In the thread, I said that I would write a letter to the editor in response. I think it's pretty good so far, however, it is currently 329 words and I need to cut it down to 300 before I can submit it.
Here is what I have so far:
This is in response to the February 19th editorial that seemed to blame the Valentine’s Day killings at Northern Illinois University on the “ease” with which gun purchases can presently be made.
This editorial repeatedly calls for laws making it tougher to purchase firearms, yet produces no evidence that such laws actually decrease crime. In fact, the only thing such laws have historically accomplished is to discourage firearm ownership by honest, law-abiding citizens while creating a safer working environment for criminals.
By recognizing the right to keep and bear arms, the Founding Fathers realized that if people could not take up arms against tyranny, they would eventually find themselves at the mercy of the government; their clairvoyance seemed like prophecy during the Holocaust, when 6 million Jews were systematically exterminated after being disarmed by the Nazis. Today, people without firearms are not only at the mercy of tyrants, but criminals as well.
Because gun control has never succeeded in preventing criminals from obtaining firearms, governments would be wise to level the playing field for law abiding citizens against criminals by loosening, not increasing, restrictions on gun ownership. When this happens, more criminals will encounter armed resistance in the course of their activities, and as a result, their jobs will become less safe.
The NIU shootings should make it clear how utterly ineffective gun control is. Residing in a state that has some of the nation’s strictest gun laws did not stop Steven Kazmierczak from killing five people that day, and as long as these laws are enforced, unarmed students on university campuses will continue to be sitting ducks for madmen like him to kill with impunity.
Disarmament laws effectively deprive law abiding citizens of the tools necessary to protect themselves and their loved ones from those who would do them harm and are disingenuous at best and dangerous at worst, and if they aren’t promptly repealed, there are going to be more, not fewer mass shootings in the future.