majority of those people had been disarmed by their own governments prior to being slaughtered.

Sadly, you rarely hear any facts like these on the mainstream news networks. Instead, they give countless amounts of air time to the radicals that are obsessed with gun control.

And did you know that there is now an official propaganda manual that has been put out for gun control advocates? This manual actually encourages gun control advocates to emotionally exploit major shooting incidents to advance the cause of gun control…

Democratic strategists have drafted a how-to manual on manipulating the public’s emotions toward gun control in the aftermath of a major shooting.

“A high-profile gun-violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence,” asserts the guide. “We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence.”
1

PearlY 6 months, 1 week ago

As I've pointed out before, when you say someone has "a fraction of gun fatalities when compared to ours" you are being deceptive. "Our" gun fatality rates are vastly different if you're talking about Detroit or Chicago versus Provo or Montpelier. If you want to tackle gun violence, then you have to understand what makes for that difference. You don't have to make it harder for people in Provo or Montpelier to access guns, you have to figure out why some of the people of Detroit or Chicago (because even there, it's not ALL the people) are so inclined to be violent, whether with guns or knives or fists.

1

chicoli 6 months, 1 week ago

Pearl, two of Bundy's "patriots" open-carried assault weapons into a Las Vegas pizza parlor. Customers believed these are two good guys with guns open-carrying . Another two real good guys with guns (police officers) are peacefully eating lunch.

You guess it, the two good guys with guns were brutally killed by Clive Bundy's protégés. I ask again, how can you tell that open-carrying guys are good guys with guns?

About a month ago Republican politicians in Washington were calling those guys "patriots" because they were defending deadbeat Clive Bundy's "territory". How many more "good guys with guns" are still there? Right wing extremist pundits continue to inflame these dangerous people by promoting "war" to the US Government with deluded paranoid rhetoric such as the proverbial black helicopters coming to take your weapons away.

Pearl, all of us need to help in stopping this madness. Let's learn from other countries who have the same incidence of mental illness and deranged people we do have, but have learned to keep weapons away from them! I will do my part in counseling families and help patients from a preventive, public health point of view as it relates to access to the dangers of weapons. But we in the medical field need the NRA off our backs, please! You people, good republicans , need to help for the sake of the lives of innocent American citizens.

0

PearlY 6 months, 1 week ago

Paco, you're in such a rush to demonize and slander everybody you disagree with you don't bother to check the facts. According to the news reports, the Las Vegas shooters were KICKED OFF the Bundy Ranch. And I don't remember reading of ANY Republican politicians in Washington calling the Bundy protestors "patriots." Do you KNOW that to be true, or are you just throwing accusations around? Shame on you.

Why don't you take your plea to Eric Holder and his Department of Justice and to Obama and his Administration, who are basically refusing to enforce the gun laws we already have?

Why don't you take your plea to Obama's former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, now Mayor of Chicago, who spends his time trying to take guns out of the hands of suburban housewives and hard-working plumbers, and can't be bothered to crack down on the gangs that shoot hundreds of people every year with illegally acquired guns.

The NRA has already been there ahead of you, but Democrats control Chicago, Detroit, DC, Philadelphia, Memphis and all the other hell-holes where the vast majority of gun violence happens. And liberal Democrats aren't interested in actually "stopping this madness."

2

salexander 6 months, 1 week ago

There are plenty of rules and regulations on the books. If people would research, they'd see. Adding more regulations will not fix the problem. It's just going to make it more difficult for 'normal' people to purchase guns.

"...For example, according to the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the total number of deaths related to automobiles in 2009 was 34,485. In other words, more people died via automobiles in 2009 alone than died in gun-related deaths for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007 combined.

Moreover, according to the CDC, more people died from falls in 2009 alone than died in gun-related deaths for the years 2009, 2010, and most of 2011 combined. (Total number of deaths via falls in 2009 was 24,792.)

The bottom line: Driving down the interstate and climbing rocks and ladders is exceedingly dangerous when compared with owning and using handguns, shotguns, and rifles. ..." AWR Hawkins

0

namvet60 6 months, 1 week ago

paco - do you ever post a factual comment instead of a fabricated fantasy version? Your whole comment is bogus.

"I will do my part in counseling families and help patients from a preventive, public health point of view as it relates to access to the dangers of weapons. But we in the medical field need the NRA off our backs, please!"

That sentence in itself is a joke. To have you counsel someone would be the most devastating day of there life. To subject a person to un-necessary abuse is called medical inflicted torture.

2

Sign in to comment

Click here to sign in