My letter-to-the-editor in response to two such letters regarding guns (claims that gun ownership makes us safer and that legalizing guns in bars isn't a big deal)
I read a couple of letters-to-the-editor via The Columbus Dispatch regarding guns and felt the need to respond. First off, here are the two letters to which I will be responding:
"Gun ownership increases safety in U.S.
I respond to the Saturday letter “Gun lobby misreads the Constitution” from Richard Bradley.
This issue has been settled by the highest court in the land. It is no longer debated law. The Supreme Court ruled it is a right for individuals to keep and bear arms.
Contrary to the statement by Bradley, we do have the absolute right to arm ourselves. I would love to have a civil conversation about this subject with anyone.
Another fact is that despite more gun owners than ever before and despite the relaxing of many gun laws, every form of violent crime has gone down in this country.
Now look at Great Britain, with its incredibly strict gun laws, where violent crime rises every year. In fact, it has more than four times the violent crime per capita than we do.
According to 2010 FBI statistics, 8,775 people were murdered with a gun in 2010. A high percentage of those killings are drug- and gang-related. Suicides and lawful killings are not included in that figure.
A person’s chances of being shot, assuming he is not involved in criminal activity, are extremely small.
It’s estimated that law-abiding people use firearms 900,000 times a year to successfully defend themselves against criminals. That is the low estimate. Others put the figure at 2 million.
So yes, please, let us have a civil conversation about the facts of gun ownership.
LAWRENCE FERRARIS
Bexley"
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2012/04/18/gun-ownership-increases-safety-in-u-s-.html
and...
"Uproar over guns in bars was wrong
Letter writer Richard Bradley, as do most liberals, wants the U.S. Constitution interpreted to fit his own agenda (“Gun lobby misreads the Constitution,” Saturday). Forget the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court recently affirmed that citizens can own guns.
I remind Bradley about his kind, saying we would have carnage in our bars if we allowed people with concealed-carry licenses to carry a handgun into a bar.
In more than six months since the law was enacted, I have not heard of a single death in a bar caused by a licensed handgun owner.
Since Bradley is such a great scholar of the Constitution, I would like to hear his thoughts on where exactly in the Constitution it allows abortions or where in the Constitution it allows the government to force me to buy health insurance.
As I said, the left just wants the Constitution enforced when it fits its agenda.
DICK ALEXANDER Pickerington"
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2012/04/18/uproar-over-guns-in-bars-was-wrong.html
Here is my response to the two letters:
This letter-to-the-editor is in response to two April 18th letters - Lawrence Ferraris' "Gun ownership increases safety in U.S." and Dick Alexander's "Uproar over guns in bars was wrong". While Mr. Ferraris was accurate with his statement that every form of violent crime has decreased in this country from 2009 to 2010, citing FBI statistics, I'm not convinced we can ultimately conclude that gun ownership indeed increases safety in this country. The estimation provided in the letter - that "law-abiding people use firearms 900,000 times a year to successfully defend themselves against criminals" - doesn't persuade me any, given that there was no source provided for the statistic and that I find it very difficult to measure. How can one know a crime would occur if it didn't occur in the first place? If a gun hadn't have been present for one to defend themselves in a hypothetical scenario, would that crime have been committed? Possibly, but how can we ever realistically know?
The writer also said the following - "Now look at Great Britain, with its incredibly strict gun laws, where violent crime rises every year. In fact, it has more than four times the violent crime per capita than we do."
In 2008, there were 42 gun-related deaths in Great Britain. That number includes homicides, suicides and accidental deaths. Compare that to the U.S.'s numbers. In 2005, which is the most recent year such numbers are available (gun-related deaths, including: Suicides, homicides and accidental), there were a combined 30,364 such deaths in this country.
Since the two countries have far different population totals, it's difficult to compare the numbers at face value and make a proper conclusion on the matter. When looking at the two country's populations, Great Britain contains about 61 million people, while the U.S. has around 296 million. If we work that out mathematically, the United States has approximately five times the number of people as Great Britain. So if we then take Great Britain's gun-related death total (42) and multiply that by 5, we will garner a better idea of how the two country's compare here. The final numbers come out to be as follows: Great Britain - 210 and the United States - 30,364.
Also, while it seems as if the writer and many whom fully agree with him may be logically accurate when claiming that possessing a firearm increases the chance of one being able to successfully defend themselves against a criminal, they seem to forget the other side of the equation - that possessing a firearm also increases the chance of a person being able to use it in a criminal manner.
A Review Journal study conducted by Lisa Hepburn and David Hemingway found that "...gun availability is a risk for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide."
That study isn't alone in suggesting such things. Numerous other studies showcase that it's simply part of a trend as opposed to an aberration. In a Social Science and Medicine study, the following was noted - "States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide..."
In the other letter, Mr. Alexander said, "In more than six months since the law was enacted, I have not heard of a single death in a bar caused by a licensed handgun owner."
A death may not have occurred, but it was reported on October 6th of 2011 that Ohio barber Kurt Voelkel got accidentally shot in the buttocks after his "9 mm handgun fell from his holster, struck the ground and went off." The bullet then "passed through the chair where Voelkel was sitting and also went through his wallet before coming to a rest deep in his buttocks." The barber then spent two hours in the hospital when the doctors opted to leave the bullet where it was.
It was also reported on October 12th of 2011 that one Chad O'Reilly of Cincinnati was arrested after threatening to kill someone at a bar. Witnesseses said that after the man got into a headed debate with another, "O'Reilly (25) walked out of the bar and returned a short time later with a .40-caliber semiautomatic Glock pistol in his hand." He then yelled a racial slur at the other individual (who was Hispanic) and shouted, "I'm going to kill you!"
There are countless studies which show a solid link between alcohol consumption and anger/violence. Vodka and tonic or Jack Daniels and Coke might mix well, but guns and alcohol do not.
http://necpgv.blogspot.com/2009/01/great-britain-vs-united-states-in-gun.html
http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2010-crime-statistics
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/10/06/337871/bad-sign-for-ohios-guns-in-bars-law-ohio-barber-shot-in-butt-after-customer-drops-gun/
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20111012/NEWS0108/110130304/Case-tests-Ohio-s-guns-bars-law
"Gun ownership increases safety in U.S.
I respond to the Saturday letter “Gun lobby misreads the Constitution” from Richard Bradley.
This issue has been settled by the highest court in the land. It is no longer debated law. The Supreme Court ruled it is a right for individuals to keep and bear arms.
Contrary to the statement by Bradley, we do have the absolute right to arm ourselves. I would love to have a civil conversation about this subject with anyone.
Another fact is that despite more gun owners than ever before and despite the relaxing of many gun laws, every form of violent crime has gone down in this country.
Now look at Great Britain, with its incredibly strict gun laws, where violent crime rises every year. In fact, it has more than four times the violent crime per capita than we do.
According to 2010 FBI statistics, 8,775 people were murdered with a gun in 2010. A high percentage of those killings are drug- and gang-related. Suicides and lawful killings are not included in that figure.
A person’s chances of being shot, assuming he is not involved in criminal activity, are extremely small.
It’s estimated that law-abiding people use firearms 900,000 times a year to successfully defend themselves against criminals. That is the low estimate. Others put the figure at 2 million.
So yes, please, let us have a civil conversation about the facts of gun ownership.
LAWRENCE FERRARIS
Bexley"
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2012/04/18/gun-ownership-increases-safety-in-u-s-.html
and...
"Uproar over guns in bars was wrong
Letter writer Richard Bradley, as do most liberals, wants the U.S. Constitution interpreted to fit his own agenda (“Gun lobby misreads the Constitution,” Saturday). Forget the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court recently affirmed that citizens can own guns.
I remind Bradley about his kind, saying we would have carnage in our bars if we allowed people with concealed-carry licenses to carry a handgun into a bar.
In more than six months since the law was enacted, I have not heard of a single death in a bar caused by a licensed handgun owner.
Since Bradley is such a great scholar of the Constitution, I would like to hear his thoughts on where exactly in the Constitution it allows abortions or where in the Constitution it allows the government to force me to buy health insurance.
As I said, the left just wants the Constitution enforced when it fits its agenda.
DICK ALEXANDER Pickerington"
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2012/04/18/uproar-over-guns-in-bars-was-wrong.html
Here is my response to the two letters:
This letter-to-the-editor is in response to two April 18th letters - Lawrence Ferraris' "Gun ownership increases safety in U.S." and Dick Alexander's "Uproar over guns in bars was wrong". While Mr. Ferraris was accurate with his statement that every form of violent crime has decreased in this country from 2009 to 2010, citing FBI statistics, I'm not convinced we can ultimately conclude that gun ownership indeed increases safety in this country. The estimation provided in the letter - that "law-abiding people use firearms 900,000 times a year to successfully defend themselves against criminals" - doesn't persuade me any, given that there was no source provided for the statistic and that I find it very difficult to measure. How can one know a crime would occur if it didn't occur in the first place? If a gun hadn't have been present for one to defend themselves in a hypothetical scenario, would that crime have been committed? Possibly, but how can we ever realistically know?
The writer also said the following - "Now look at Great Britain, with its incredibly strict gun laws, where violent crime rises every year. In fact, it has more than four times the violent crime per capita than we do."
In 2008, there were 42 gun-related deaths in Great Britain. That number includes homicides, suicides and accidental deaths. Compare that to the U.S.'s numbers. In 2005, which is the most recent year such numbers are available (gun-related deaths, including: Suicides, homicides and accidental), there were a combined 30,364 such deaths in this country.
Since the two countries have far different population totals, it's difficult to compare the numbers at face value and make a proper conclusion on the matter. When looking at the two country's populations, Great Britain contains about 61 million people, while the U.S. has around 296 million. If we work that out mathematically, the United States has approximately five times the number of people as Great Britain. So if we then take Great Britain's gun-related death total (42) and multiply that by 5, we will garner a better idea of how the two country's compare here. The final numbers come out to be as follows: Great Britain - 210 and the United States - 30,364.
Also, while it seems as if the writer and many whom fully agree with him may be logically accurate when claiming that possessing a firearm increases the chance of one being able to successfully defend themselves against a criminal, they seem to forget the other side of the equation - that possessing a firearm also increases the chance of a person being able to use it in a criminal manner.
A Review Journal study conducted by Lisa Hepburn and David Hemingway found that "...gun availability is a risk for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide."
That study isn't alone in suggesting such things. Numerous other studies showcase that it's simply part of a trend as opposed to an aberration. In a Social Science and Medicine study, the following was noted - "States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide..."
In the other letter, Mr. Alexander said, "In more than six months since the law was enacted, I have not heard of a single death in a bar caused by a licensed handgun owner."
A death may not have occurred, but it was reported on October 6th of 2011 that Ohio barber Kurt Voelkel got accidentally shot in the buttocks after his "9 mm handgun fell from his holster, struck the ground and went off." The bullet then "passed through the chair where Voelkel was sitting and also went through his wallet before coming to a rest deep in his buttocks." The barber then spent two hours in the hospital when the doctors opted to leave the bullet where it was.
It was also reported on October 12th of 2011 that one Chad O'Reilly of Cincinnati was arrested after threatening to kill someone at a bar. Witnesseses said that after the man got into a headed debate with another, "O'Reilly (25) walked out of the bar and returned a short time later with a .40-caliber semiautomatic Glock pistol in his hand." He then yelled a racial slur at the other individual (who was Hispanic) and shouted, "I'm going to kill you!"
There are countless studies which show a solid link between alcohol consumption and anger/violence. Vodka and tonic or Jack Daniels and Coke might mix well, but guns and alcohol do not.
http://necpgv.blogspot.com/2009/01/great-britain-vs-united-states-in-gun.html
http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2010-crime-statistics
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/10/06/337871/bad-sign-for-ohios-guns-in-bars-law-ohio-barber-shot-in-butt-after-customer-drops-gun/
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20111012/NEWS0108/110130304/Case-tests-Ohio-s-guns-bars-law
Comments
Post a Comment