Friday letters
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Explore Park and the economy in today’s letters to the editor.
Pick of the day: Gun control does work
By failing to demand effective gun control, we have allowed Sandy Hook and other unthinkable tragedies to happen. Twenty children and teenagers die from gun violence every three days in the United States(http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/dataRestriction_inj.html). Gun violence is a pox, and we are scarred by every senseless death.
The argument that gun control doesn’t work is ludicrous because it works in other countries. Last fall, I spent three months in South Korea, where guns and other weapons are strictly controlled. Gun permits are available except to people under 20, convicted criminals and people with impaired mental capacity. Gun safety classes are required to get a permit. People who own a gun without a permit go to jail.
The rate of homicide by firearms in South Korea is more than 100 times lower than in the United States. I felt very safe in Seoul, a city with 20 million people and a density four times that of New York City.
We can try to figure out why we are so violent and how to improve our mental health services, but if we don’t control access to firearms, a lot of children and other innocent people are going to continue to die.
DIANA BURKE
ROANOKE
February 8, 2013 - 6:12 AM
Well said Diana Burke, I agree.
Ms Burke, would you feel safe walking around at night in Chicago or Washington D.C.? The gun laws in those cities are stricter than the ones in South Korea but they are both murder capitals of the world.
Right you are JimW, which proves that local or state gun laws are useless when they are not sealed up like a prison and can keep guns out. Excellent point!
If gun control works so well then why do those cities with the highest crime and murder rate ban guns. So what is the murder rate per capita in South Korea as compared to the US. All those gun free zones do is make it an open season for every mentally ill person and criminal to have an unimpeded target to choose from. Sorry but if gun control works so well then why are the thousands of gun regulation we have right now not working. By your logic there should not be a single murder on New York, Chicago, Los Angeles or even Washington DC but there are many. Even Joe Biden said that many of the proposals he has made will not prevent another massacre. so if they will not do what they are supposed to do or are said to do why implement them? There is NO PROOF that any more gun regulations will work any better than the ones already on the books. Try enforcing those before putting any more on the books that will only be used to suspend unarmed 5 year old playing in the playground from school. Diana Burke they do not work in this country.
So what is the bleeding heart’s solution to the 300 million guns already in US circulation? Confiscation?
Criminals will always get guns and will never register them. Gun laws only punish law abiding citizens, not criminals.
You can’t compare South Korean, Australian, European, etc. cultures to that of the US. We have a 300 year tradition of individual gun ownership the likes of which exists nowhere else in the world. Over 40% of the US population have a gun, I suspect during the entire history of the Korean peninsula going back hundreds of years, not even 1% of the inhabitants ever owned a gun.
Gun control laws do not work and the SCOTUS has ruled strict laws prohibiting gun ownership are unconstitutional. Enforce existing gun laws, stricter laws regarding crimes involving a gun, and forced institutionalization of the dangerously mentally ill will work.
I thank our Founding Fathers for the Bill of Rights, the main stumbling block in the way of a tyrannical government! Unfortunately our Constitution is under attack as never before.
3 so…we’re advocating making prisons of America’s cities? That’s pretty cynical.
All those gun rights do is make it easier for every mentally ill person and criminal to have an unimpeded market of guns to choose from.
If gun control did not work there would be machine gun mass shootings and gangs with RPG’s and grenades. Gun control does work but the gun rights advocates and the NRA make sure that the same pipeline that makes a law abiding gun owner able to freely access and purchase guns does the same for criminals. All we can do is wait for the carnage and look for the bad guys.
Part of the reason that many ask “are the thousands of gun regulation we have right now not working” is because the ATF has only had an “acting director” due to Congress’ incompetence for years and the NRA efforts to block effective law enforcement tools.
There is nothing that will prevent all violence but we have already proven that we can remove the worst and most damage inducing guns from our streets.
We already proved they work, and you have NEVER proved they don’t. When guns kill as many people as cars, and that IS the direction this is heading, sensible people see the need to start looking at universal background checks and stiffer penalties for straw purchases (which means gun tracking), and removing some of the most often used guns in such terror activity.
It is not true that “Gun laws only punish law abiding citizens”. Restrictions might take some time or effort but they do not “punish law abiding citizens”. No one is trying for “strict laws prohibiting gun ownership”! Even if every one of the guns in Feinstein’s bill were banned (and they won’t be), there would still be hundreds and hundreds of guns on the market for self-defense and ownership.
Stop playing the hyperbole and straw man games!
Stop misrepresenting what I have said 89Hoo!
No, the lack of machine guns and RPGs and the like is not due to any external controls, but because there is more value, to the average bad guy, in a cheap, disposable, easily concealed and easily operated handgun than in a weapon that is big, bulky, and that requires an ammunition loading system that is cumbersome and heavy. Most bad guys are more interested in the intimidation factor a gun provides – even a cheap Saturday night special – than in the actual harm it does.
But differently, a cheap Saturday night special has more value to the guy holding up a liquor store than a full-auto Uzi (is there such a thing as a full-auto Uzi?)
It’s more a matter of economics than of government regulations.
For those bad guys that DO want machine guns, that place the value the machine gun provides (to them) higher than the headache in using it, they can get them easily enough, in spite of the bans.
We have everyone of those laws already on the books that Mrs. Burk states except that age of 20, which you have to be 21 to buy a handgun. So not well said. Also her assumpition that crime goes down is totally false.
Austrialia’s crime rate went up and they are not the only one.
Like I said I am not against any back ground check, but those writing need to get the facts straight and give solutions, because no matter what you say. If a criminal wants to get ANY gun for ANY purpose it WILL happen.
No. 5, “So what is the bleeding heart’s solution to the 300 million guns already in US circulation? Confiscation?”
The first step is to *stop making it worse*. If we had done this many years ago when we first started to see the problems associated with a saturated market, we would be already miles ahead of where we are now.
Semiautomatic firearms should be completely outlawed for civilian use and should be confiscated (bought back). Handguns: Require them to be stored at a licensed shooting range. All other firearms (hunting rifles, shotguns) should be registered and only sold to those who can pass a safety test. Pay for all those costs with tax on ammo.
The solution is not to hire a million armed guards to cover every school, shopping mall, grocery store, movie theater, and college classroom building. The only reason for this proposal is because it means yet more gun sales and more profit to the gun industry.
And the reason NRA doesn’t want to make semi-automatic firearms illegal is only because they know their members won’t turn them in, and then they’ll no longer be able to make all those claims about their members being “law-abiding citizens”.
I thought Leonard Pitts’ essay yesterday got it right. Instead of fantasizing about what might happen (“tyranny” or home invasions by large gangs of armed robbers), we should be focusing on what actually does happen (endless gun violence).
If more guns and fewer restrictions is the answer, why isn’t this the safest place on Earth? If we’re protecting ourselves from a potential government Gestapo, who’s got the UAV, tank, and tactical nuclear weapons they have at their disposal? Oh, that’s right, if we all a Glock, ain’t no government gonna control us.
#11 So you are telling me in your second paragraph that I dont have the right to denfend my family with a handgun. That is a totally Hitler statement. So what should I do carry around my 30-06 on my shoulder in public. This is why we have a problem with anti-gun people. It comes down to confiscation. I will die first before I let someone take my best protection device for my family.
#11 3 paragraph.
and in your last statement,”endless gun violence” this is done by a criminal that will not heed any of your solutions.
12 – that’s the other half of the equation, a minimal standing army.
You are not protecting yourselves, you are fooling yourselves. Big difference.
Gun control is ABSOLUTELY why there are not machine guns in every gang and “tyranny fighting” militia group! Just like the proliferation of these AR-15 types of guns at any price, they would be just as hot a commodity and show up at mass shootings just as often, if they had been as easily available.
I get it that you believe that Hitler is coming again and headed straight for you (though he did not “take their guns”), do you get it that you are wrong? And as I already showed, the average right winger sounds more like Hitler than any liberal ever known to man.
Your rights are enabling the crazy people with guns. Period, end of story. That means that something has to give. It will. Maybe not now, but like all enlightenment, it eventually will sink in to enough sensible heads and this carnage will be slowed by comprehensive gun control. And law abiding citizens will still have their guns.
Yes #12 and #16, that is part of the equation, as is “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,”. Since we now HAVE a standing army and powerful law enforcement…
Sandi,
He stated hand guns.Should be locked up and off your person at all times except at a firing range. I never mention anything about ak47′s or ar15′s.
It just goes to show you that you give an inch(ak47′s, ar15′s) they want to take a mile(9mm,357,45).
Hitler did not confiscate the german population’s guns. I want to know who your history teacher is because(oh wait must be MSNBC) because thats exactly what happened.
17 – Maybe not now, but like all enlightenment, it eventually will sink in to enough sensible heads and this carnage will be slowed by comprehensive gun control.
hehe…you are a wonderful propagandist. Add this to the list.
MANDATORY IS VOLUNTARY!
TYRANNY IS ENLIGHTENMENT!
WAR IS PEACE!
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!
Orwell would be proud!
Sandi, I keep forgetting how effective the bans on illegal drugs are. Sure, they work like a charm.
I can assure you that anyone criminal who wants a machine gun can get one, even though they’re banned.
Hell, at a gun buyback in LA (and at one in Seattle) they had rocket launchers turned in, showing that someone got the darned things to begin with, even though they are banned. And with the buyback, the local governments provided a wonderful way to cover up a crime.
18 – militias and professional armies are not the same thing.
Guns are here to stay. No gun “control” law will ever change that.
3. LOL Sandie, Holder proved that we can’t even keep our guns INSIDE our border. So how do you propose we keep guns OUT of our border. The guns are here to stay no matter what. You’d be better off concentrating on the perp of gun crime, go back to that lost concept of personal responsibility.
25…oops, Sandi, not Sandie.
#24, that’s what supporters of Slavery said about their institution. Now, I’m not advocating for more and stronger “gun control” laws, but people need to be aware of the logical fallacies they are constructing around this issue. Just because an attitude or proclivity has been long accepted doesn’t mean it will always be valid or relevant. “Monarchies are here to stay” said many during the Age of Revolutions, until they were forcefully overthrown. “The White Male Power Structure is here to stay” said many until the passage of the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution. We, as a society, as a people, and as a species, are supposed to be constantly growing, learning from past mistakes, and evolving, not clinging to what become obviously antiquated customs.
I am NOT saying all guns should go away (through government seizure or any other means). However, there is no logical justification for civilians in possession of what are, in essence, military hardware. Every Constitutional Amendment that guarantees citizens specific rights has limitations and restrictions; why should the 2nd Amendment be any different?
Have an excellent Friday afternoon, Sir.
Lets tick off the farmers and get rid of fertilizer, God knows how many bombs can be made of that, oh and nails so we dont have any pipe bombs,
see a weapon can be made of anything, shall we revisit OKC.
Herb, addressing me about comments someone else makes is not going to gain a reply.
89Hoo, I say what I believe and sign my name to it. It is no more propaganda than what you offer IMO.
No JimW, guns are not going anywhere. Regardless of whatever gun control happens, guns are a right and they are here to stay. I have no quarrel with that unless someone decides to use a gun to kill others. Until there is some “test” for that, we will have imperfect laws that not everyone obeys. Kinda like we always have.
If the only reason to do anything was if it was a perfect solution, we would never do anything.
89Hoo, I am well aware that “militias and professional armies are not the same thing”.
#28, that is the type of logical fallacy I referred to in a previous post, it’s known as a “slippery slope argument.” Fertilizer and nails have other, primary purposes. Guns are made to kill; that is there primary purpose. And, as it seems you’ve missed the point of the posts re: this issue, the conversation isn’t about banning all guns (“get rid of fertilizer” which by implication means all fertilizer sales). I believe that after the Oklahoma City bombing, the sale of large amounts of certain kinds of fertilizer was monitored more closely…
Herb, this is for you:
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/
“Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.”
http://www.policymic.com/articles/22692/hitler-gun-control-facts-u-s-pro-gun-advocates-have-more-in-common-with-hitler-than-they-think
“Hitler did have a gun control policy (and one that read almost like the Feinstein bill does today), but that policy was an extension of post-World War I gun control measures set on Germany by the Allies to keep Germany from militarizing itself.”
That was BEFORE Hitler
“ The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law in Germany, superseded a 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit.” Under the new law, gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition.”
http://propagandaprofessor.net/2011/09/26/the-myth-of-hitlers-gun-ban/
“if one reads the Nazi gun laws closely and compares them to earlier
German gun legislation, as a straightforward exercise in statutory interpretation, several conclusions become clear. First, the Nazi regime reenacted in 1938 strict gun control laws and regulations that required licensing and reporting for the acquisition, transfer, or carrying of handguns, and for dealing and manufacturing in firearms and ammunition.78
In this respect, the Nazis had in place stringent gun regulation, including strict reporting requirements. Second, the Nazi gun laws of 1938 specifically banned Jewish persons from obtaining a license to manufacture firearms or ammunition. In this respect, the Nazi gun laws were more restrictive than those under the Weimar Republic. Third, with regard
to possession and carrying of firearms, the Nazi regime relaxed the gun laws that were in place in Germany at the time the Nazis seized power. The Nazi gun laws of 1938 reflect a liberalization of the gun control measures that had been enacted by the Weimar Republic with respect to the acquisition, transfer, and carrying of firearms. In this regard,
Hitler appears to have been more pro-gun than the predecessor Weimar Republic. Four, approximately eight months after enacting the 1938 Nazi gun laws, Hitler imposed regulations prohibiting Jewish persons from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms. The Nazi regime implemented this prohibition by confiscating weapons, including guns, from Jewish persons, and subsequently engaged in genocide of the Jewish population.”
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/67-harcourt.pdf
THAT is my “history teacher”. The facts.
This book has been widely recommended too.
http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Third-Reich-History/dp/1451651686
Sandi, you made my point Hitler banned dangerous weapons from the very people that were a danger to his regime and the extermination on the Jewish people. Imo that same mind thought of this president
#30 guns are made to kill for food and protect against nut cases like Sandi hook and Colorado. I guess if you had your way the mother of 2 little girls in GA. Would be dead along with her blecause her hand gun was locked up at a firing range instead of in her hand for protection.
Like I said before, I am all for background checks but the 2nd amendment doesn’t say you can ARM with this but not with that. It states right to bear arms not certain ones. It also mentions a free state which means a State not a country.
All of you bleeding heart gun haters should review the SCOTUS decision in DC v. Heller.
The SCOTUS ruled that Americans have a right to own guns! Surprise! Surprise!
The court’s ruling struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment.
The amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia. The court ruled in favor of the individual. Thank God!
This Supreme Court ruling declares that this right, like other rights in the Constitution, while not absolute, cannot be infringed. Bad news for the bleeding hearts!
Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia said that an individual’s right to bear arms is supported by “the historical narrative” both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
The Constitution does not permit “the absolute prohibition of handguns [semi-automatic or otherwise] held and used for self-defense in the home…” Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington’s requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or be kept disassembled.
Thank God for the Bill of Rights which still protects our freedoms from the bleeding hearts!
I love it when the bleeding hearts lose!
No Herb, I did not make your point. Guns were ALREADY banned Herb! Hitler kept the ban for the “undesirables” but he did not confiscate all the guns of the “good” people of Germany who COULD have “fought” his “tyranny”. They didn’t Herb, they joined it!
The Jews (and disabled and Gypsies) were the minority, them having guns would not have saved them. You do not get it because you do not want to get it. I am certainly used to that mentality. But you are denying proven facts not my opinion.
You can claim a non-existent comparison with President Obama and show your lack of faith in the Constitution and your fellow Americans as you like, that is the beauty of the First Amendment. It does not make you right. Nothing can.
The Second Amendment also doesn’t say you cannot regulate against some “arms”. It states “right to bear arms” not right to bear any arms you want. It also mentions “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” not just a free state. What does “well regulated” mean to you?
John R, we are not trying to take away Americans right to own guns. We are well aware of the SC rulings and the fact that they did NOT say that some guns could not be banned, only that ALL guns cannot be banned. Check it out.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-liberals-should-thank-justice-scalia-for-gun-control-20130119
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.“
President Obama could have banned “assault weapons” with his signature. The fact that he punted to a do-nothing Congress is telling.
No. 13, “So you are telling me in your second paragraph that I dont have the right to defend my family with a handgun.”
Yes that’s right. I advocate repealing the Second Amendment. If it can’t be fixed or at least interpreted in a modern context, then it needs to be removed.
I would argue that it should not be necessary, and in fact they are used for this purpose relatively rarely (I didn’t say “not at all”, so spare me the web sites where these events are listed), and there are plenty of countries where handguns are illegal and where gun violence is less. There are a lot of people going around saying, “nobody wants to take your guns,” but I’m not one of them. I think the guns (anything semiautomatic and anything readily concealable) should be rounded up and melted down.
#33, John, the fact that you feel it necessary to resort to (what you think are) derogatory terms for those you think are in any way opposed to your view point is indicative of your intellectual capacity to engage in rational dialog. Why not let your points of critique stand on their own (presumed) merit rather than resort to “name calling”?
I’d rather have a bleeding heart than no heart at all.
There’s a lot of people going around saying they want gun control but they’re not interested in confiscation. Well, I’m not one of them. I’m in favor of the repeal of the second amendment. Either the 2A can be fixed or interpreted in a modern context (which seems impossible), or it should be repealed (which might be impossible too, but I’m still allowed to want it).
No. 13 “So you are telling me in your second paragraph that I dont have the right to denfend my family with a handgun.” Yes I would say that’s the best solution. Get rid of the semi-automatics and the handguns, and you can “defend your family” with a shotgun or your 30-06. I’d actually like to see us work toward a society where we don’t NEED to be walking around with handguns to defend ourselves. The first step is to make them illegal.
The Dems don’t like guys like me because I’m a fringe element who erodes their argument that “nobody wants to take your guns.” Sorry. I say round ‘em up and melt ‘em down.
Sorry about the double post … it took over a half hour for my first one to “register” on the site.
Name Withheld, you are as entitled to your opinion as any one of us, but in all honesty, when I say “nobody wants to take your guns”, I am saying legislatively. I am well aware that there are folks who feel like you do. If it would bring back one precious soul killed with a gun or prevent one from being taken in the future, I would agree with you. However, I know better.
Do you want a clarification rewrite on your post #41 Sandi? Lest anyone be perceived as twisting your words?
#36 “President Obama could have banned “assault weapons” with his signature.”
Mr. Hill, please explain that procedure.
#38 e william, As my original response to your reference to my “intellectual capacity ” was censored, just let me say it is not your approval I seek nor have I been impressed with the level of dialog on this blog in the past.
I can’t count the times the libs on this blog will point to my miss spellings, typos, etc., rather than engage in any real “dialog” as you call it.
After two months away from this blog while recovering from surgery, my return posting recently was greeted with derision totally unrelated to my remarks which contained no “name calling” as you describe.
Enough said lest this response be censored as well!
#41 I’m sure there was a time when people thought the emancipation of slaves was “legislatively impossible”, or that segregation would never end, or that women would never vote, or that constitutional amendments could never be repealed. All these things have been proven wrong and it’s because there was a small but growing number of people who were willing to say, “This is not right.” Let us see what the future holds, and let us see who is on the right side of history.
John R, so you meant “Bleeding heart” as a compliment?
Further, “it is not your approval I seek” well then, sir, mission accomplished. “nor have I been impressed with the level of dialog on this blog in the past” then perhaps you should attempt to set the standard you seek, rather than engage in name calling and vitriol.
In the meantime, heal quickly, Sir, and enjoy the day.
45 – I’m sure there was a time when people thought the emancipation of slaves was “legislatively impossible”, or that segregation would never end, or that women would never vote, or that constitutional amendments could never be repealed…
I get your point – and you’re right – but as to your last (the emboldened portion), I would point out that the Founding Fathers DID provide mechanisms to repeal amendments, specifically the very same process to add amendments.
The exception is the Bill of Rights, which do not grant rights to citizens – such as suffrage for women – but limits the ability of the government to infringe on pre-existing rights (those enumerated in the Bill of Rights). Since those rights pre-date the Constitution, since they exist irrespective of the Constitution, no amendment or act of Congress can ever repeal those rights.
Mr. Hill, please sir….the prodedure?