Argument against guns is offensive

Editor:

As a lifelong gun owner who

has never used a firearm inappropri-

ately, like 99.9 percent of us, I can’t

help but be offended by Ms. Diane

Daiute’s letter to the editor in the

August 1st edition of The New Era.

Actually, as a human being, I am of-

fended.

She stated that Americans don’t

care about or grieve for the children

killed in gun-related deaths. What!

I don’t know a single person who

doesn’t grieve over the loss of a

child, accidental or otherwise!

I grieve for any and every child

lost to any accident, whether a car

accident, drowning in a bucket or a

pool, stuck in household furniture,

run over by a lawnmower, backed

over by a delivery truck, or a bike or

skateboard accident.

It is horrible under any circum-

stances, but terrible accidents hap-

pen.

Editor:

As a lifelong gun owner who

has never used a firearm inappropri-

ately, like 99.9 percent of us, I can’t

help but be offended by Ms. Diane

Daiute’s letter to the editor in the

August 1st edition of The New Era.

Actually, as a human being, I am of-

fended.

She stated that Americans don’t

care about or grieve for the children

killed in gun-related deaths. What!

I don’t know a single person who

doesn’t grieve over the loss of a

child, accidental or otherwise!

I grieve for any and every child

lost to any accident, whether a car

accident, drowning in a bucket or a

pool, stuck in household furniture,

run over by a lawnmower, backed

over by a delivery truck, or a bike or

skateboard accident.

It is horrible under any circum-

stances, but terrible accidents hap-

pen.

The law-abiding gun owner side

of me takes even greater offense to

her statement that she feels all gun

owners are bad or as she states,

“only bad people own guns.” The

Sweet Home community must have

at least a 70-85 percent instance of

gun ownership so she is surrounded

by bad people.

As a bit of irony she believes

that combat veterans should be

leading the cause to ban

firearms.

You know why they, by and large,

don’t? Because they have been to

the messed-up countries where the

dictatorships have taken away the

citizens’ guns and seen that there,

in fact, only the bad people have the

guns.

That’s why we have to spend

trillions of dollars going in and

cleaning up their mess while sac-

rificing our soldiers’ precious lives

because they have no means of pro-

tecting or defending themselves.

Only the law-abiding follow the

laws; this is elementary thinking

here.

Giving Bill Clinton’s ineffec-

tual gun/high capacity magazine

ban credit for a reduction in crime

is laughable. All that it really did

was make it more expensive to ob-

tain still perfectly legal

firearms and

magazines.

If anything, it was a hindrance

to crime

fighting as it made it much

harder for police officers to obtain

high-capacity magazines to

fight

crime with. The red tape involved in

doing this discouraged many officers

into just giving up on the process. I

saw it with my own eyes many times

over. It lasted for 10 years and when

it expired there was virtually no one

interested in renewing it because of

its utter uselessness and was a prov-

en failure in every way.

The statistics thrown around are

very misleading. First of all, most of

the quoted ones are from the CDC.

This organization is as anti-gun as

the NRA is pro.

Anyone under 18 is considered

a “child” in these statistics. Homi-

cides are not broken down into jus-

tifiable and non-, so every 17-year-

old gang-banger shot by a police

officer or law-abiding citizen in self

defense is considered a “homicide.”

If that doesn’t skew the facts, I

don’t know what does! Inter-gang

homicides are also not taken into

account, rightly or wrongly.

I also don’t understand compar-

ing the number of pre-schoolers to

police officers as some kind of sta-

tistic. She quotes “those same two

years” but doesn’t specify which

two years. There are 26.7 million

children up to the age of 5 in the

U.S. and around 800,000 law en-

fforcement officers.

So out of 26,700,000 children

roughly 86 to 87 children were trag-

ically killed with

firearms, per year,

in some random two-year span, a

terrible thing. According to her sta-

tistics, out of the 800,000 police of-

ficers, 89 were killed in the line of

duty.

That is the most misleading sta-

tistic quoted by Ms. Daiute. That’s

44 to 45 per year but how many were

killed by

irearms? Accidents, espe-

cially traffic accidents, have been the

leading cause of death for police of-

icers in the line of duty until 2011. I

am saddened by any innocent death

but the percentages hardly suggest

an epidemic justifying the sacri

fice

of a constitutional right. The per-

centage of pre-schoolers killed by

a

firearm each year comes out to

0.0000032 percent. And for police

officers it is 0.000055 percent.

Also, why does the gun get the

blame? It is an inanimate object.

When a drunk driver kills someone,

no one blames the car. Someone

could do a lot more damage with a

Prius than an AR-15 and would be a

lot harder to stop.

If the gun doesn’t get the

blame, the NRA does, as proven by

Ms. Daiute’s letter. The NRA trains

1,300 law enforcement of

ficers each

year. That hardly suggests as Ms.

Daiute does, that “they have their

little gun safety classes, etc.”

In the state of Oregon, as well

as most others, you must take hand-

gun training in order to get a Con-

cealed Handgun License from an

NRA-certi

ied instructor. The NRA

is the acknowledged authority on

firearms training.

The NRA also has an excellent

gun safety program for children,

called the Eddie Eagle Program,

which could all but eliminate these

accidents in the

first place. It is com-

pletely free to any school or orga-

nization because it is paid forby us

evil NRA members.

This program has no political

aspirations. It simply tells the child

that, if they

ind a gun: don’t touch

it, leave the area and tell an adult. It

is as simple as that but it is not used

enough because of politics.

Our schools inform our chil-

dren about drugs, alcohol, smok-

ing, dangerous driving and sex-ed

but nothing about guns and then we

wonder why accidents happen. It’s

mind numbingly ignorant.

Now, for some real, plain-as

-the-nose-on-your-face numbers.

According to a year 2000 study and

survey/poll published in the Jour-

nal of Quantitative Criminology,

U.S. civilians use

firearms to de-

ffend themselves from crime at least

989,883 times per year.

Another 1994 survey, by the

CDC, found that Americans use

firearms to frighten away intruders

breaking into their homes 489,000

times per year. Even they couldn’t

deny reality.

Ms. Daiute, you ask “what’s

more important to me – my chil-

dren or my guns?” I’ll take the

0.0000032% chance of an acci-

dent (actually a lot less than that,

since my children have been taught

gun safety practically from birth)

against the fact that I am in the

group that has used my gun to stop

criminals from plying their trade,

and so have innumerable people I

know very well.

Guns in the hands of law-abid-

ing citizens stop crime, it’s an abso-

lute fact!

There was also some obscure

reference made about the set-

tlers along the Oregon Trail killing

themselves off with their shoo-

tin’ irons faster than hostile Indi-

ans could do it.

I doubt that statistic as much

as your other skewed ones, but I do

believe that the number of settlers

killed by hostiles was low and I

know why: They had guns!

Total
0
Share