non-student from Murray
(This letter is a response to the staff opinion in the Sept. 16 issue of The Murray State News titled “Who has the right?”)
The editorial, Our View, in the Sept. 16 issue of the the University News seems to be filled with contradictions, naiveté and ignorance.
The city of Paducah is passing the ordinance to allow the carrying of firearms in their parks and buildings not because they want to, but under duress. Their present law is in conflict with the state pre-emption law, much to their chagrin.
You state that gun accidents are no stranger in this country. Did you know that gun ownership is at an all-time high, and that gun accidents are at an all-time low?
You ask if the public can be trusted to arm itself and make the right decisions when it comes to responsible handling of weapons in a public place. Did you know this is always the question that is asked when a state is considering legalizing concealed carry, and that the PC “intelligentsia” always replies in the negative because they think that the public is not as smart as they are?
And then did you know that when concealed carry laws are passed that crime rates uniformly decrease? This knowledge has caused many police and sheriff’s departments to change their minds about the subject, but not the PC smart people who rely on emotion rather than scientific data.
You state that the majority of gun owners know how to maintain a safe atmosphere when handling their weapons. Then you refer to them as trigger happy cowboys. What’s wrong with cowboys anyway?
You state that you would prefer police in parks. That’s understandable.
But what about the cost associated with that? Police generally do an admirable job, but they are frequently understaffed and underpaid.
And even more to the point, when seconds count, police are minutes away.
In addition, while there are certainly notable exceptions, it has been my experience that most policemen aren’t as proficient with firearms as citizens who use them on a regular basis. This is understandable since police only have to qualify with their firearms infrequently. Furthermore, some departments are reticent to even spend money for bullets for officers to practice with their firearms.
Have you noticed where the vast majority of mass shootings take place? It shouldn’t be a surprise that they occur in make believe “gun-free zones”, usually schools, where the shooter knows he can kill safely.
In a few instances, even in those places, citizens have accessed a gun and stopped the violence. But those occasions are rarely mentioned in the media for some odd reason. Of course some of these tragedies occur in churches, which are considered safer than parks.
Prohibiting guns in public places only affects law-abiding citizens. It delights criminals, who don’t obey laws anyway. Such laws have no effect on them or the guns they carry.
Of course it’s illegal to commit murder, too, but does that stop criminals from doing it? All such gun laws do is make some feel safer, or more comfortable as you say, until another tragedy occurs. Then they want to strengthen those useless and dangerous laws, to the detriment of public safety.
You state that it is our right to carry arms in public places, and indeed it is. Furthermore, it is morally and ethically correct to defend oneself and others. Yet incredibly, you seem to be advocating, ignoring or even repealing that right.