Month: January 2007

I will take up Bitter’s challenge on dealing with Ms. Heller of the Philadelphia Inquirer. Rather than a fisking, I think a nicely worded letter is in order. Something that will hopefully at least make her think a little. Here goes:

Ms. Heller,

I read your article entitled “Where’s the Outrage About Gun Violence” in Sunday’s online edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer. I would like you to know that we’re all outraged by the gun violence that’s plaguing the City of Philadelphia, and I believe it a bit unfair of you to insinuate that those of us who enjoy the shooting sports, gun collecting, hunting, and those of us who own firearms for lawful self-defense, simply don’t care about the problem. This is not true. We simply have a difference of opinion about effective ways to deal with violence.

You support gun control, no doubt. We believe that is ineffective, and instead suggest that the focus be on putting more police on the streets, and getting violent individuals off the street. The City of Philadelphia does not have a gun problem, the City of Philadelphia has a criminal problem, and focusing your attention on inanimate objects, which can be used for good or ill, depending on what’s in the heart of the person possessing it, will not help make things better.

I ask you to think for a minute about how laws restricting firearms will affect people who have such callous disregard for human life that they will murder and terrorize their fellow citizens. Will such a person be any more willing to obey a gun control law, when they refuse to obey even the most sacrosanct laws of a civilized society? Would we be able to keep criminals from obtaining guns on the black market any more effectively than we currently keep people from obtaining drugs on the black market? What effect can gun laws have other than preventing people, who are just trying to enjoy a sport or protect their families, from obtaining them? I don’t think we are unreasonable people for asking these kinds of questions of those demanding our constitutional rights be trampled on.

I know we will probably never see eye to eye on this issue, but I would hope that you can at least afford us a little more respect and dignity than was displayed in your article this Sunday. We are not uncaring monsters. We are not irresponsible people. We are ordinary folks who get up, go to work, raise families, and try to make ends meet. Because we choose to exercise our constitutional right to own firearms for sport and self-defense, and jealously guard that right, does not mean we don’t care about the four hundred and six victims of crime this year in the city, and doesn’t mean we’re not also suggesting solutions. We just want to be treated fairly.

Respectfully,

Sebastian
Bucks County, PA

You can always get farther with honey than you can with vinegar, and always do better making someone regret their anger, rather than writing something that will help them justify it. I hope this makes Ms. Heller think. I doubt it will change her mind, but at the very least think. Thinking is a start.

The anti-gun people in Virginia must really have an extra special hatred for gun shows, because whenever I hear trouble in regards to shows, it seems to emanate from the Commonwealth of Virginia. Bitter points out that it’s Republicans causing the trouble this time. Wait, wasn’t Republican Mike Castle trying to close the gun show loophole as well? And John McCain is also a well known advocate, no?

I hate to say it folks, but this might have a chance of passing at some point, because I think Republicans might be selling us out on this issue. What makes the proposals on the table so virulent, is that they are specifically targeting guns shows with the intent of harassing them out of existence. This isn’t just about ending private transfers, or background checks. They are specifically targeting shows. I’m convinced this is a calculated strategic move on the part of the antis. Why?

• Gun shows are a great place for people like us to organize and recruit
• It’s easy to scare the general public about them. Most people will have no idea that “unlicensed dealers” the anti-gun folks mention at shows are people not selling firearms.
• For people who are real firearms enthusiasts, shooters and collectors, it’s the only place you can go to find the things you need or are looking for easily. We’re not allowed to mail order guns anymore, unless you have an Federal Firearms License. Ammunition can be tough to find in your local gun shop, especially if you’re shooting rifles in obscure calibers. Mail ordering ammunition can be expensive because it’s heavy.
• They help the shooting industry and community by providing an environment where people can see a wide range of products on the market, and get ideas for future purchases.

For all these reasons, the antis desperately want to get rid of them. Don’t buy any notions that this is about keeping guns out of criminal hands. It is not, and I’m convinced they are aware of this. Gun shows account for 1% of guns that end up used in crime. They are targeting gun shows because they are an important part of keeping our community healthy, and if they can put an end to them, it’ll reduce our numbers, effectiveness, and eventually make it easy to start pushing us back politically, until they finally get what they want. And we all know what that is. The leaders of the movement are not stupid. They know where we’re vulnerable, and they will attack us in those areas. This is one of them, and we can’t let them win.

No, they aren’t banning real guns yet. They are talking about banning BB guns:

In fact, these politicians not only plan to ban BB guns in Massachusetts, they’re sending letters to Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Rhode Island to ask those states to do the same.

In the words of one of these anti-gun politicians, their goal is to make “New England an area free of pellet guns and BB guns.”

The article doesn’t mention which special interest group is behind this legislation, but I have one theory: