This guy got my blood boiling. At the risk of subjecting readers here to my wordiness, this is what's waiting for him in his in-box and at the New Haven Register:
My goodness, Norm, I don't know where to start.
First of all, I feel bad for you that you've lived your life around people who have misused firearms. Sounds like you grew up in a bad area that suffered from a lack of civil order and police presence. Sounds like you grew up with a man who made some deadly enemies, instead of a real dad who instilled in you a sense of right and wrong. That's a terrible way to grow up. And now you're defending young men who have used guns in acts of lethal violence. Sounds like you've escaped Detroit, but you haven't escaped the moral decay that breeds indiscriminate violence.
Perhaps your view is stilted by being around people who used guns to bully others, to threaten them into submission and to subject them to violence. Me, I grew up in a then-rural part of New Jersey, and guns were used for recreation, for food (loved the venison steaks a friend gave us each year), and as farm tools - we had sheep that needed defense from feral dogs and that occasionally had to be put down due to injury or illness. My point is that all your life, you've seen guns used destructively, whereas all my life, I've been around guns used positively. Obviously, those life experiences have shaped our viewpoints, but mine are absolutely no less valid than yours.
You wrote "I got in my share of fistfights as a kid, and Iíve been angry enough to kill on more than one occasion. But, to date, Iíve never shot at another human being. I expect to die without ever having fired a shot in anger." Well, Norm, in six decades I've never, ever thrown a punch in anger. And not by avoiding aggression; I played football and wrestled in high school and college, and it doesn't get much more aggressive than that. But I've also been a shooter since my early teens, I've carried a defensive handgun for about a quarter of a century, and I have yet to shoot at another human being or shoot in anger. Setting aside my expectations, I certainly hope to die with the same status. The difference between the two of us, perhaps, is that I am prepared - by training, mindset and equipment - to not sacrifice my life or that of my loved ones to some angry miscreant who would do us harm. You know, the type you say you see too many of.
Moving on: Yes, the US has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world. I'm not sure about your numbers, but let's call it close enough. We also have the highest rate of automobile ownership in the world - actually, right around the same number, 85 passenger vehicles per 100 Americans. But if this was about the deaths of innocent people by abuse of vehicles, would we even be having this conversation? Do you have the same level of indignation about people killed by inexperienced and reckless and drunk drivers, or by morons who text while driving? Unintentional injury and death by motor vehicle is far more common than firearm injury or death. And if you want to confine the discussion to just intentional deaths, does the number of 1.2 million aborted fetuses per year in the US bump your blood pressure just a little?
You ask: "Where do all these guns come from? Who is dumping them into inner cities? What does arming high school kids have to do with the Second Amendment? ... ... Finally, why not harsh penalties for the purveyors of this cheap and easy violence?" Norm, as a lawyer, are you not aware of the 20,000-plus gun laws on the books in the United States? The short answer is that it is illegal in 50 States for anyone under 21 years of age to purchase a handgun. That's airtight Federal law. So how many "kids" 21 and over do you know of who are still in high school? If you are offended by the "arming [of] high school kids," aren't you moved to scream at those who are paid to enforce the laws already on the books, but who don't? Harsh penalties already exist for those who violate gun laws, but - they have to be caught and prosecuted first. Frankly, I am appalled when gun laws get cast aside in plea-bargain agreements. And hear this: if, as a criminal defense lawyer, you have ever pled a gun offense down to a lesser crime, I submit that you are part of the very problem that you are railing against.
Lastly, let me address one of your first points: the Second Amendment. You take issue with the basic guarantee of a citizen's freedom to be armed, but you attempt to make your point using violent lawbreakers as examples. Somewhere in your pursuit of a law degree, did they ever teach you that laws are for the law-abiding? The entire criminal justice system is built around differentiating between those who abide by the law and those who do not. Has it crossed your mind that America, overall, is a nation of law-abiding people? You invoke the notion of patriotism - "Disí me and die, sucker ó thatís the new motto for patriots." Hardly. That's the motto for low-life gangbangers, nothing more. You go on to state "the prospect of an armed citizenryís resorting to self-help to chase tyrants from office. Thatís patriotic nonsense." Again, hardly. One need only look at the genocides perpetrated by Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot on their previously disarmed citizens to understand the virtue and value of an armed civilian population.
Frankly, Norm, the Second Amendment isn't the problem. Doing away with it won't cure the social ills you run up against; they're they symptom, not the disease. I suggest directing your creative energies toward creating stronger family units where kids grow up knowing both parents and where knowing right from wrong is a basic family value instilled from birth.
Someone needs to ask him how the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and the Volstead Act worked out for America...... :rolleyes:
I think we need to go after the internal combustion engine. After all that has been part of many more deaths than firearms. But the antis don't look at that. I have posted it before. If you want to make the largest impact on non-natural deaths ban all forms of motorized transportation.
Ok sarcasm off. But seriously why don't they look for the biggest impact? Firearms are protected under law but cars and trucks are not.
Unfortunately, the author's grossly incorrect, opting to foist responsibility on an inanimate object instead of where it belongs: on the amoral, blood-sucking criminal devoid of compassion, compunction and reason. The weapon is incidental.Quote:
Originally Posted by From the article
Disarming victims ahead of time via criminalization won't help many victims better withstand attack sufficiently well to survive until the cavalry arrive. It'll only dramatically increase the likelihood of their failure to do so.
Such folks as this author might well never, ever understand, instead preferring to erroneously believe that sacrificing the well being of tens of millions of citizens should be done in the hopeful but vain wish that criminals will disarm themselves once the playing field has been cleared of all opposition. :blink:
Dial-a-Prayer + Pixie Dust <> solution.
EDIT: He should read the essay by Marko Kloos (aka, MunchkinWrangler), entitled Why The Gun Is Civilization.
gasmitty, I would love to know how he responds.
Like Bugs Bunny would say. What a moron!
Lucky for us when the government outlaws something it usually doesn't work well. They outlawed drugs and even declaired war on them. Look how well that is working for them. They can try to outlaw guns but I doubt it will work for them.