Thursday, April 13, 2006

Seattle Times Reader Chime In On Gun Control

We have our first response to the gun control editorials in the Seattle Times. And the award for biggest waste of ink goes to.... Mark Jensen of Shoreline. Way to go Mark, any luck on getting rid of those racially restrictive covenants in your neck of the woods? Guess not. Here is what Mark had to say:
Guest columnists Alan Gottlieb and Joe Waldron just don't get it.
It is certainly possible that Kyle Huff's actions might not have been prevented by tougher gun laws, but reasonable gun control is a simple matter of reducing risks. Do people lock their homes or cars knowing that doing so will stop all burglaries? Of course not, but they cut the risks dramatically, and the same is true where guns are kept out of the hands of those who would misuse them, even though it is not a total solution. Do sane people keep matches and lighters out of the hands of children and believe that will stop all fires? Certainly not, but doing so saves lives every day.
Remember, too, that the Second Amendment does not allow for guns to be in the hands of any person, regardless. It states that the right to have firearms for a "well regulated militia," such as a National Guard, shall not be abridged. The Supreme Court of the land has upheld that concept twice.
And please, Messers. Gottlieb and Waldron, calling a group dedicated to preventing the deaths of innocent people "extremist" is a little extreme, don't you think?

No Mark, I think you just don't get it. Short of a total ban, Kyle Huff's actions would not have been stopped be additional laws. And even if there had been a ban, do you think he would have voluntarily turned over his weapons? Most certainly not. Why is it the gun control crowd thinks people who are going to commit mass murder would see the light if there was just another gun law on the books. This person is a mass murderer, he was not going to obey a gun law.

But I have another question... getting back to the issue of gun violence being an "epidemic" as was stated in the original op-ed piece. Lets just say there was an epidemic of drownings for whatever reason. Thousands of people were drowning and a lot of those were kids. Would the gun control crowd outlaw pools? Restrict access to lakes? Or would they teach swimming and water safety classes in school? The National Safety Council reports that there are over 7,000 drowning deaths nationally each year. Drowning accidents are the leading cause of death and injury of children under 5 years of age. More than 80% of the drownings occur in residential pools or spas. It is also estimated that each year 5000 children under the age of 14 are hospitalized for near drowning events. Of these, as man as of 20% suffer severe and permanent disabilities.

One final question for now... lets say you hear on the radio that a gunman is in your childs school shooting randomly. Which situation would you rather have, A) each school is required to have at least one staff member trained in the proper use of a firearm with an emphasis on self defense, and have access to a firearm on the school property, or B) it is a crime for any school staff member to have a gun on school grounds. Well I hope you feel good about "B" because that is what we have.

1 comment:

best-tutor said...

Hello!

very nice post... enjoyed it very much.

Thank you

http://www.best-tutor.com

good site

tutor
tutor