This is in reply to Open letter to 20/20, Permission is granted to distribute. by Andy Moynihan
Andy's posting his message in a number of places. When one doesn't own a newspaper or tv station the internet's a good medium to reach people.
I'm going to disagree with his open letter however. Not because I disagree with his feelings, I don't. I disagree with the content. It's more an emotionally charged piece than a refuting of 20/20's "facts".
20/20's piece "Easy Access: $5,000 and One Hour Buys 10 Guns" indicates there's a loophole that allows anyone to buy a gun at gun shows without background checks, etc. This may in fact be true, however the same article also indicated that one still had to present ID, and that the dealers were failing to follow that policy, -and- that the law enforcement present failed to enforce it. A system, used by sci fi cons nation wide to crack down on bootlegs might work here. It involved inspecting the booths at random times to verify they were only selling legal stuff. Plain clothes cops could go in, buy guns, and close down the non-legally operating dealers. Simple.
Another point is, I might be able to walk in and buy it, but I would still need the proper permits to carry it. Exit inspections by LEO to ensure that customers had the proper permits would also improve compliance with -existing- laws. Work such inspections within the particular states reciprocal honoring policies. You get an immediate decrease in the number of guns bought and carried across state lines. No need for more laws, just enforce the existing ones.
I also take exception to the staged depiction of a child holding a gun to their head. Such an image will set off an emotional reaction, and on an issue such as this one needs to use reason. Yes, kids are killed by guns. It's tragic. But it's only 2.5% of all child deaths.
According to the National Center for Health
3.5% of childhood deaths involve a fire arm. This includes murders (2.3%), suicides (1%) and accidental (.2%). A child is more likely to die of natural causes (44.8%), in a car accident (9.5%) or other causes.
Interestingly enough, while 1% of child suicides involve firearms, .9% involve some form of strangulation. Where is the outrage over rope and belts? Not a glamorous cause, "Ban the Belt", and those still spanking their kids (child abuse?) would object. After all, it's not the belt, it's the use that is the problem.
For more information, I refer to my article "The Myth that Gun Control is Good By Bob Hubbard", which I wrote from the non-gun person perspective. Restrictive gun laws don't stop crime as criminals break the law. All they do is prevent law abiding citizens access to a legitimate means of defense, and in fact rather than decrease gun crimes, in fact increase them as the criminals know their victims are more likely not armed, thereby giving them the advantge. For proof, one simply has to compare gun related crimes in restrictive places like New York, Illinois and DC with less restrictive places like Vermont, Arizonia and Texas. There is also the hypocracy of many anti-gun supporters who want us unarmed, but insist on having weapons themselves.
All in all, the 20/20 piece, and in fact many other "lets disarm the nation for the children" pieces tug at our hearts, and while they mean well, in fact fail to realize that the end result is in fact a more dangerous society, not a safer one. Armed and educated with strict penalty for wrongful use to me, based on the facts I've seen, seems the best policy.
America
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good job, Bob. I fully concur with your post here.
ReplyDeleteAs I myself state in the original letter, I don't normally consider it worthy of my time to explain these things to obvious anti-gunners but in this case ,needing to vent on this particular day in my life, this was as good a target as any.
Venting's always good. :)
ReplyDeleteYour data above are excellent and the piece was done in a style I'd likely have far more closely emulated if I had believed it would be anything but wasted on those in question.
ReplyDeleteI think some confusion has arisen as to what my post was intended to be, despite my having made clear early on that I was venting for my own amusement , and if others feel similarly amused, so much the better.
All i "refuted" was what was shown in the video clip and the text link, and that was less a refutation than repudiation, period. These should not be confused.