Sgt. Kabukiman N.Y.P.D.
Regular Member
Read it for yourself:
http://www.westport-news.com/opinion/article/Out-of-the-Woods-Gun-control-is-needed-now-963849.php
My response I am sending in the format of a letter to the editor:
In response to Woody Klein's column "Gun control is needed now" article:
Please let us not use the Arizona shootings as a platform for more in-effective gun control measures. I believe the real lesson to be learned from situations like the shootings in Arizona, Columbine, etc... is that these horrible incidents are not a matter of gun control. It is far more relevant to question how we identify and help those that have psychological problems. In the case of the AZ shooting, there was a breakdown of the system which failed to allow an obviously disturbed young man to receive the help he so desperately needed. From the news reports I've read, it was known to faculty and other students at his college that Jared Loughner had mental problems. The real issue here is why didn't he get help? You are fooling yourself if you think further gun control is going to stop rampages like this. Mass murderers will simply change their methodology to adapt. Contrary to Mr. Klein's opinion, people will always find ways to kill others effectively and horrendously even in the complete absence of firearms (improvised explosive devices, using vehicles for weapons, poison/chemical weapons etc...). No matter how much you "lock down" a society you are going to have people that kill other people. Look at prisons for instance. No weapons allowed, right? Do inmates find creative ways of killing each other effectively in a completely "locked down" facility? Of course they do.
Mr. Klein states that "I cannot for the life of me understand why anybody would want-or need-a gun". I really do respect his right to this opinion (and I would defend his right of free speech for everything he stated in his article). You are not required to understand the need. However, we are all legally bound to follow our Constitution which includes the 2nd Amendment. Mr. Klein also states, "Guns Kill", "It's just that simple". Well, er, yes, they do kill. But you have to look at the context (perhaps someone was killed to save other lives). For me, a gun is an equalizer against someone (or animal for that matter) that may cause me, my family, or fellow citizens grave bodily harm or death. Let’s make up a scenario for the sake of making this point: A woman is walking down the street. She is 5'7 and weighs 130 pounds. Due to strict gun control, she is not allowed to carry a pistol on her person. She is attacked by a man who is 6'3 and weighs 230 lbs wielding a baseball bat who has vocalized his intent to kill her and starts swinging. What are the odds of her winning this confrontation? Hopefully she has martial arts training she can fall back on but the odds are against her (plus not everyone is Bruce Lee). Now, what if she is armed? This levels the disparity of force and will give her a better chance of surviving the encounter (perhaps after she draws her firearm with the intention of stopping her attacker, he flees? This is the best outcome and happens more often than you think). Why does someone want to lawfully carry a pistol? Simply because they want to have the ability to save their own life or that of someone else. I don’t want to be in a situation where I stare blankly at my killer with no options and let them have their way. I want the ability to try and stop the attack. I owe my family that.
In regards to the statistics quoted in the article, did you know that of those 30,000 deaths due to firearms that half are due to suicide? Furthermore, a number of studies have been conducted which found that suicide rates would remain the same regardless of the presence or absence of firearms. As for accidental death rates versus firearms, you are four times more likely to burn to death or drown. You are 17 times more likely to be poisoned. You are 53 times more likely to die in a car accident. Guess how many deaths are attributed to medical mistakes every year? Try 400,000. People should be much more worried about getting surgery done versus getting shot. What I'm trying to get at is that there is a lot of fear mongering and misinformation out there in regards to firearms especially when those statistics quoted are being provided by gun control lobbyists/activists who’s careers depend on spreading misinformation and fear. People need to take a lot of these statistics with a grain of salt until they drill them down further or gain a better understanding of the context of how they are used.
At the end of the day, the right to bear arms is written into our country's founding documents. Period. Whether you like it or not. This right has been upheld by our highest courts. With that being stated, I believe that discourse is a good thing and that people should be allowed to state their opinion. Just don't infringe upon the rights of lawful firearm ownership.
http://www.westport-news.com/opinion/article/Out-of-the-Woods-Gun-control-is-needed-now-963849.php
My response I am sending in the format of a letter to the editor:
In response to Woody Klein's column "Gun control is needed now" article:
Please let us not use the Arizona shootings as a platform for more in-effective gun control measures. I believe the real lesson to be learned from situations like the shootings in Arizona, Columbine, etc... is that these horrible incidents are not a matter of gun control. It is far more relevant to question how we identify and help those that have psychological problems. In the case of the AZ shooting, there was a breakdown of the system which failed to allow an obviously disturbed young man to receive the help he so desperately needed. From the news reports I've read, it was known to faculty and other students at his college that Jared Loughner had mental problems. The real issue here is why didn't he get help? You are fooling yourself if you think further gun control is going to stop rampages like this. Mass murderers will simply change their methodology to adapt. Contrary to Mr. Klein's opinion, people will always find ways to kill others effectively and horrendously even in the complete absence of firearms (improvised explosive devices, using vehicles for weapons, poison/chemical weapons etc...). No matter how much you "lock down" a society you are going to have people that kill other people. Look at prisons for instance. No weapons allowed, right? Do inmates find creative ways of killing each other effectively in a completely "locked down" facility? Of course they do.
Mr. Klein states that "I cannot for the life of me understand why anybody would want-or need-a gun". I really do respect his right to this opinion (and I would defend his right of free speech for everything he stated in his article). You are not required to understand the need. However, we are all legally bound to follow our Constitution which includes the 2nd Amendment. Mr. Klein also states, "Guns Kill", "It's just that simple". Well, er, yes, they do kill. But you have to look at the context (perhaps someone was killed to save other lives). For me, a gun is an equalizer against someone (or animal for that matter) that may cause me, my family, or fellow citizens grave bodily harm or death. Let’s make up a scenario for the sake of making this point: A woman is walking down the street. She is 5'7 and weighs 130 pounds. Due to strict gun control, she is not allowed to carry a pistol on her person. She is attacked by a man who is 6'3 and weighs 230 lbs wielding a baseball bat who has vocalized his intent to kill her and starts swinging. What are the odds of her winning this confrontation? Hopefully she has martial arts training she can fall back on but the odds are against her (plus not everyone is Bruce Lee). Now, what if she is armed? This levels the disparity of force and will give her a better chance of surviving the encounter (perhaps after she draws her firearm with the intention of stopping her attacker, he flees? This is the best outcome and happens more often than you think). Why does someone want to lawfully carry a pistol? Simply because they want to have the ability to save their own life or that of someone else. I don’t want to be in a situation where I stare blankly at my killer with no options and let them have their way. I want the ability to try and stop the attack. I owe my family that.
In regards to the statistics quoted in the article, did you know that of those 30,000 deaths due to firearms that half are due to suicide? Furthermore, a number of studies have been conducted which found that suicide rates would remain the same regardless of the presence or absence of firearms. As for accidental death rates versus firearms, you are four times more likely to burn to death or drown. You are 17 times more likely to be poisoned. You are 53 times more likely to die in a car accident. Guess how many deaths are attributed to medical mistakes every year? Try 400,000. People should be much more worried about getting surgery done versus getting shot. What I'm trying to get at is that there is a lot of fear mongering and misinformation out there in regards to firearms especially when those statistics quoted are being provided by gun control lobbyists/activists who’s careers depend on spreading misinformation and fear. People need to take a lot of these statistics with a grain of salt until they drill them down further or gain a better understanding of the context of how they are used.
At the end of the day, the right to bear arms is written into our country's founding documents. Period. Whether you like it or not. This right has been upheld by our highest courts. With that being stated, I believe that discourse is a good thing and that people should be allowed to state their opinion. Just don't infringe upon the rights of lawful firearm ownership.
Last edited:
