Our Scary Neighbors

I never intended to use this forum to approach any weightier topics than whether the worst rock band ever is REO Speedwagon or Styx. There are times, though, when I simply can't suppress my despair and I have to wail, to anyone reading, about the discouraging, downright frightening views held by those around me.

Within the past few weeks, on the same day, two of my nearby fellow citizens published letters in the local paper that are so dangerously misguided, they could have passed for the work of The Onion.

One had been given the heading, "Gun control hurts law-abiding people," which opened with the inarguable (and poorly-punctuated) statement that "it is not the guns that are committing the crimes; it is the people who are pulling the trigger." The writer contends that those people--this would be those committing crimes with guns--"are not law-abiding citizens." Again, no argument there; by definition, people are not law-abiding if they are committing gun crimes.

But this is just picking at his semantics.
Where he starts to seriously run off the rails is with the claim that "law-abiding citizens are the only ones affected by gun-control laws." Can it be that not one would-be criminal is inconvenienced by mandatory waiting periods or limits on automatic weapons. Could be, I suppose, but it sure seems improbable.

So what does the letter-writer propose we do about this intolerable situation? Apparently he is advocating universal gun ownership (although, possibly being against more government interference in our lives, he stops of short of demanding a legal mandate).

It is quite clear to this gent that, if "every citizen had a gun on his [sic.] hip," we wouldn't have to worry about "1.3 women" being "raped every minute" or 20 people losing their lives annually in bank robberies. Because the local gun-slingin' fella would intervene in these crimes, in a manner that would not cause loss of life, presumably. Hard to tell whether the 20 bank robbery victims include any perps, due to the total lack of supporting data. Also hard to tell if we are to issue shootin' irons to the little ladies, or just count on an armed good guy to be on hand whenever a rape is about to be committed.

There are more unsupported "facts," such as "most gun crimes are committed by people who had a record prior to the crime." Um, does that include gun crimes in which the perpetrator gets away? How do we know if those criminals have prior records? And as long as we're tossing around unsupported "facts," how about the one that says most gunshot victims in the U.S are shot by someone they know? Are all those accidental, "I didn't know it was loaded," family shootings done by convicted criminals?

Maybe the most irresponsible supporting anecdote offered by this NRA shill is the one lauding two students who restrained, at gunpoint, a killer of three at a Virginia law school in 2002. Two students who had guns in their cars despite a gun ban on the campus.
Does the letter-writer believe that flaunting the law is acceptable if those doing it seem like ok citizens, like the students, and not "criminals"?
And this guy clearly has not spent much time on a college campus if he seriously believes MORE guns should be introduced into the hotbed of hormones and alcohol that is many universities.

Obviously, the writer isn't concerned about presenting a shred of empirical evidence to support his views. Allow me to refute those views with some: thanks to the laxity of existing firearm laws, his state of residence is fifth in the nation in exporting guns used in crimes in other states; "right to carry" firearm laws have not reduced crime rates and are linked to an increase in aggravated assaults; guns are used in crimes four to six times more often than they are used in self-defense. (Citations available upon request.)

How could we be safer with even more guns in the hands of inexperienced users, even those with the best of intentions? Why does this guy's desire to own guns trump my right to live where every yahoo is packing? Does he truly believe that more guns in more citizens' hands would lead to less crime, or does he just want to continue to be able to buy as many guns as he wants, as easily as possible?

The second letter . . . "I agree that we should have engaged in war with Iraq, but I do not agree with being there this long. I think we should have gone over there, crippled the country and left. Why should we spend billions of dollars to rebuild a country that we spent billions of dollars to destroy?"

Why, indeed.
Who knows who she is agreeing with: those who think Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 or those who believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction by the time we invaded them? Either way, they were asking for it, so why should we rebuild what we so justifiably destroyed?

What kind of human being acknowledges that our country "crippled" another, and has no obligation to help that nation return to the condition it was in when we invaded?
Do even those who believe "we should have engaged in war with Iraq" believe that innocent civilians there should suffer because of the destruction we wrought?

There is just one statement she writes that I agree with: "Our country now is in a recession because of this." So, I suppose by her reasoning, we should not incur any more debt to repair what we broke, even if it might be the right thing to do.

But, of course, to her way of thinking, it isn't.

I am sickened and disheartened by these views, and downright frightened to think they live right down the road from me.