Handgun poll
I was a bit shocked to see the Rocky Mountain News asking its readers whether handguns should be banned in an online poll posted on Tuesday, July 17th. It reveals a disturbing tendency by society to assail the Second Amendment anytime violence occurs, without considering the benefits that responsible handgun ownership creates. In Israel, for instance, where terrorist attacks on the public used to be a daily occurrence, dozens of lived have been saved by civilians using personal firearms in self-defense. Thankfully, diligent capitol police were able to prevent a tragedy, but what if Aaron Snyder had chosen to proclaim himself emperor in a busy commercial district? Surely, law-abiding citizens wielding handguns would be have a chance to protect themselves and the public.
This letter has not been edited.
Anyone coming to get my guns better pack a lunch, and plenty of ammo.
Posted by RickyLee on July 23, 2007 09:56 AMThis is the reason that every gun owner needs to belong to the NRA.The number is 1-877-NRA-2000.The NRA is one of the main reasons we still have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Posted by Ron on July 23, 2007 10:49 AMNever get killed for lack of shooting back. Support the 2nd Amendment, because without it, there wouldn't be the other 9 in the Bill of Rights. Besides, the powers that be know that an unarmed population will be just like shooting fish in a barrel, when the time comes.
Posted by Jay on July 23, 2007 11:52 AMIt is interesting that in this day and age, people are still locked on the gun issue. My first acts of protest when I was a kid was distributing letters to teachers against Phil Hart of Michigan when he tried banning handguns. That was a long time ago.
Though my political views have changed, my belief in gun ownership has not. Societies problems are far deeper than simple gun control. Chasing after guns is a waste of time and resources that could be better used to fix the root cause of our problems.
However, it's time to grow up too on gun owneship. First of all, the government is not interested in our guns period. Why should they be? There are what, 70-80 different caliper weapons out there? Imagine the logistics of supplying the different ammo for all those various weapons. You are talking .22s, shotguns, 30-30s, etc. against M16s.
Your big problem though is that the average citizen doesn't even care to vote. Do you honestly think they will stand up against a trained military? Not a chance, unless you can do it from the couch. Plus the cops/troops you would face are more than likely going to be US, which means you're the one arming them with basically unlimited firepower. We're a very armed populace, but it will be like shooting fish in the barrel. Your talking the Elmer Fudd Brigade vs. the Terminators. The only chance we MIGHT have is that the troops may hesitate in shooting back because you are talking about our kids in that military.
And Ricky Lee...your comment tells me you'll do whatever it takes to defend your gun rights. Sadly that means you're willing to take out cops and/or troops, who are your neighbors, your aunts, uncles, hell even your own children.
You want to defend your precious guns, work with some of these groups to find alternatives to these problems. I agree with you whole heartedly that banning guns is as far from the answer as you can get. We all have the responsibility of defending ourselves. It is nearly as preposterous as thinking that you might use them to defend your freedoms. That takes greater courage than packing a piece. That takes getting involved with what is happening with your government. If you look at what is going on with the government today, your rights are disappearing, and we are all letting it happen without so much as a peep. We want to remain...patriotic.
"what if Aaron Snyder had chosen to proclaim himself emperor in a busy commercial district? Surely, law-abiding citizens wielding handguns would be have a chance to protect themselves and the public."
Oh please! Like I would want any of you trigger happy nut-jobs "protecting" me. You are not trained or qualified to do so. Most likely, you'd wet yourself at the first sign of trouble and start spraying without regard to anyone's safety.
You want to protect yourself and your property? More power to you. Go ahead and put yourself and your family in the cross-hairs, but leave protecting the public to the proper authorities.
Posted by on July 23, 2007 06:03 PMPosted by on July 23, 2007 06:03 PM "Oh please! Like I would want any of you trigger happy nut-jobs "protecting" me. You are not trained or qualified to do so. Most likely, you'd wet yourself at the first sign of trouble and start spraying without regard to anyone's safety."
Reduced to name calling and insults in only your first post. If it turns out you have anything intelligent to say, I'll be more than happy to debate you on any gun control issue you want.
It is time for all gun owners to join the NRA.The number is 1-877-NRA-2000.
Posted by Ron on July 24, 2007 10:28 AMSend the NRA number on to friends and family members that care about gun rights!!!!
Posted by Ron on July 24, 2007 10:32 AMJuly 23, 2007 06:03 PM
This person, as most of the public, does not hear much about possible murder sprees which have been cut short by armed citizens. This person, as most of the public, believes that only “trained and qualified” citizens would know how to properly hold and aim a hand gun. The media is partially to blame for this delusion.
On January 16, 2002, Peter Odighizuwa, a 43-year old law student from Nigeria walked into Virginia’s Appalachian School of Law, shot and killed the dean, a professor and one student and wounded three others. According to the LA Times, “Other students tackled (emphasis added) the gunman…” The New York Times also said that the gunman was “tackled.” The Associated Press quoted a student, off-duty sheriff Tracy Bridges, “’I just reacted,’ said Bridges…who tackled [the shooter] with classmates.”
In all three media cases relevant information was left out about how the shooting spree was stopped. Tracy Bridges and another student, Mike Gross, ran to their cars to get their personal hand guns. Bridges actually told the press, “As we approached Peter, I started giving him verbal commands. I told him to drop his weapon, to get on the ground. His back was to us, and once he turned around and saw that I had a weapon, he laid his weapon down and stuck his hands in the air. At that time we approached him, and there was somewhat of a struggle, but we took him to the ground and handcuffed him until authorities got there.”
There was another shooting involving the principal at a high school in Mississippi when a Good Samaritan went to his car to get a hand gun and went back to the school to subdue the killer.
On the night of July 25, 1993, in Cape Town, South Africa, Islamic terrorists launched an attack on a church during a worship service using fully automatic weapons and hand grenades. One man, Charl van Wyk shot back with his gun and defended his fellow churchgoers. One of his bullets hit one of the terrorist, but the group sped away in a car. Several people died in the attack, but many others would have also died had it not been for an armed citizen with the guts to stand up to the face of depravity.
Virginia Tech was supposed to be a gun-free zone. We all know what happened on that “gun-free” campus. During the shooting spree at Virginia Tech, the Korean student took a break after killing two people in order to make a video. By the time he went back to the campus two hours later, there were lots of cops around investigating the first two murders. The presence of law enforcement, “proper authorities” who were “trained” and “qualified” to protect others did no good to the other 30 people killed that day.
In the late 1970’s Jimmy Carter and his circle of friends wanted to push gun control legislation. They were convinced that a massive scientific study would have to be conducted which would proclaim that gun control laws were effective in reducing crime. So they granted a major gun-control research grant to a few professors at the University of Massachusetts, James D. Wright, Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly. After four years and lots of taxpayer money for the most comprehensive and critical study on gun control ever undertaken, by 1981 they produced a report much different from that which they expected to produce. In the end their findings were that, “Gun control laws do not reduce crime.”
"This person, as most of the public, does not hear much about possible murder sprees which have been cut short by armed citizens. This person, as most of the public, believes that only “trained and qualified” citizens would know how to properly hold and aim a hand gun. The media is partially to blame for this delusion."
Believe me, I suffer from no delusions of any kind. Been around guns my whole life--in fact a NRA marksman since I was a teen.
You offer up a few, random, isolated incidents to support your contention? Color me not at all impressed. I could post a listing of all the hunting "accidents" where someone was accidently shot.
Or, I'm sure I could find just as many instances of a "good samaritan" shooting an innocent by-stander.
Owning a gun does not make you a responsible shooter or an accurate one. That takes time, common sense and lots of practice. Not many people are willing to put that effort into it--or have the mental capacity to use good judgement. See Cheney, Richard for a good example of that.
Posted by on July 25, 2007 09:32 AMThe problem with the above posting is this person is what I call an elite gun owner.He thinks only he and a small group of his friends should have a privilege to own firearms.In many ways he is more dangerous to gun rights than a hard core anti gunner.Other people like him would be Ted Kennedy,Bill&Hillary Clinton,Rosie O'Donnell.They also believe they should be allowed to own guns.Just not you unwashed masses.
Posted by An American on July 25, 2007 11:57 AM