Templar
I'm a square
The paragraph in this article comparing DC to Vermont is what really caught my eye. It's so obvious what taking guns away from law abiding citizens does to a society and yet we still have people (unfortuantely in high places) who still think we should be without our guns.
Until they can prove to me that taking guns away from law abiding citizens makes DC is the safest place in the country to live I really don't want to hear about how taking guns from the law abiding citizens makes us safer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taken from The News-Dispatch
Michigan City, Indiana
Criminals don't obey gun laws
Jack Allgood from Michigan City High School wrote a column Tuesday titled "Guns Should Be Outlawed in U.S." I am afraid he needs some education (as opposed to indoctrination) on that subject.
The basic premise that outlawing guns will resolve violent crime is simply wrong. Why not just outlaw violent crime? The answer is the same - it is because criminals do not obey laws. They will not turn in their guns to assist the nation in becoming gun-free. Gun control laws only result in the disarming of the law-abiding public, taking away their right to defend themselves - while the criminals ignore the gun laws along with all others.
Mr. Allgood argues that the circumstances of "the right to bear arms" were different when the Bill of Rights was first written. Perhaps. But at that same time, nobody knew freedom of speech would ever pertain to photocopy machines, television or the Internet. Shall we also rein in the right of free speech on those same grounds, because the circumstances have changed from the 1700s?
It is true that gun crime was much less of a problem in the distant past. However, back then there were almost no gun control laws, either. In fact, a child could buy a handgun through a Sears catalog just by sending in an order blank and the money. The problem is not that there are more guns today, it is that there are more criminals. Please don't think that if you take away a criminal's gun, he will suddenly turn into a gentle law-abiding citizen, watering his flowers and waving "hello" to you as you pass by in safety. Guns do not make people into criminals. Taking away guns does not turn criminals into lawful citizens either.
Washington, D.C., has some of the strictest gun laws, yet amazingly the criminals do not obey them - and their gun violence rate is three times the national average. Vermont has very few gun laws - any 18-year-old can carry a concealed handgun and no permit is needed - and it is a much safer place to live. It's not the guns, it's the people.
Mr. Allgood, we would like very much to live in a safer society. However, your idea won't work, and I am not prepared to have my rights thrown away to try for the hundredth time something that does not work and has been proven not to work. In Nazi Germany the public was disarmed and only the authorities had guns. That is a common first step among dictators and it is utterly foolish to suggest that we do the same here in America. As Benjamin Franklin said, "He who gives up freedom for security deserves neither."
The U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled that the Second Amendment means what it says, and we can be thankful for that.
Russell A. Spreeman
La Porte
Until they can prove to me that taking guns away from law abiding citizens makes DC is the safest place in the country to live I really don't want to hear about how taking guns from the law abiding citizens makes us safer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taken from The News-Dispatch
Michigan City, Indiana
Criminals don't obey gun laws
Jack Allgood from Michigan City High School wrote a column Tuesday titled "Guns Should Be Outlawed in U.S." I am afraid he needs some education (as opposed to indoctrination) on that subject.
The basic premise that outlawing guns will resolve violent crime is simply wrong. Why not just outlaw violent crime? The answer is the same - it is because criminals do not obey laws. They will not turn in their guns to assist the nation in becoming gun-free. Gun control laws only result in the disarming of the law-abiding public, taking away their right to defend themselves - while the criminals ignore the gun laws along with all others.
Mr. Allgood argues that the circumstances of "the right to bear arms" were different when the Bill of Rights was first written. Perhaps. But at that same time, nobody knew freedom of speech would ever pertain to photocopy machines, television or the Internet. Shall we also rein in the right of free speech on those same grounds, because the circumstances have changed from the 1700s?
It is true that gun crime was much less of a problem in the distant past. However, back then there were almost no gun control laws, either. In fact, a child could buy a handgun through a Sears catalog just by sending in an order blank and the money. The problem is not that there are more guns today, it is that there are more criminals. Please don't think that if you take away a criminal's gun, he will suddenly turn into a gentle law-abiding citizen, watering his flowers and waving "hello" to you as you pass by in safety. Guns do not make people into criminals. Taking away guns does not turn criminals into lawful citizens either.
Washington, D.C., has some of the strictest gun laws, yet amazingly the criminals do not obey them - and their gun violence rate is three times the national average. Vermont has very few gun laws - any 18-year-old can carry a concealed handgun and no permit is needed - and it is a much safer place to live. It's not the guns, it's the people.
Mr. Allgood, we would like very much to live in a safer society. However, your idea won't work, and I am not prepared to have my rights thrown away to try for the hundredth time something that does not work and has been proven not to work. In Nazi Germany the public was disarmed and only the authorities had guns. That is a common first step among dictators and it is utterly foolish to suggest that we do the same here in America. As Benjamin Franklin said, "He who gives up freedom for security deserves neither."
The U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled that the Second Amendment means what it says, and we can be thankful for that.
Russell A. Spreeman
La Porte
