0

LETTERS: Disarming citizens not the answer

Disarming citizens not the answer

How appropriate that the headline in the Jan. 17 paper read "Obama unveils plan for gun violence." This is exactly what will happen if the

administration achieves its goal of disarming law-abiding citizens.

If lunatics find it so easy to kill people in "gun-free zones" today, imagine the freedom they will have when they know that most of the

country has become gun-free and that they, the bad guys, are the only ones armed. Criminals will attack when they believe police are not

around, and in those cases the armed citizen needs to be the first responder.

David Hancock

Suwanee

Comments

Jan 1 year, 10 months ago

Obviously, David, you do not like facts. No one is proposing disarming citizens. No one would even seriously believe it was possible to disarm the mentally ill or criminal element. What is being proposed is ways to reduce gun violence by making it more difficult to have weapons specifically designed for the purpose of killing, especially if you are mentally ill, a felon or a terrorists. Shouldn't you be on the no gun allowed list if you are on the no fly list? Do you want this person as your neighbor to get weapons? He did legally buy guns! Even with the improvements to the background check, he would be able to buy guns at gun shows unless Congress plugs that loophole. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/21/christian-oberender-convicted-killer-gun-permit-arsenal-weapons_n_2517064.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

0

JV 1 year, 10 months ago

Biased anecdotal evidence.

1

news2me 1 year, 10 months ago

huffpo = biased anecdotal evidence

Jan ... Say_that_again ?

1

Jan 1 year, 10 months ago

Yes, this is biased and anecdotal. It does provide strong evidence that the background database needs strengthening. I noticed your avoidance of the question:

Shouldn't you be on the no gun allowed list if you are on the no fly list?

Currently, the no fly list of potential terrorists is not a part of the background check database.

0

notblind 1 year, 10 months ago

The libs have figured out that they can't "outlaw" guns in one fell swoop so they now are taking an incremental approach. Anyone saying otherwise is an outright liar. Chicago, DC, NY, etc have the laws that libs dream of. Notice that all these places have outrageous murder rates.

0

JV 1 year, 10 months ago

The Huffpo article provided is a prime example of how the left wing liberal media is now demonizing the background checks as ineffective. And therefore since they are ineffective, guns should just be outlawed for everyone. Thus disarming the people which is what this whole excercise is really all about. I believe that was part of Mr. Hancocks point.

1

Jan 1 year, 10 months ago

While your analysis is only repetition of the NRA erroneous propaganda. I suggest that anyone that thinks you are correct to read the article and discover the truth. To claim that efforts at control is only a desire to take away guns is the same as claiming that attempts to have speed limits decreased and vehicle weight limits in a neighborhood is only a step toward banning all vehicles in your neighborhood. How can anyone take such an argument seriously?

0

JV 1 year, 10 months ago

The Huffington Post is a leftist website created by gadfly and former Republican Arianna Huffington. The site is an extremist liberal mouthpiece. The Huffington Post calls itself an internet newspaper of blogs, news and video but often is referred to as a hate site where its one-sided news cannot be trusted. They smear conservatives daily, while whitewashing and defending liberals.

Their website's audience is largely composed of liberals, mirroring the values of most of the editors and contributors. Like virtually all internet sites, its comment section is often filled with offensive or vitriolic remarks; for example, numerous commenters insulted the marines who gave their lives in Iraq, comparing their heroic actions to those of terrorists. The site also frequently covers lewd or pornographic topics without regards to what children who visit might see.

1

notblind 1 year, 10 months ago

I keep waiting for someone to give me a rational explanation about why strict gun control laws in Chicago, NY, DC, California, Mexico, Russia, etc have not resulted in a low murder rate.

1

Jan 1 year, 10 months ago

It has been explained before. First, murder rates have been lowered in most of these, I did not check all of them. Second, guns are not the only element that causes an increase in murder rates. Third, the effectiveness of gun laws is related to enforcement and ease of evading regulations by bringing guns in from neighboring states with that allow easy access to guns. Fourth, with better regulation and education in proper use, we will also see a reduction in gun accidents, which account for a significant number of gun deaths.

0

LilburnsFuture 1 year, 10 months ago

While I understand your logic, the fourth is not valid. Better regulation will not have an impact on gun accidents. Gun accidents occur on the first shot, not the 8th, 9th, or 10th bullet based on the proposed reduction of magazine sizes. Furthermore, often times those significant number occur not because the magazine is empty but because there is still a round in the chamber (which again, has nothing to do with magazine size).

0

Jan 1 year, 10 months ago

While I do agree that limiting clip size will not reduce accidents, it should be obvious that improving education on gun safety will reduce accidents, which you should note was included above. Also, many of these accidents do occur in households where the gun owner could not have passed a background check. No gun, no gun accident. Add to that the fact that assault weapons typically are of higher power and more likely to pass through walls, even into neighboring houses, thus increasing the chance of someone in the way of the bullet.

0

LilburnsFuture 1 year, 10 months ago

Jan. Stay focused. You are going off on a tangent with all these hypotheticals. Since we are going off on a tangent. I believe some are waiting to hear from you about the Gwinnett Middle school where the child wants to hurt 14 students but without a gun. I believe 14 would constitute mass incidents.

1

Jan 1 year, 10 months ago

Strange, you accuse me of getting off target then question my decision not to comment on a different article where we lack so much essential information.

0

LilburnsFuture 1 year, 10 months ago

It didn't stop you from commenting on Sandy Hook when there was still much essential information lacking. So, I equally find the reply as strange.

0

LilburnsFuture 1 year, 10 months ago

Allow me to highlight the point you brought up. "No gun, no accident". So, when do you plan on confiscating these guns from someone who has committed no crime?

0

notblind 1 year, 10 months ago

That one slipped out. What did the guy say ??? "After a shooting spree they always want to take guns away from the people that didn't do it". Just part of the long range agenda. Like Eugene Robinson wrote, it's their "dream". Places with high murder rates have these rates because the politicians would rather spend money on window dressing than on prison cells.

1

Jan 1 year, 10 months ago

washingtonpost_fact-checker-prevented-15-million-from-buying-a-firearm/2013/01/23 With about 300 million guns owned in the USA, the 1.5 million that did not get added to the total only amounts to a half percent. With over 600 accidental deaths by gun each year, this probably saved 30 lives. What value do you put on a life? How about something simple like every gun must be sold with a trigger lock or lock box? Notblind, I do not want to take everyone's guns nor all types of guns. I do think that criminals, those declared mentally ill by courts, terrorists and members of groups, like the KKK and Black Panthers, that have a history of encouraging terrorism should not be allowed to buy any weapons or explosive material.

0

notblind 1 year, 10 months ago

Your own linked article says that only 68,000 people out of 6,000,000 were kicked back by the background check. The 1.5 million is totally bogus. Do you only read headlines ??

0

Jan 1 year, 10 months ago

You obviously failed to read the whole article. Scanning down and pulling a few numbers lets you miss key details. The 68,000 were denial in 2010 only and only those that were referred for federal prosecution for misinformation on the application. The 1.5 million is the total for the 14 years since the passing of the Brady bill and includes those not referred for prosecution.

0

LilburnsFuture 1 year, 10 months ago

To respond to your points. We already know criminals place very little value on life. However, they do place value on a potential victim who can equally defend themselves. Jan, we all know you mean well by wanting to prevent death. However, people who want to defend themselves want the same thing. They know that not all criminals are mentally ill, so some will carry a weapon to gain the upper hand. People have a right to defend themselves. No matter how good hearted and natured your arguements are, very little is based on street reality. In other words, in bevery hills your brand new laws might work. In the hood, kkk and black panthers do not apply or register to purchase weapons as a group or with their affiliations. Furthermore, I seriously doubt they walk around with lock boxes or trigger locks until it is time to use them in case they accidentally discharge during their annual reunions.

2

Linda 1 year, 10 months ago

Does anyone really believe that criminals go to gun shops to purchase guns? They are criminals so they get their quns illegally - black market!! They find a way to get them illegally because they are criminals. It really shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Anytime the government does something for "our own good" we loose a freedom. I am an adult I know what is good for me and my family, not the goverment. Personal responsibility in this country is a thing of the past because when people want to rely on a few to make decisions for all of us we loose. I don't give a hoot about statistics only what is logical.

2

kevin 1 year, 10 months ago

This article hit the nail on the head. Nothing else anyone can say will top it.

0

Jan 1 year, 10 months ago

While it is true that criminals buy black market guns, if we can reduce the number of guns on the black market, this will reduce the number of criminals that can purchase them both from availability and increased price of the few available. Currently, black market gun suppliers have a virtual unlimited supply since it is easy to go to a state with lax regulation, buy up large quantities and deliver them to any of the 48 states. Only Alaska and Hawaii would have the problem of customs for interstate transport. President Obama is only proposing making it more difficult for criminals to get guns. He has not suggested preventing law abiding citizens from getting guns. He has not even suggested reducing the number of guns that an individual can buy, which is something that should be considered - no one needs 20 guns, unless they are planning to sell them on the black market.

0

jack 1 year, 10 months ago

What proposals will make it harder for criminals to get guns without affecting law-abiding citizens?

1

Jan 1 year, 10 months ago

Why would a law abiding citizen object to a background check? Why would a law abiding citizen need a large armory? Why would a law abiding citizen want a gun that he/she doesn't know how to use? Gun ownership, as with any dangerous equipment, should come with an obligation to abide by safety controls.

0

jack 1 year, 10 months ago

You stated, " President Obama is only proposing making it more difficult for criminals to get guns."
But you only refer to proposals that affect law-abiding citizens. Sad.

As to your questions: Why should law-abiding citizens be subject to a background check? Shouldn't law-abiding citizens determine for themselves how large an armory they need? While I know very few folks who purchase guns without the intent of learning how to use them, I will agree with the obligation of following safety procedures.

But none of that has anything to do with making it harder for criminals to get guns.

1

Mack711 1 year, 10 months ago

NONE. If a criminal wants a weapon he buys it on the black market. Just look at the video of some one breaking into a house and taking a weapon. Now that weapon is on the black market. You may have caught the burglar but the weapon is still out there.

0

Justpassinthru 1 year, 10 months ago

If someone breaks in to my house, they should be aware that I will NOT be taking the time to remove a trigger lock, or to grab my firearm out of a lock box. They can just hope and pray that I am not accurate with my aim!

2

Jan 1 year, 10 months ago

With over 600 accidental deaths by gun and less than 350 cases of legitimate interventions with a gun, including police intervention, your chances of dying accidentally by gun shot is almost do double that of saving yourself or property by having a gun in the house.

0

LilburnsFuture 1 year, 10 months ago

Who is deciding what is considered a legitimate intervention? A better comparison is to compare your chances of accidental deaths versus confrontation with a criminal. Often times, those confrontations are not reported. So, the comparison you are making is marginally related at best. The criminal walks away and the potential victim lives another day.

0

kevin 1 year, 10 months ago

Funny how most of these random shootings take place in areas that law abiding citizens are forbidden to carry weapons. Has anyone thought of that?

1

Jan 1 year, 10 months ago

Funny how most of the places where guns are forbidden never have a shooting!

0

jack 1 year, 10 months ago

Do you mean places like:
Thurston high School in Springfield, Oregon
Columbine
Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Arkansas
the Amish school in Lancaster, PA
Virginia Tech
Fort Hood
Northern Illinois University
Oikos University in Oakland, CA
the Aurora Theater
Sandy Hook Elementary


You mean places like that where guns were forbidden?
Yeah...funny.

0

Don 1 year, 10 months ago

Obama wants to bans guns yet it it his adminstration and judges that have prosecute fewer gun charges than any other in recent history. His liberal appointed judges just do not want to be called racist when they start charging minorities with the crimes.

0

rco1847 1 year, 10 months ago

Why do you insist on lying. The Presidents plan isn't to disarm anyone. A certain percentage of your group cries "the sky is falling" with every rain drop. Maybe your listening to the hysteria from the NRA. I have a gun - I am pro 2nd amendment. I am opposed to ANY guns changing ownership without a thorough background check, a limited magazine capacity and not assault rifles. I fear a home invasion far less than I fear some of the gun owners like the guy in Alabama who just shot a school bus driver and kidnapped the little boy. How many must die before you get this? And this fantasey about defending us against government oppression is your paranoia - I don't need your help in my releations with our government. Start you own riiot but leave me out.

Since the founding of the United States 1,050,000 have died serving in all our wars. Since 1960 1.400,000. have died in domestic gun incidents including murder and accidental shootings. The concerpt of self defense is misleading. Your enemies don't send advance notice of their intentions. "Dear homeowner: We plan to rob you and your home at 2:00AM on Friday. Please be prepared. Get real! And get your finger off the trigger.

0

Sign in to comment