Bad Letter to Editor Roanoke Times, Va

[DaveH]

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/letters/wb/215396

Would more guns solve the gun problem?

The online gun merchant who sold weapons to Virginia Tech's mass killer and to an Illinois campus murderer also sold gun accessories to George Sodini, who killed three people and wounded nine at a Pittsburgh-area health club.

The merchant, Eric Thompson of Green Bay, Wis., shows no compunction; people like Sodini, he says, could get weapons lots of other places, such as stores like Kmart. In short, everybody does it, and because everybody does it, there's no need for anybody to stop doing it.

Thompson also said in a newspaper interview that Sodini's attack shows police are too slow to respond to emergencies and underscores the need for people to protect themselves.

OK, gym rats, time to strap on a piece during your workout in case another madman enters; Thompson will sell you a weapon. Mightn't hurt to pack some heat, too, at the shopping mall, in a restaurant, on your evening stroll or even in church. Got to protect yourselves.

Against whom? Why, against all those other folks who bear arms. To gun people, if there's any problem with guns, the answer always is more guns. Think. Does this lead us anywhere good?

BOB WILLIS
FINCASTLE

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[retsupt99]

Oh Bobby, Bobby, Bobby, there you go again, talking about something that you have no clue about. More guns has proven to create less crime, but then I'm confusing you with the 'facts' aren't I?
I'll say no more as my words would only fall on deaf ears.

[ccw9mm]

Would more guns solve the gun problem?

There is no "gun" problem. There is a problem of disrespect, dishonor and disloyalty to what is right and good. In short, there is a crime problem, and some criminals choose a firearm as the tool of choice. There are still knives, baseball bats, tire irons and a host of other implements. Just ask criminals in the U.K. whether the criminalization of upstanding citizens' ability to bear arms is bearing anything but improved ability to take out upstanding citizens.

The online gun merchant who sold weapons to Virginia Tech's mass killer and to an Illinois campus murderer also sold gun accessories to George Sodini.

And he would have known this how, exactly, at the time?

The merchant, Eric Thompson of Green Bay, Wis., shows no compunction.

What "compunction" should he have shown, not knowing one buyer from another? Does his crystal ball work, or is it like all others issued to the rest of us, which were apparently all issued DOA?

In short, everybody does it, and because everybody does it, there's no need for anybody to stop doing it.

Nope. The logic is: since there are tens of thousands of places to buy an accessory, including the corner sporting goods shop, shutting down a "gun" store won't reduce the availability one bit.

... police are too slow to respond to emergencies and underscores the need for people to protect themselves.

It's reality and it's a fact: an LEO who is two miles away at the time of a crime finding you CANNOT actually simultaneously be there, on the instant of that crime going down. You have two choices, and two choices only. You can either survive until the cavalry arrives, or you can fail to survive until the cavalry arrives. Pick one.

... gym ... shopping mall ... restaurant ... evening stroll ... church ... Got to protect yourselves.

Insightful comment. Why? I suspect for a different reason than the person is able to understand. The reason is that the ACME Felons' Union #234 doesn't issue calendars of their planned crimes. Never has, never will. The reality is, crime will strike when it does. All you can do is to survive it ... or not.

[Need protection] Against whom? Why, against all those other folks who bear arms. To gun people, if there's any problem with guns, the answer always is more guns.

How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims? Seems to me that making something illegal simply would disarm law-abiding people, leaving ALL remaining weapon-toting criminals with a selection of known-to-be-unarmed victims to choose from. Gee, that doesn't sound like the goal of the exercise, to make it easier for criminals to ply their trades. And yet, that's exactly the primary effect of any victim disarmament law that goes into effect.

Those criminals are going to be armed no matter what you say, no matter what any naive, power-hungry politician 1000 miles away says, and irrespective of whether a silly sign is posted.

Let's do a little mental experiment.

In a group of 100 people, let's say there are three criminals who are armed. You are in that crowd, and you're unarmed. The criminal knows it for a fact (because of those lovely signs and the admonition that you'll be a criminal if you dare to arm yourself against crime). Think, for a moment, about the likelihood of your surviving a violent attack by one of those criminals. It is what it is: complete and utter chance.

The lunacy of naive gun-control thinking, though, is that the ONLY real change to the equation that results in stronger odds of withstanding crime is to become MORE prepared to defend, MORE capable of mounting an effective response. The simplest way of achieving that is to become armed, trained.

By comparison, take any group of 100 people, in which there are 97 armed/trained citizens and three criminals. In that scenario, what is the likelihood of upstanding citizens surviving being criminalized? Bueller ... Bueller ... Bueller ... Bueller ...?

In short:

• When tossed into an enclosed space with a tiger, are you more or less likely to survive if unarmed?
• When tossed into an enclosed space with a lion, are you more or less likely to survive if unarmed?
• When tossed into an enclosed space with an armed violent criminal, are you more or less likely to survive if unarmed?

It's that simple. Really.

[Mardet65]

There is no "gun" problem. There is a problem of disrespect, dishonor and disloyalty to what is right and good. In short, there is a crime problem, and some criminals choose a firearm as the tool of choice. There are still knives, baseball bats, tire irons and a host of other implements. Just ask criminals in the U.K. whether the criminalization of upstanding citizens' ability to bear arms is bearing anything but improved ability to take out upstanding citizens.


And he would have known this how, exactly, at the time?


What "compunction" should he have shown, not knowing one buyer from another? Does his crystal ball work, or is it like all others issued to the rest of us, which were apparently all issued DOA?


Nope. The logic is: since there are tens of thousands of places to buy an accessory, including the corner sporting goods shop, shutting down a "gun" store won't reduce the availability one bit.


It's reality and it's a fact: an LEO who is two miles away at the time of a crime finding you CANNOT actually simultaneously be there, on the instant of that crime going down. You have two choices, and two choices only. You can either survive until the cavalry arrives, or you can fail to survive until the cavalry arrives. Pick one.


Insightful comment. Why? I suspect for a different reason than the person is able to understand. The reason is that the ACME Felons' Union #234 doesn't issue calendars of their planned crimes. Never has, never will. The reality is, crime will strike when it does. All you can do is to survive it ... or not.


How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims? Seems to me that making something illegal simply would disarm law-abiding people, leaving ALL remaining weapon-toting criminals with a selection of known-to-be-unarmed victims to choose from. Gee, that doesn't sound like the goal of the exercise, to make it easier for criminals to ply their trades. And yet, that's exactly the primary effect of any victim disarmament law that goes into effect.

Those criminals are going to be armed no matter what you say, no matter what any naive, power-hungry politician 1000 miles away says, and irrespective of whether a silly sign is posted.

Let's do a little mental experiment.

In a group of 100 people, let's say there are three criminals who are armed. You are in that crowd, and you're unarmed. The criminal knows it for a fact (because of those lovely signs and the admonition that you'll be a criminal if you dare to arm yourself against crime). Think, for a moment, about the likelihood of your surviving a violent attack by one of those criminals. It is what it is: complete and utter chance.

The lunacy of naive gun-control thinking, though, is that the ONLY real change to the equation that results in stronger odds of withstanding crime is to become MORE prepared to defend, MORE capable of mounting an effective response. The simplest way of achieving that is to be come armed, trained.

By comparison, take any group of 100 people, in which there are 97 armed/trained citizens and three criminals. In that scenario, what is the likelihood of upstanding citizens surviving being criminalized? Bueller ... Bueller ... Bueller ... Bueller ...?

In short:

• When tossed into an enclosed space with a tiger, are you more or less likely to survive if unarmed?
• When tossed into an enclosed space with a lion, are you more or less likely to survive if unarmed?
• When tossed into an enclosed space with an armed violent criminal, are you more or less likely to survive if unarmed?

It's that simple. Really.

Very nicely put.

[Saber]

I don’t know who this Bob Willis is although its apparent he’s not well read on facts or perhaps he’s simply young and inexperienced.
Regards,

[ccw9mm]

I don’t know who this Bob Willis is although its apparent he’s not well read on facts or perhaps he’s simply young and inexperienced.
Regards,

I believe that "Bob Willis of Fincastle" is a retired editor of The Roanoke Times: click.

[llongshot]

There's a percentage of unstable people in the Human Race as a whole. To a greater or lesser degree (but still to a close approximate percentile) they permeate all levels of life. This means the Astronauts, the Police, the Congress, the Doctors and Nurses, and yes folks, this website.

[DaveH]

There's a percentage of unstable people in the Human Race as a whole. To a greater or lesser degree (but still to a close approximate percentile) they permeate all levels of life. This means the Astronauts, the Police, the Congress, the Doctors and Nurses, and yes folks, this website.

Source for the "but still to a close approximate percentile" statement, please. I have no problem with a vauge "to a greater or lesser degree" but with in a "percentile"?

A percentile of what base?

How close is "close"?

A percentile is any of the 99 numbered points that divide an ordered set of scores into 100 parts each of which contains one-hundredth of the total.

As some groups of society have an incarceration rate at 1 in 355 and others have an incarceration rate of 1 in 9 (See: http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/...20in%20100.pdf) I find it hard to understand "close approximate percentile."

BTW: I'm not supporting the point of view of the Pew Charitable Trust. Just using their stats.

BTW2: Studies of CHP revocations have shown that CHP holders have far below the crime rate of many other groups -- not even approaching the 1 in 355 rate, e.g., in Florida it is 1.4 licenses revoked per 1000 licensees. (See: Some predictors of CCW permit prevalence & revocation rates in Florida (GunsAndCrime.org))

IMHO 1.4 in 1000 licensees (if my math is right that is 1 in 714) Vs. 1 in 355 rate (much less 1 in 9) is not close.

Even if it were close, CHP can be revoked for far less that what it takes to serve time, meaning the disparity is even greater.

[boerep]

There's a percentage of unstable people in the Human Race as a whole. To a greater or lesser degree (but still to a close approximate percentile) they permeate all levels of life. This means the Astronauts, the Police, the Congress, the Doctors and Nurses, and yes folks, this website.

You have found me already?

Regards
Rick

[tbrenke]

I don’t know who this Bob Willis is although its apparent he’s not well read on facts or perhaps he’s simply young and inexperienced.

I believe that "Bob Willis of Fincastle" is a retired editor of The Roanoke Times: click.

well that only leaves "not well read on facts".

[KralBlbec]

* When tossed into an enclosed space with a tiger, are you more or less likely to survive if unarmed?
* When tossed into an enclosed space with a lion, are you more or less likely to survive if unarmed?
* When tossed into an enclosed space with an armed violent criminal, are you more or less likely to survive if unarmed?

I like that :D

[DaveH]

well that only leaves "not well read on facts".

Hum?

OYOH, I'd opt for a cult member (the anti-gun cult) repeating his manta louder and louder to try to drown out the facts/ignore them.