Promote gun responsibility

  • Follow Letters

I wish to praise Beverly Goda for her Nov. 30 letter (“Keep guns in safe hands”) regarding the deaths by gunshot of our young people. She appears to be a compassionate and responsible person who is willing to take a stand against the irresponsible behavior that allows children access to loaded firearms.

When is this epidemic of deaths going to be recognized and steps taken to get some measure of control? In 2002, available data reported 3,385 firearm deaths for the age group 0-19 years; 73 were of children younger than 5; 416 were children 5 -14; and 2,896 were 15-19. I have been a personal witness to this ever increasing carnage over the past 35 years. The price we pay for the “freedom” to keep unsafe firearms is being paid for by the continual slaughter of our young people.

In contrast to the responsible concern of Ms. Goda, I would like to point out the editorial on this subject published in your paper Nov. 7 (“This story should scare you”) was totally irresponsible. Your editorial writer used such phrases as a shotgun “as the top choice for home defense,” and “One can see why a homeowner would want one around.” While I fully support the position of Ms. Goda, I find the position of your editorial writer to be a total contradiction of your editorial page editor who maintained Nov. 25 that the role of an editorial writer required a sense of responsibility.

When are you going to grow a spine and take a stand for what is right for our children? Or do we wait until the next tragedy of a child killed by gunshot and again turn away from the truth of this carnage of our children?

Comments (10) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Jane Doe 1
60
Points
Jane Doe 1 12/03/12 - 11:33 pm
0
0
Amen!
Unpublished

None of those questions in regards to guns and gun control have clear-cut right or wrong answers, but *all* of them deserve to be explored in a more involved way than "Because it's my right to have a tool that is supremely effective at killing human beings and the world is so ultra-super-dangerous that clearly I deserve it".

This isn't a simple issue, much as people would like it to be. And like most problems with entitlement in this country, the right to firearm ownership is reaching a point where it HAS to be addressed properly, or at least *discussed* properly, because the alternative is things spiraling down to something a whole lot worse. If you want to own such a tool, then you, and others who are responsible for the safety of wide swathes of people (like governments) should assess exactly why, what your suitability is for having that tool, and at what point you are no longer suited for its ownership. It's easy to argue against the banning of all guns, but not by insisting that the gun control side of the argument just hates firearms: you just make yourself, and by proxy everyone who shares your positions, look foolish. And living in a world of black and white where any gun control is instant tyranny by a brutal authoritarian state or anyone having guns is a recipe for lunatic shootings must be exhausting for certain segments of the population.

I personally don't want anyone owning a gun who doesn't treat it with proper respect for the lethal instrument it is. How to determine that is a conversation worth having--but the Walter Mitty-type, "If I had a gun, I'd be da Man" type of attitude that comes out whenever there's a mass shooting incident *really* bothers me. It's video-game fantasy land, and it has no place in a real-life scenario.

I am a gun owner and I do not understand the ridiculous way some people respond to talk about gun control. It seems obvious that some gun regulation is necessary, unless you want people running around with rocket launchers and machine guns. The question is just what laws we need to keep people safe and right now the current laws are failing."

Jane Doe 1
60
Points
Jane Doe 1 12/03/12 - 11:35 pm
0
0
Also...
Unpublished

he chances of being murdered are about 1 in 20,000. If you're not a member of a gang, not selling illegal drugs, and not engaging in other criminal acts, the chances of being a homicide victim are far lower than that.

If carrying a gun was all about a survival instinct, you'd carry a portable, automatic defibrillator, rather than a gun, since you are over thirty five times more likely to die of a heart attack than a criminal assault. But you probably wouldn't get that tingly feeling telling people about your Philips HeartStart Home Defibrillator. No, for that you've got to tell them about your ".45 cal. Glock."

Most gun owners are not interested in survival - they are all about fantasizing about being an action hero. If someone wants to kill you, you'll never even get your handgun unholstered. And it's far more likely that you'll be killed by a heart attack than an assailant.

Being the victim of a life-threatening violent crime where a gun would help you is very slim. If someone is ready to slit your throat, they aren't going to wait for you to go get your gun. Nor is a mugger likely to give you a heads-up as to his intentions. He's going to pull a knife or gun on you and take your money. If you reach for a gun, he's going to try to kill you before you can kill him. That's how what could have been nothing more than a robbery turns into a homicide.

The chance of a law-abiding adult who has reached middle age being a homicide victim is practically non-existent.

And, by the way, I own multiple guns and I go target shooting to keep my proficiency up, so it's not a matter of comfort, morals, or values. It's recognition that one of the best ways to get killed by a gun is to carry one.

I'm not against the Second Amendment in general, and in fact, I'm open to gun control only as a tool against gun VIOLENCE, not gun ownership. The problem is that some of the more extreme libertarians/conservatives immediately demonstrate the knee-jerk reaction of immediately equating gun control to an infringement of Second Amendment rights, or that the bogeyman is somehow coming to take their guns away. If we can come up with sensible and practical ways to apply gun control (including gun safety education classes) in such a way that prevents bureaucratic red tape and infringement of Second Amendment rights, I don't have a problem with that."

Bizkit
35576
Points
Bizkit 12/04/12 - 12:17 am
3
0
There were 52,447 deliberate

There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths In 2009, 60% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.
The number of deaths related to alcohol each year is roughly 75,000 a year.
I guess it would be more practical to abolish alcohol to save more lives than abolish guns. The gun Genie is outta da bottle and it is absurd to deal with all the guns and impractical to do much about it just like trying to deal with immigration and a massive number of people. The best is to manage the situation.

nofanofobama
6993
Points
nofanofobama 12/04/12 - 06:53 am
7
0
its not the guns...the

its not the guns...the problem is lack of morals...a gun is a tool it has to have someone physically pick it up. .we no longer are concerned about right or wrong ...we have citizens and the govt. covet our EARNED possesions and scheme how to take it..we kill millions of fetus each year...we blame society and not the criminal..we elect govt.. who are criminals at best we elect obumler who ignores laws he doesnt like...punish those who work ..entitle those who dont..lavish vacations and parties at the white house while millions goe without due to his policies..no its morals and not the gun

Riverman1
93737
Points
Riverman1 12/04/12 - 08:37 am
7
0
Irresponsible parents

Irresponsible parents usually have irresponsible kids. We have an element of lawlessness with parts of our society. Lillard confuses recklessness with guns by some elements as being promoted by the responsible folks. What responsible person or gun owner HASN'T ALREADY taken a stand for responsible gun use?

He's mixing apples and oranges. His anger and unreasonable attitude surfaces at the end of his letter. He should be criticizing the families that promote such behavior and not those who are thankful for the second amendment.

Bizkit
35576
Points
Bizkit 12/04/12 - 08:12 am
7
0
Very Good point-Riverman. I

Very Good point-Riverman. I grew up to treat any gun as if it is loaded-and never point at anything unless you are going to shoot. It isn't rocket science.

LillyfromtheMills
14315
Points
LillyfromtheMills 12/04/12 - 08:45 am
4
0
Me, too!

And only shoot what you're going to eat!

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 12/04/12 - 09:31 am
4
0
Lilly....I don't like eating
Unpublished

Lilly....I don't like eating clay targets....

dichotomy
37496
Points
dichotomy 12/04/12 - 02:18 pm
5
0
Banning guns is similar to

Banning guns is similar to deporting 12,000,000 illegal aliens. One is a very liberal position, the other is a very conservative position. Neither is practical and, oh by the way, there are already laws on the books to cover both but they aren't being enforced.

In your 3385 shootings in 2002, you fail to point out that the 2,896 that were 5-19 were probably mostly young thugs shooting each other. The vast majority were not accidental shootings in the home. If our liberal justice system actually locked up the criminals and KEPT them there, we would not have so many citizens that felt the need to exercise their Constitutional right to keep a locked, loaded, and accessible weapon at home. I am not speaking against safety, but the practicality of the situation is that a gun that is under lock and key is absolutely useless when you need it. It only takes a couple of seconds to kick a door in during a home invasion and that is happening every day right here in our community.

If our government actually secured our border and enforced immigration laws, we would not be having these discussions about separating families, anchor babies, and welfare and medical benefits for those who are not entitled come here and live off of the taxpayers.

Both problems are simply the cost of doing business in a "progressive" society where our government has apparently sided with criminals and lawbreakers. And half of us have chosen to NOT be donors to the beneficiaries of our revolving door justice system and to resist being consumed by the socialist welfare state.

The bigger question on guns is why do so many people suddenly feel need to keep a weapon at home and the answer is liberal governmental policies and our progressive judiciary system which no longer protects it's law abiding citizens. If you are truly concerned with reducing the number of weapons in people's homes then you should be lobbying the judges to lock up criminals and keep them there. There are people buying guns to keep at home who absolutely hate, fear, and know little or nothing about a gun but they buy them because they live in fear of robberies and home invasions. And they see that our judges and prosecutors are doing NOTHING to lock up the criminals. The criminal justice system is nothing more than a speed bump on a superhighway. It don't even slow the little punks and thugs down.

You won't solve the gun in the home "problem" until you cure the crime in our neighborhoods problem. And I don't see any progressives writing letters about locking up the thugs and keeping them there for a really long time so ordinary folks can feel safe in their own homes. On the contrary, I see our politicians and judges supporting legislation that essentially says "let's don't even bother to try to punish criminals". Until that changes, I don't see gun ownership going down and yes, there will continue to be accidental shootings. But guns are not the root of the problem. The root of the problem is crime and perceived danger. Now you start addressing the crime and you'll have yourself something there Dr. Lillard. Until then, you are blaming tornados on people who build storm shelters.

oneofthesane
2201
Points
oneofthesane 12/04/12 - 04:17 pm
3
0
Where are the numbers for the
Unpublished

Where are the numbers for the amount of lives that were saved because a gun was legally available for use?

An example: Crack, Cocaine and the alike are illegal right? Do you still hear of crack/cocaine and the alike causing damage to our society and people? Yes. Well how come? It's illegal! (think about it). Ok.....now switch the "crack/cocaine and the alike" to "guns" and what changes??? Nothing.

OpenCurtain
10049
Points
OpenCurtain 12/04/12 - 04:54 pm
4
0
We need to ban them all - Car's

It is simple as that.
There are few vehicles in the USA than Citizen owned Firearms.
Yet Vehicles account for more deaths and injuries than Firearms every year.

Should we be banning Vehicles instead?

Using more current numbers from 2009:
Statistics based on 1 registered firearm for 1 registered vehicle.

Vehicle deaths vs. Citizen Firearm Deaths.
(I have say citizens because a few left leaners tried to included Military in their numbers to get what they wanted,)

2009 1 for 1 number
Gun Deaths ...... 6.33 per 100k
Vehicle Deaths...11.62 per 100k

Gun Injuries ..... 211.00 per/100k
Vehicle Injuries... 862.75 per /100K

So Vehicles despite training, testing, licensing and stricter law enforcement are 2x times more likely to get you killed, or 4x times more likely to get you hurt.

Quoting the Author May 25, 2012 Bruce W. Krafft
"... the fact that defensive gun users save twice as many lives as criminal gun users take, guns are still safer than cars and gun owners are still safer than car owners."
note:He said citizens are 2x times as likely to save a life than the one a criminal takes.

Is this why they want to ban firearms?
To make it safer or have equality for the Criminals?

Parting Shot
Pun intended... Remember, nothing in the US constitution gives you a right to own a vehicle. But, there is a 2nd amendment giving us a right to private gun ownership.

Gage Creed
19407
Points
Gage Creed 12/04/12 - 07:20 pm
1
0
Doc....if it has to be

Doc....if it has to be explained to you....you will never understand

Jane18
12332
Points
Jane18 12/04/12 - 08:05 pm
0
0
Just don't get it!

And Gage, Dr.Lillard and the others that think like him, will never, never, understand the common sense of responsible gun owners! They only think one way.........................

itsanotherday1
48335
Points
itsanotherday1 12/04/12 - 09:51 pm
0
0
Hey! It's.... thuh

Hey! It's.... thuh children...... ; The one phrase that makes everybody go stupid and lose all trace of common sense. Sure, the life of a child is precious, especially your own; but the the world is an imperfect place and unfortunately, sometimes children die.

Well, if it saves the life of one child.... A noble thought, but again, impractical when you are talking 6 billion people on this earth. We want to minimize child mortality within practical limits, but we don't need to get stupid about it. Nature and chance are cruel.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Mayor's race historic, controversial

Hardie Davis is still waiting to take office after winning a mayoral race that featured no white candidates and saw one of his opponents drop out the day before the election.
Search Augusta jobs