I had the opportunity this past Sunday, 1/19/14, to read a letter to the editor of the Buffalo News that had me shaking my head in disbelief. The title of this letter is "Arming more citizens will make society safer" by a Chris W. from Buffalo. How I wish I knew how to link things because this letter is a must read and I wish I had the time to type it in completely but I will try to paraphrase. This guy desires the return to the 1800's old west mentality. He bemoans the liberals ideas about reducing guns and says 'reducing access to firearms simply don't work'. The thing is, in my opinion, that there are very few laws that restrict guns at this time. New York's law isn't much of a big deal and it needs a lot of work done on it to make it so it would be more attacking of the criminal element instead of harassing the law abiding gun owners. Criminals, even with an amended SAFE act, will still get their guns. Take the nut who shot the West Webster firemen that were responding to a call two Christmas Eves ago. He got his guns through some dumbass college girl who bought them for him. She ignored the law that you cannot buy guns for a felon and people died because she ignored the law.
Mr. Willett also states "Arming more Americans deters would-be shooters from firing". This is a load of horse crap as the usual nut case that goes on a rampage usually ends up with his getting shot or his taking his own life. They plan for that ending and strive to do as much damage until their demise. Having more armed people will only make the nut plan to try to take them out first and then go for the rest. These people are not stupid, just deranged. There is a difference.
This next bit of wit from Mr. Willett is the about guns in schools and just made my jaw drop. He states "Not only should we guarantee that each school has multiple armed guards and metal detectors", which is all well and good but who is going to pay for them? And here is the good part 'but we should permit concealed carry for the children of responsible gun owners to protect their classmates'. Do we really need our kids packing? Are kids mature enough to accept such a responsibility? I have serious doubts. I can just see it now with the school bully..'I will meet you at noon, behind the gym, and bring your six shooter.' Guns. guns and more guns and now he wants school kids armed. Where will it end?? Not anytime soon as he advocates armed guards and concealed carry in every mall, office, theater, sports arena, public bus and government building in America. Do we need 19,000 armed people at a Sabre's game? What if the ref makes a bad call and really pisses off someone who is packing? Bang, and then the fun begins as everyone starts shooting because of the panic it would generate. All it would take is one nut with a permit and a concealed weapon. AND do I want people in the office where I work packing. NO! I irk enough people, I don't need to fear irking the wrong person.
Chris W. ends up by saying that he wants big government out of our lives. Hew wants the "Tyrannical" SAFE act repealed feeling that would be a great start. The SAFE act may be badly flawed but it is not tyrannical. He then states, and I quote "From there, we should do away with gun registries and background checks which are not only unconstitutional infringements of our rights, but discourage responsible citizens from owning and using firearms". Gun registries and background checks do NOT prevent responsible law abiding people from obtaining firearms. They are necessary. You buy a gun and register it..no big deal. A responsible gun owner should have a registry of what he owns and if the state has them registered and your gun is lost or stolen and is recovered you might get it back I would think. But this idiot wants no background checks??? What is this guy, insane??? Without background checks Arizona psycho Jarrod Loughner, if he were free, could come up here and buy a gun or many guns for his next killing spree and none would be the wiser. Any ex-convict could get a gun. You lead a clean life a background check is not a big deal. You should feel a bit safer that someone has to check people out so a certified nut does not get a weapon. Criminals will still get there guns but why should it be made easy for them to obtain them? A gun is a lethal instrument, it should not be as simple as a trip down to Apu's Quickie Mart to get one.
Our laws should not discourage a responsible gun buyer from getting a firearm for his recreational use or protection if his job demands it. The laws are there for his and our protection. Joe Blow wants to hunt deer, let him get his rifle but there are limits as to the types of weapons.that can be owned. You do not need an UZI to hunt deer.
This isn't the old west. This is twenty first century America. I really don't want to walk into a bar, diner or First Niagara Center and see everyone wearing gun belts. The thing is you can draw up a zillion laws but they won't stop the nut. Take Norway for example. They have strict gun laws and a very low murder by gun rate but all it took was one nut to arm himself and kill 80+ people. The problem is you can't make a law against insanity, plain and simple. The equation of NUT + GUN = MAYHEM is an absolute no matter what law is in place. The person who figures out how to change this equation for the better should win a Nobel Prize. And it certainly isn't that prize winner, Chris W., from Buffalo.
Boy, have I been serious upon my return. I promise to lighten things up.
No comments:
Post a Comment