Astounded by gun control position

01/10/2008

I am astounded by the arrogance of Geoghegan's response to Bernie Leherer's gun control letter (See "A war of words over gun control," Power to Speak, 1/3/07), foremost because he identifies himself as a lawyer and, supposedly, an educated man. I find his statements out of order and should be stricken from any record. His responses are so typical of the specious nonsensical argument espoused by NRA gun enthusiasts who attempt to wrap themselves in Mom's apple pie, the flag, and the Holy Second Amendment, an amendment added to the Constitution during a time in our history when guns were single action, hand loaded cannons and muskets capable of firing only a single lead ball at a time. It is funny that he claims this as an "inalienable right." What about the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for all of those victims and their families who have been innocently maimed or killed by scurrilous gun play?

As to his argument concerning the recent mall shootings in Omaha, the mall's video tapes show the young perpetrator returning to the mall with an assault rifle he brought from his home; the Collinwood massacres were perpetrated by youths who brought their guns from home to school; the Virginia Tech massacres were perpetrated by a young male who brought his guns from home to school. In all of these cases the suspects were distressed, psychologically-skewed individuals who apparently found it far too easy to vent their hostilities with guns.

As Mr. Geoghegan's question, "Why do these attacks never happen at police stations?" I am sorry to inform him that such circumstances have occurred many times. Police officers themselves have turned weapons on each other inside of police stations. Some of those shootings were obvious attempts by citizens to commit "suicide by cop."

I was a burglary detective for a major city police department for many years and investigated many home robberies where guns were taken by burglars. These guns, which were to be used for home protection, were never used as such, but rather used by criminals in the commission of felonies around town.

A gun is an unnecessary instrument of destruction and not needed in civilized society. It took years for common sense to prevail regarding the destructive effects of smoking and for adequate punishment to prevail if one is found to be operating an auto under the influence of alcohol or drugs at an accident scene. Now there isn't anyone who is not aware of the consequences of such behavior. I suppose the same will be true for gun control. I hope I see it in my lifetime.

Charles Williams
Oxnard

DIGG | del.icio.us | REDDIT