'2nd amendment must go' - Jay Mohr
- Thread starter eyer
- Start date
BusyAfternoon
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Posts
- 2,041
Thoughtful Letter To Editor (Free Press) On Gun Control
I wish to congratulate you for a most thoughtful and moderate editorial in April 14’s Free Press.
You go to some length to point out gun owners think only their rights need be protected while other people’s rights are negotiable. I would bring to your attention that this country already has more that 30,000 gun laws that greatly restrict gun possession/ownership/use in one way or another. Would you tolerate this kind of legalistic confinement to your First Amendment rights? Of course not. This is especially true when we recall how ineffective all this anti-gun legislation has been, and will be, in controlling criminal activity. Yet, here we are calling for more gun laws.
You mention the rights of Detroiters to be free from fear of gun crime. However, you avoid mentioning that the vast majority of gun crime takes place in our major urban areas. New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Atlanta, etc. These are the places where much of the structural poverty, family disintegration, drug abuse, educational failure and violent crime occur. Many residents of these areas talk about the need to “get guns off our streets.” I suggest we also talk about getting kids off our streets and back home where they belong.
Finally, you make no attempt to put gun violence into proper context. Violent crime, including gun crime, is continuing to decline. This decline has been under way for many years now. Despite recent events, one of the safest places one can be to avoid harm from guns is our schools — especially elementary schools.
You do mention the value of studying what makes people kill. I agree. However, we already know the full outlines of the answers here. Even if we knew all about why people kill, we would still have to grapple with how to identify such people and, in a free society, what legal methods would be available to stop them.
I am reminded that even if a person knows that another is about to commit a violent crime, the police will tell you they can do little until the law is actually broken. This is why restraining orders against violent spouses often don’t work and much physical harm takes place while police wait.
This brings me to my last point. I am upset that politicians, the news media and others are shamelessly exploiting the tragedy in Newtown, Conn., for their own purposes. As well, I am painfully aware that it may be true we have to inform parents that there is not a great deal more we can do as we look to achieve the proper balance between the rights of one group or another. The current wave of emotionally based legislation will not succeed in any way to reduce gun crime in schools or elsewhere. As we await effective methods for identifying and controlling murderers we must not give away rights of the law-abiding, which have been obtained by constitutional mandate and maintained by enormous sacrifice over the decades.
I wish to congratulate you for a most thoughtful and moderate editorial in April 14’s Free Press.
You go to some length to point out gun owners think only their rights need be protected while other people’s rights are negotiable. I would bring to your attention that this country already has more that 30,000 gun laws that greatly restrict gun possession/ownership/use in one way or another. Would you tolerate this kind of legalistic confinement to your First Amendment rights? Of course not. This is especially true when we recall how ineffective all this anti-gun legislation has been, and will be, in controlling criminal activity. Yet, here we are calling for more gun laws.
You mention the rights of Detroiters to be free from fear of gun crime. However, you avoid mentioning that the vast majority of gun crime takes place in our major urban areas. New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Atlanta, etc. These are the places where much of the structural poverty, family disintegration, drug abuse, educational failure and violent crime occur. Many residents of these areas talk about the need to “get guns off our streets.” I suggest we also talk about getting kids off our streets and back home where they belong.
Finally, you make no attempt to put gun violence into proper context. Violent crime, including gun crime, is continuing to decline. This decline has been under way for many years now. Despite recent events, one of the safest places one can be to avoid harm from guns is our schools — especially elementary schools.
You do mention the value of studying what makes people kill. I agree. However, we already know the full outlines of the answers here. Even if we knew all about why people kill, we would still have to grapple with how to identify such people and, in a free society, what legal methods would be available to stop them.
I am reminded that even if a person knows that another is about to commit a violent crime, the police will tell you they can do little until the law is actually broken. This is why restraining orders against violent spouses often don’t work and much physical harm takes place while police wait.
This brings me to my last point. I am upset that politicians, the news media and others are shamelessly exploiting the tragedy in Newtown, Conn., for their own purposes. As well, I am painfully aware that it may be true we have to inform parents that there is not a great deal more we can do as we look to achieve the proper balance between the rights of one group or another. The current wave of emotionally based legislation will not succeed in any way to reduce gun crime in schools or elsewhere. As we await effective methods for identifying and controlling murderers we must not give away rights of the law-abiding, which have been obtained by constitutional mandate and maintained by enormous sacrifice over the decades.
Similar threads
