I was listening to a local talk radio show today during which there was some discussion of gun control. Though I’ve very rarely called or written in to a radio show, I did today. This is what I wrote.
=====
Don,
I've written you twice previously today (this is my 3rd) and never before today.
I was positively impressed to receive your reply to my first message which disputed the CNN crime stats of the UK. I sent you a link to short 6:34 video that more deeply explores the US vs. UK violent crime data. I acknowledge that that video isn't perfect either, but in my view it's a lot more fair and objective that the so-called facts being spread by liberal media and gun control advocates. Here it is again:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0
My second message was to dispute the 40% firearms purchases without background checks. I apologize for not providing a link for that as well. I generally prefer to back up my assertions with at least some reference to its source. My main purpose now is to provide those links. Admittedly, there's a lot of dry reading here, but it gives a technical, statistical description of why the 40% number from the single, ~20 year old data is suspect. None of these is the original article I read on the subject. That one mentions that the original author has reanalyzed his old survey data and amended (downward) the number, in accordance with these articles, and it mentions that the 2 years of data was taken on both sides of implementation of the Brady Bill, affecting firearms transactions and control.
I enjoy your show even when we disagree (though you might want to not step on Ron so much when he's trying to speak). I do strongly believe your willingness to sacrifice our 2nd Amendment rights to handguns is misguided and would result in loss of substantial innocent life that could never be quantified. Since the tragedy of Newtown, I have been closely following reports in the media. CNN & CBS are very quick to report nationally the many instances of gun violence. What mainstream media much more rarely covers, nationally, are the many instances of people defending themselves and others with firearms that have occurred nationwide since Newtown. You have to dig deeper to find where those stories are published but they occur frequently.
You are correct that the misdirected focus of Senator Dianne Feinstein and others on so-called "assault weapons" (an invented, emotionally charged and politically motivated term), including the AR-15, is unimportant to the real issues of gun violence, violence in general and mental health. The AR-15 is the most popularly sold rifle in America today. With well more than a million out there, they're used in only a handful (less than 2%) of gun crimes, including several of the mass murders, unfortunately. As you’ve pointed out, there are many more murders with handguns, including some of the mass murders. But it's not the gun that's at fault. It's the user of the gun. Any object, right or privilege can be misused and abused. We cannot legislate our way to complete safety, nor should we try. Complete "safety" is a myth and anyone trained in law enforcement or the military, or otherwise with enough intelligence, must realize that. There was more homicide committed nationally with knives than with firearms. Same for blunt objects. Same for hands and fists. (2011 or 2012 data) Guns are not the problem. People are.
Please ignore the ravings of the idiots out there calling you a "Nazi" or "communist" for your views. While we're considering how to deal with our 2nd Amendment rights, perhaps we should consider revoking the 1st Amendment rights of those radicals who want to label you with such extremist terms for exercising your 1st Amendment rights and for having an opinion that differs from theirs. They do not speak for me or the millions of other rational, responsible, law abiding people who fully and passionately believe in and defend our 2nd Amendment rights. I say this in jest, of course, because I wouldn’t want their rights revoked either. But they do not make themselves more credible or represent their arguments or passions well with such abusive, emotional and deeply entrenching terms. They’re the layperson equivalents of Piers Morgan and Alex Jones, both of whom are an embarrassment to anyone claiming to be open to “reasoned debate”.
For a little background on me and where I’m coming from, I am a retired Marine officer who served both active and reserve duty for more than 20 years. I am a father of 3 teenaged children, a boy and 2 girls, who all live with my x-wife nearby. I have begun teaching them to shoot and about firearms safety and responsibility, as well as attempting to dispel some of the commonly proliferated gun control myths. I consider basic firearms knowledge and proficiency to be a survival skill, like swimming and driving (preferably a manual transmission), but my children spent years of their lives not even knowing there was a firearm in their house, or once known, what kind or how many there were. Guns are not my life nor do I expect them to be theirs. I am not a member of the NRA. I believe in much of what they do but don’t always agree with their dialog or methods. I think they’ve made some big missteps. I am not a member of any political action group of any kind.
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/03/violent-crime-firearms-background-checks.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Gun CONFISCATION Blogs
California Firearms Blogs
Gun Control Advocates Suffer Pinocchio's Curse
No comments:
Post a Comment