Advertisement

Opinion

Opinion

Letter: Attitude shift

January 1, 2013

Advertisement

To the editor:

Three reasons are used for individual possession of guns. First, national defense — not a 21st century role for individuals. Second, sport — hunting as recreation or hobby, maybe some food. Third, self defense — protection of self, but not a guarantee.

So “fear” claims center stage. Does this justify guns, concealed or overt, automatic or not, in a grade school or a movie theater or an Indian reservation or a Sikh temple or a market square?  

Interrupting inappropriate and even fatal possession and use of guns is essential. Changing attitudes are needed, as was done for smoking. Wild West days are gone?

Remember who said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”?

Comments

Niemoller 1 year, 3 months ago

What if instead it read:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and I am still here because I was armed.


You want to say it is about fear. I offer this in opposition.

Story from a Kansas State Highway Patrol officer :

I made a traffic stop on an elderly lady the other day for speeding on U.S. 166 Eastbound at Mile Marker 73 just East of Sedan, KS. I asked for her driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance. The lady took out the required information and handed it to me. In with the cards I was somewhat surprised (due to her advanced age) to see she had a conceal carry permit. I looked at her and asked if she had a weapon in her possession at this time.

She responded that she indeed had a .45 automatic in her glove box. Something---body language, or the way she said it---made me want to ask if she had any other firearms. She did admit to also having a 9mm Glock in her center console. Now I had to ask one more time if that was all. She responded once again that she did have just one more, a .38 special in her purse. I then asked her what was she so afraid of.

She looked me right in the eye and said, "Not a f***ing thing!"

1

Milton Bland 1 year, 3 months ago

I don't get it. Liberal loonies say it is fine for Holder to ship assult weapons to Mexico to kill innocent Mexicans and them have the drug cartel bring those same guns back into this country to kill American citizens. And that operation sure as heck did not reduce illegal drug sales one bit. And King Obama wants to take my guns away? Is Obama in bed with the drug dealers? After all, he comes from the most drug infested area of America, Chicago! We all know how effective Chicago's gun laws have been.

1

JohnBrown 1 year, 3 months ago

If it ever goes to the Supreme Court, hopefully the conservative judges will interpret the 2nd Amendment as envisioned by the original writers and only allow flintlocks and ban everything else.

JohnBrown

3

Gandalf 1 year, 3 months ago

My opinion is the #1 reason for gun ownership IS recreational. Followed by the fact that gun ownership does give criminals pause about breaking into a home when someone is there. I’m quite sure that violent crime would go up if the law abiding public was disarmed.

Percentage wise very few people ask for concealed carry permits. I would hazard a guess most of those are retired law enforcement, public figures, people who may be potential kidnapping targets, or people whose business may take them into areas that are less than savory. Along with some who just want to be prepared for any eventuality. Kansas has what? Around 40,000 out of two million?

The most recent hard statistics I could find was for 2009. They showed around 35,000 gun related deaths. 18,000 of those were suicides. The remaining 17,000 would be split up among, legal police shootings, gang and drug activity, accidental shootings and the few lunatics roaming around.

The claim the America is more violent than the rest of the world is a joke. Same for the claim of the wild west mentality. People exaggerate the occurrences of the very few who commit horrific murders out of their own fear!

So why try to limit the constitutional rights of the millions of law abiding, responsible gun owners?

That brings us back to the addage, it's better to have them and not need them, than need them and not have them. You could bet your last dollar that if we didn't have them the need for them would skyrocket.

0

voevoda 1 year, 3 months ago

I'm confused by the pro-gun spokesmen who simultaneously argue two contradictory things:

1) The American world is so dangerous--there are so many criminals just waiting to attack people, invade their homes, kill them for the thrill, etc., that it is imperative for personal safety that they--and ideally every law-abiding citizen--have guns for personal protection and carry them whereever they go;

and

2) Almost nobody among those persons who possess guns is irresponsible and dangerous, and therefore there is no reason for any limits on gun ownership or where and when gun owners can carry weapons.

Both of those contentions cannot be true. If there are only 30,000 persons who possess guns who might use them in a dangerous manner, then there is really little reason for most people to own guns (except for recreational reasons) or any reason carry them around. After all, the chances of ever running into one of those 30,000 persons at a moment when he is intent upon mayhem would be astronomical. So virtually nobody would be less safe if access to guns were to be much limited.

However, if contention No. 1 is true, and ordinary American desperately need guns for their own protection, then we have a national safety crisis, and it becomes imperative that we find ways of preventing guns from finding their way into the hands of people who commit crimes with them. That would necessarily mean much better control over who gets weapons and how securely they keep them.

6

Gandalf 1 year, 3 months ago

Gun owners need to be MORE responsible? 200 million responsible gun owners vs 30,000.

0

JW1944 1 year, 3 months ago

The concept of American citizens having the right to bear arms back in the 1700's made sense. The idea was to have the ability to at least try to overthrow the government if things turned into a dictatorship. However, this is not the 1700's. Even if every American owned fully automatic assault rifles with a thousands of rounds of ammo think about the futility of trying to overthrow our government today. Our "Defense" budget is larger than the next 10 countries put together, our govt has nuclear weapons, biological weapons, nuclear aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, drones, hundreds of satellites, GPS, thousands of warships, bombers, fighter jets, the CIA, the FBI, wiretapping, etc, etc.The NRA & likewise argument of keeping & bearing arms for this purpose is nothing more than fantasia.I can see sport hunting as a right, although I do not partake, however, the only right to have assault weapons is for nut cases to continue slaughtering our innocent babies. Is this really what we want? Every other month innocent people are being gunned down for this long outdated argument for keeping assault weapons - we've got 2 choices; make them illegal or continue to have innocent kids' blood on our hands & I guarantee it will happen again & again. Try sleeping good with that on your concscience.

2

Laus_Deo 1 year, 3 months ago

As soon as men stop wanting to kill other men I will consider spending, whats left of MY money that Dobama has not taken, to buy something else besides guns.

The D is silent.

I imagine that when phasers are developed, there will be conscientious objectors that want to ban them.

0

Abdu Omar 1 year, 3 months ago

"Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." isn't this contradictory to the saying that "God helps those who help themselves"? If a country or a party oppresses you, you are going to pray for them? No help yourself and fight them where ever you see them and when they stop oppressing you, you stop fighting them. This is a better way since it removes the oppression and if you fight against oppression, God will help you. Don't be lame and let your enemy walk all over you, that shows cowardice not faith. God wants none of His followers to live under oppression.

0

KSManimal 1 year, 3 months ago

The focus on "need" for guns is irrelevant. Nobody "needs" a gun. Nor does anyone "need" freedom of speech, religion, assembly, ...or the right to due process, or to vote, or anything else in the Bill of Rights. All anyone really needs are food, air, water, and shelter.

Of course, we decided long ago that life would be more worth living if we had a bit more than just what we need - hence the Bill of Rights.

2

Commenting has been disabled for this item.