I can’t remain silent; I must protest gun control
To the editor:
I could not find where it states that violent video games or violent movies are protected under free speech in the dictionary. Why did Jim Thompson, in his letter Feb. 8, decide he wanted to tear apart the Second Amendment with a dictionary and disarm American citizens using the right of free speech? The movie and violent video game industries promote the use of violence and guns. They glorify the use of guns.
Where do they learn this type of violence? From what they watch. That is the root of the problem. But some want to rob American citizens of their Second Amendment rights.
Why were the movie and violent video industries’ rights to the First Amendment not stripped down by the dictionary?
The liberal media calls a hunting rifle an “assault weapon” because they have no knowledge of firearms or their functions. The media’s ignorance is compounded by the fact that most are pushing their anti-gun views while standing behind the First Amendment while robbing other United States citizens of their Second Amendment rights. Shame on them!
All anyone has to do is look south of the U.S. border to see what national gun control looks like (citizens in Mexico are not allowed to own firearms), where the only guns are the military, police and the drug mafia. The drug mafias outgun the military and police combined.
I cannot stand by any longer and let a few take away my rights and my fellow law-abiding citizens’ rights granted by the Second Amendment. Abraham Lincoln said, “It is a sin to remain silent when it is your duty to protest.” Today, I protest.
Many gun owners simply want to protect themselves
To the editor:
I would like to interject a new angle to the gun debate to help put a few actual facts into the mix of rhetoric, false facts and fallacies we have seen in the media by addressing the statistics from reputable sources regarding the prevention of gun crime. The facts are agreed upon by both sides of the gun-control debate by reputable sources on each side. I believe we have lost focus on why we have gun crime and instead are again focusing on regulating only the law-abiding citizen. We have heard much about gun deaths, so here are the facts about gun prevention.
A 1985 National Institute of Justice report by University of Massachusetts professors James Wright and Peter Rossi found that the armed citizen or the threat of the armed citizen is possibly the most effective deterrent to crime and the nation. More than 1,800 prisoners were interviewed, and it was found that 85 percent agreed that the smart criminal will attempt to find out if a potential victim is armed; 75 percent felt burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot; 53 percent did not commit a specific crime for fear the victim was armed; and 57 percent of handgun predators were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
According to Cramer and Burnett, writing for the Cato Institute, a National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms study found approximately 1.5 million defensive gun uses per year. In fact, since new laws put into effect a few years ago combined with increased gun ownership, gun violence rates have decreased per capita to a rate of 3.6 per 1,000, the lowest rate since 1981. The use of guns for protection, coupled with common sense and enforced laws, work to reduce gun-related crime. I do not think legal gun owners have an issue with checks, but we do not want the government making us rely on them for protection from crime.