Close

Current Conditions
21 ° Cloudy

Why do we need legal guns?

Editor:

I feel compelled to respond to an argument I read, in favor of guns and the violence that they produce. There is, first, a comparison between guns, which, letís face it, are designed to do nothing but injure and kill, and air bags and seat belts, which are designed to protect. The analogy leaves me confused. Yes, itís true, some people like to target shoot, but that can be accomplished with a .22-caliber gun with a five-shot magazine and hardly requires a pistol/rifle of up to .50 caliber (1/2-inch diameter) with a multiple capacity of more that 20 shots.

Gun enthusiasts also point out the high frequency of gun-related crimes in those cities that have strict licensing requirements to show the futility of such laws. The problem is, those cities are within hours of states where multiple firearms can be purchased with little or no requirements. There are no interstate border checks and no one suggests that there should be, but I can drive no more than a few hours from Springville to Ohio or Virginia and buy as many of whatever I can afford. If we look at other nations where there is real gun control, the lack of gun crimes and violence is microscopic, compared to ours. Am I concerned about the possibility of criminals appearing at my door? I certainly am, but I am far more concerned with my children/grandchildren finding and using firearms in my home and using them to accidentally or intentionally kill their selves, siblings, relatives, friends, classmates, strangers or anyone else.

Look at the statistics: How many more accidental or intentional shootings take place than those that actually protect someone? As far as hunting is concerned: I have hunted and I quickly learned one thing; you get one shot, maybe two; after that, the animal is gone, no matter how many bullets you have left.

Finally, there is the fear of some sort of government takeover. I am 68 years old. I have, for many years, been an active participant in many protests and confrontations with the authorities and yet, I have never felt this kind of fear of my own people and government. I wonder why these gun enthusiasts seem to have so little faith in our government and our people. I donít think that Iím naive, but this is America and in our 238 years of existence, with, I suppose the exception of the Civil War (with good reason), we have never seen any reason for this kind of paranoia. I am not afraid. Why are you?

Paul Tenser
Springville


ADD A COMMENT

You must be signed in to comment.

Click Here to create a Free Account

Click here to Sign in

Subject
Comments
Submit

2014-02-19 | 00:40:05
"The problem is, those cities are within hours of states where multiple firearms can be purchased with little or no requirements." Sir, you clearly have know knowledge of Firearms laws, and should not be professing or preaching about something you do not clearly have proficiency. First of all, ALL commercial firearms transactions MUST be subject to a NICS (i.e. Federal) Background Check. This is not a maybe, but a requirement. Next, many states only allow commercial and private firearm sales among its own citizens and citizens from a bordering state. Finally, a private seller who sells a firearm to an individual who they know to be a person who is prohibited from owning firearms is a Federal Offense. Your argument is as just destructive as the most anti-Second Amendment politician who is currently residing in Washington or Albany. You are simply spouting opinionated rhetoric with complete disregard for the laws that define our Nation. For example, when referring to hunting and firearms, you immediately prove you have no practical knowledge of the Second Amendment and make a misguided connection that there is some sort of link between the two ideas. This is wrong. There is no mention of hunting anywhere in the Second Amendment. This is a common tactic by anti-gun politicians to sound like they are respectful to the laws. "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 argument that we need no more than two shots for hunting is completely irrelevant for your argument. A politician who states that they "support the Second Amendment rights of hunters" is either grossly incompetent and should be removed from office via an election or a pitiful excuse for a misleading and despicable lie with the intent to impress upon a constituent that he/she "really supports your rights," but really does not care about your rights, only about their ballot box. Sir, if you do not like guns, by all means it is your choice to not own one. If you are concerned about your children or grandchildren (and you should...and I mean that sincerely), educate them about guns and gun safety without making them a fixation or don't allow guns to be an "I must touch it because I am not allowed to" stigma. However, the Second Amendment is a right identified by the Constitution of the United States, paid for the by the blood of the defenders of our country, and practiced by over 300 million freedom-loving citizens. Degrading or infringing upon our rights is disrespect to the three institutions listed above and nothing short of clear tyranny.
2014-02-19 | 00:41:41
Challenge
I challenge you to purchase a modern sporting rifle (AR-15 or the like) with your New York driver's license in Virginia or Ohio. See how far you get.