affirmation of a God given right

Here is an email from Gary, a friend, a local shooter and a fellow avid supporter of the 2nd amendment.
The editorial is an interesting read into the minds of some people in this country, but more important are the replies that follow from both factions.

When I was in high school (and this was a private school too, not a run down school from the slums or ghettos) my classmates had 'easy and cheap access' (cheaper than a handgun) to illegal drugs. I don't think banning guns will accomplish anything. Do you??
its tried true and true, there is no doubt that handguns are meant for killing. There's no need to embellish it by saying its for sport or food gathering. People will find a way to kill others - what a legally owned handgun can accomplish is to level the playing field for the smaller, weaker, minourity, single mother of 4 who has to defend herself from her insane ex-husband.

If you do not want to have anything to do with handguns and do not think you can be responsible for them, do not say your neighbour should be as helpless as yourself.

A link to an editorial about the tragic event was posted on GlockTalk. Even though the editorial appeared in a Minnesota paper, I wrote a reply (I HAVE spent a fair amount of time in Minnesota on company business).

Here is the link to the editorial: http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2007/04/19/71622

And here is the reply I e-mailed to the author:

Mr. Mehra:

Let me start by correcting simple errors of fact in your editorial. First, a PERSON, Cho Seung-Hui, killed people at Virginia Tech; neither the Second Amendment nor the inanimate objects this deranged murderer used can be held responsible for his willful actions. Second, the Glock 22 is NOT “so named for the number of bullets that its magazine can contain” (its magazine actually holds 15 rounds), 22 is simply the Glock model number.

If an individual or group is intent on committing mass murder, firearms are not the only, or even the most efficient means of doing so. The largest mass murder in recent American history was committed with passenger aircraft and the second-place slaughter was accomplished with fuel oil and fertilizer. Smaller bombs, arson and even automobiles have also been used. No “gun control” laws could have prevented either of these events. In fact, no “gun control” laws could have prevented what happened at Virginia Tech, since making something illegal, say, cocaine, doesn’t make it unavailable to those willing to break the law and pay the market price. Handguns are essentially banned in Japan but that didn’t stop the murder of the Mayor of Nagasaki with one.

As you may know, Virginia is a “shall-issue” state where law-abiding citizens may obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense. Unfortunately, Virginia Tech policy prohibits such carry on campus. Of course, such prohibitions have no effect on criminals; they only disarm the law-abiding. Of course, you seem to find some fault with “the pseudo-libertarian response that a more-armed citizenry could have better defended themselves against such an attack” (to quote you), but offer NO REASON WHY a legally-armed student or professor could not have cut short the terrible slaughter at Virginia Tech. In fact, there is no reason you COULD offer, so I understand the lack of supporting argument for your odd opinion.

I, like many other Americans, remain convinced that firearms in the hands of good citizens SAVE lives every year. Tragically, the unarmed victims at Virginia Tech were just that—UNARMED victims.

Gary Newport

Hayward , California


Post a Comment

<< Home