Please read the following "panty waste" of an editorial.

[url]http://www.thefalcononline.com/story.asp?s=2004 [/url]

And then feel free to "educate" this T-O-O-L!!

I love online college directories.


                name: Shaw, Marc Thomas
           Phone_eve: (425)438-8XXX
       EMail_Address: [email protected]
        relationship: Student

My response is below.

I am writing in response to Mr. Shaw’s editorial published on March 6, 2002. His notions and opinions towards firearms and the Second Amendment could not be more misguided. He has done nothing more than regurgitate small tidbits of information that he may have heard somewhere or read somewhere with callous disregard to the truth. His editorial is chalked full of so many misconceptions and myths that it would take me volumes to refute them all.

He begins by saying, “Often reports of these events become so ubiquitous that we forget the immense tragedy involved. The fact that more plots are being uncovered suggests that this problem is not being properly addressed.” While I could not agree with him more on these two points, that is where our agreement ends. Mr. Shaw believes in some grandiose utopian idea that somehow banning guns except for police officers will somehow magically make our country and our schools safer. Since we are discussing “school safety” here I am forced to point out our nations most recent school shooting. It happened in Philadelphia when an off duty police officer shot a child in the neck with her own service pistol during a class presentation. She violated every basic safety rule ever learned by a responsible gun owner and yet these are the people we entrust our public safety to. Also on the subject of school safety, have we not already made every elementary, secondary school, courtroom, post office, and airplane in America a “gun free” zone? So how can we honestly believe that making stricter gun laws will solve the problem? All we have done is notify every terrorist and person with criminal intent where they can commit their heinous acts unopposed by armed citizens.

He then points to other countries that have lower murder rates than the United States. Switzerland, which Mr. Shaw mentioned, has an extensive gun culture. Many citizens, that form the countries militia, keep automatic firearms in their home at all times. Britain and Australia, which have some of the most tyrannical gun control laws in modern history, have been racked with firearms related crime since enacting their strict gun control policies. Canada’s firearm registration program has been burdened by extensive cost overruns to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, only to find that many citizens are ignoring the registration requirements and police are not enforcing them. In one instance it was discovered that some 80,000 completed registration applications were mailed to the wrong people.

There are even individual cities and states in our own country where strict gun control can only be deemed as a complete failure. Why do we then ignore this? Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun sales took effect in 1977 and by the 1990s the city's homicide rate had tripled. During the years following the ban, most murders, and all firearm murders, in the city were committed with handguns. Chicago imposed handgun registration in 1968, and homicides with handguns continued to rise. Chicago imposed a D.C.-style handgun ban in 1982 and over the next decade the annual number of handgun-related homicides doubled. California increased its waiting period on retail and private sales of handguns from five to 15 days in 1975 (reduced to 10 days in 1996), outlawed "assault weapons" in 1989, and subjected rifles and shotguns to the waiting period in 1990. Yet since 1975, the state's annual homicide rate has averaged 34% higher than the rate for the rest of the country. Finally, Maryland has imposed a waiting period and a gun purchase limit, banned several small handguns, restricted "assault weapons," and regulated private transfers of firearms even between family members and friends, yet its homicide rate is 46% higher than the rate for the rest of the country. The overall homicide rate in the jurisdictions that have the most severe restrictions on firearms purchase and ownership -- California, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Washington, D.C. is 23% higher than the rate for the rest of the country. While states with fewer restrictions and those that allow citizens to carry concealed weapons enjoy crime rates lower that those that ban concealed carry.

For some unknown reason in this country there is an attitude that if the first, second, and third attempt at creating gun control laws to reduce crime did not work that somehow a fourth attempt will. So we now have over 20,000 individual laws that deal with firearms on the books and the problem is no closer to being solved. Yet gun control advocates scoff at the mere idea that maybe fewer laws is the answer instead of more laws. Look at Vermont for example. It has some of the most open and unrestricted regulations governing firearm ownership for its residents and also seems to enjoy one of the lowest crime rates in the country. Is this only coincidence?

The record is clear: gun control primarily impacts upon upstanding citizens, not criminals. Crime is reduced by holding criminals accountable for their actions. Between 1980-1994, the 10 states with the greatest increases in prison population experienced an average decrease of 13% in violent crime, while the 10 states with the smallest increases in prison population experienced an average 55% increase in violent crime. The success of Richmond, Virginia's Project Exile, strongly supported by NRA, has grabbed the attention of the Administration, Members of Congress, big city mayors, and criminologists. Project Exile is a federal, state and local effort led by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Richmond, that sentences felons convicted of possessing guns to a minimum of five years in prison. Following the implementation of Project Exile, the city's firearm homicide rate has been cut by nearly 40%. Recognizing the program's success, Congress in 1998 approved $2.3 million to implement Project Exile in Philadelphia, Pa., and Camden County, N.J.

Mr. Shaw asks, “What is it about America that produces more gun deaths per year than any other Western country?” And yet a simple look at the numbers can help put things into perspective. When we compare accidental firearm deaths to other accidental causes of death in America, firearms rank seventh overall. According to the National Safety Council, in 1997, there were 43,200 deaths from motor vehicle accidents. Falls accounted for 14,900 deaths, poisoning caused 8,600 deaths, drowning accounted for 4,000 deaths, Fires and burns caused 3,700 deaths, choking caused 3,300 deaths, and finally firearms accounted for 1,500 accidental deaths. Less than half that of the number six cause alone. Why are we not outraged by the death caused by motor vehicles? Why are we not demanding their outright ban? But these only accounts for “accidents” you say? Well then lets examine another more frightening statistic. According to a report by the Institute of Medicine, 98,000 Americans are killed every year by medical errors. By contrast, 30,708 gun-related deaths occurred in 1998 -- meaning incompetent doctors are more than three times as deadly as guns. Why is there no outcry for a ban on doctors? Why are we not swiftly moving to regulate how, when and after what safety training we certify doctors and allow them to practice medicine?

Next Mr. Shaw moves his attack to our countries “founding document” the Constitution. “Instead, we choose to misread a part of our constitution written in the 18th century that allows for ‘a well regulated militia.’” Mr. Shaw has obviously not been keeping up on his current events. In a truly landmark decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, in United States vs. Emerson the Court ruled that “the Second Amendment recognizes the right of individual citizens to own and possess firearms. …” This is in direct contrast to what is known as the “collective rights” theory, accepted by most anti-gun organizations, in which it is held that the Second Amendment only gives rights to an organized Militia such as the National Guard. This theory is flawed for several reasons.

First, The Militia Act of 1792, adopted the year after the Second Amendment was ratified, declared that the Militia of the United States (members of the militia obligated to serve if called upon by the government) included all able-bodied males of age. As the U.S. Supreme Court observed in U.S. v. Miller (1939), “The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the [Constitutional] Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense . . . bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” The National Guard was not established until 1903. In 1920 it was designated one part of the “Militia of the United States,” the other part remaining all other able-bodied males of age, plus some other males and females......

However, in 1990, in Perpich v. Department of Defense, the Supreme Court held that the federal government possesses absolute, unlimited power over the Guard. (The Court never mentioned the Second Amendment, noting instead that federal power over the Guard is not restricted by the Constitution's Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16.) Thus, the Guard is in fact the third component of the United States Army, behind the Army and Army Reserve. The Framers' independent “well regulated militia” remains as they intended, America's armed citizenry.

Second, the Constitution was written to empower individuals, and not government. A government can only be granted “powers” and cannot be given “rights”. Prof. Akil Reed Amar of the Yale Law School and Alan Hirsch, like Amar a former Yale Law Journal editor, write: “We recall that the Framers' militia was not an elite fighting force but the entire citizenry of the time: all able-bodied adult white males. Since the Second Amendment explicitly declares that its purpose is to preserve a well-regulated militia, the right to bear arms was universal in scope. The vision animating the amendment was nothing less than popular sovereignty--applied in the military realm. The Framers recognized that self-government requires the People's access to bullets as well as ballots. The armed citizenry (militia) was expected to protect against not only foreign enemies, but also a potentially tyrannical federal government. In short, the right to bear arms was intended to ensure that our government remained in the hands of the People.”

Third, this “collective rights” theory is in stark contrast to the commonly accepted definition of the words “the people” that is referred to in the First and Fourth Amendments. No one argues that the First and Fourth Amendment guarantee an individual right to free speech, and protection from unwarranted search respectively. Next, Mr. Shaw alludes to the fact that perhaps the Constitution is outdated and we should amend it to remove the Second Amendment. Only once have we amended the Constitution for the sake of prohibiting an activity by citizens (the manufacture, sale, and consumption of alcohol). It was deemed a complete failure and was summarily amended again to rescind its original amendment. We can thank Prohibition for the creation of organized crime and the fact that it did more for the marketing of alcohol than any radio or magazine advertisement ever could have. Today is no different. Any time new gun legislation is introduced there is almost an immediate spike in the sale of firearms.

“Journalist Katha Pollitt of The Nation writes: ‘The kind of serious, comprehensive legislation it would take to make a significant dent in the easy availability of firearms--a feature unique to the United States among Western industrialized nations--is decades, maybe lifetimes away.’ Despite the difficulty, it is a goal worth working towards.” This is NOT a goal worth working towards. According to Aaron Zelman of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, “Gun control has cleared the way for seven major genocides since 1915, in which governments gone bad murdered 56,000,000 persons, including millions of children.” Fine examples of outright gun prohibition have been demonstrated in Communist Russia under Stalin and Nazi Germany under Hitler. Did the inhabitants of Germany, possibly the most scientifically and culturally advanced nation on earth in the 1930's, imagine that in a few years their government would gas and cremate by the millions its own citizens and those of other countries?

In this century governments have systematically exterminated more citizens than have died in war. The Soviet Union--20 million; China--20 million; Nazi Germany--13 million; Cambodia--1 to 2 million; Turkey--1 to 1.5 million; Uganda--300,000; Guatemala--100,000; other Latin American countries--thousands. According to Thomas Jefferson, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in their government." So you see Mr. Shaw, firearm ownership is about much more than “shooting skeet on the uncle’s farm”.

Of course I have talked about tyrannical governments gone bad, and about high level, court cases deciding what the words “the people” really mean and that may all be just conspiracy theory and opinion. What about the “average Joe” or “average Jane” needing a firearm on an average day. Consider this: Survey research by award-winning criminologist Gary Kleck, of Florida State University, has shown that firearms are used for protection against criminals as many as 2.5 million times annually. This is three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with firearms annually. Of these 2.5 million times annually that firearms are used to thwart criminal attack, 98% of the time no shots are fired, and a portion of the 2% of times shots are fired, some only require warning shots.

It should come as no surprise that Kleck's findings are reflexively dismissed by anti-firearm activist groups, but a leading anti-gun criminologist was honest enough to acknowledge their validity. "I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country," wrote the late Marvin E. Wolfgang. "I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. . . . What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. . . . I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology."

So, in closing, I believe that Mr. Shaw had only the best intention in his editorial. But it will take more than good intentions to solve the problem of violence in our country. We must come together and take an honest, cold, hard look at the facts and figures that are before us and come up with solutions that are based on results and not on hypocrisy and flimsy research. We must step away from what always seemed to be a good idea in the beginning but that history has shown can never work. We must move in a new direction towards responding to criminal behavior in an effective way while maintaining the rights and freedoms we all so deeply cherish.

While I also don't encourage any "nasty-grams" directed toward this young man (especially phone calls) that information was obtained on a public website, using a publicly available directory search. If he didn't want that info available to the general public then he should have opted out of having it posted. I'm certain he was given the option. I have friends at that school who chose to be unlisted. I just did a little cut and paste. He needs to receive a few hundred well written e-mails (see above) to persuade him to change his view.

But for safety sake I'll edit his phone number.

DH,
Where were you when I need help writting English papers in college?  Well said.
Art in KY

Aww Damn!!! I wish I was going now.... I don't have enough vacation time.



Learning how to selectively plagarize the NRA's website and sprinkle in about 40% of my own writing. [:D]

BTT

Well said.

Every time I read one of these articles I am amazed that in some respects it makes sense.  Then reality hits.  I think one major problem with liberals is they don't think the solution through.  They assume everyone will comply with some magic new law and the world will be perfect.  Makes a lot of sense if you are in Kindergarten with no idea of how things really are...