Gun lovers disarm control advocates- Chicago Sun Times

[Matt King]

Gun lovers disarm control advocates

August 27, 2007
LAURA WASHINGTON [email protected]
It looks like the petulant, gun-toting NRA stalwarts have won the first round.

Last time, I used this space to ask where you stand on the issue of gun control. A torrent of e-mails later, it's clear: Gun-control advocates were outgunned, four to one.

The gun lovers were legion, robust and vitriolic. Many of you told me to go places where the sun doesn't shine and the temperature is way too hot. Yet, if you believe public opinion polls, that reaction is an anomaly. For instance, last April, ABC News polled adults nationwide, and asked: "Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws in this country?" Sixty-one percent favored them, 36 percent were opposed, and 3 percent were "unsure."

CBS News asked, "In general, do you feel the laws covering the sale of handguns should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?" Two-thirds of respondents nationwide opted for "more strict."

What is the problem with the advocates of gun control? Why are their voices not being heard? They are consistently cowed and overmatched. Gun violence is out of control, yet the gun lovers are ascendant.

You think we've got problems now? Just listen to Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential aspirant. At a recent Conservative Political Action Conference, he bragged, "I'm not a newcomer to the NRA," the New York Times reported on its political blog. "I was the first governor to have a conceal-carry permit, so don't mess with me."

Huckabee, mind you, recently made a flashy second-place showing in the Iowa presidential straw poll.

Do you want to be standing in line for gas, popcorn or a gallon of milk and find yourself next to someone who's packing heat? If he takes the White House, we can all go shopping for embossed leather holsters and pearl-handled pistols. I'll be looking to accessorize that with rhinestone-studded boots.

Luckily, Huckabee is a long shot.

Still, despite the polls, it seems the gun control advocates have been outmatched. Abigail Spangler acknowledges as much. Spangler is the founder of ProtestEasyGuns.com, a Virginia-based group that has been spearheading a slew of anti-gun protests around the nation.

Gun control activists, she wrote me, "are TRYING HARD but they are seriously affected in state after state by lack of funding and contributions." She recently met, she says, with the leader of Virginia's only gun control group. "He says they may not even be able to afford any lobbyist at all soon in Virginia!"

This comes just four months after the Virginia Tech shooting massacre, which took 32 lives.

Our elected officials have either been bought off or are missing in action. The odds are against the majority of Americans who are terrified and sickened by the gun menace.

For Spangler, it comes down to one urgent hope. "Who knows whether our protests against lax gun laws will make a difference?" she asks. "It's basically my 'Hail Mary' pass -- a pass of desperation to the American people -- that I hope they will catch."

If I had my way, the gun lobby would be looking at three yards and a cloud of dust. Let's get organized and shove tougher gun policies right down their throats.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/washington/529247,CST-EDT-laura27.article


Write Back!
[email protected]

 

[Neo-Luddite]

This comes just four months after the Virginia Tech shooting massacre, which took 32 lives.

The structure of this sentence says it all--I caught this one today. I'm not sure if the writer is a journalist or a blogger.

 

[jpk1md]

I read something recently that demonstrated that the Brady's were not in such stellar shape financially either...one can only hope they will crumble to dust and blow away....

 

[Ohio Rifleman]

We got 'em on the run! Articles like this give me hope for the future of our rights.

Let's keep at it!

My response:

Dear Ms. Washington,

I am one of those "petulant, gun-toting NRA stalwarts" of which you wrote in your August 27 article in the Chicago Sun Times. And I'm proud of it.

I personally would be glad to find myself standing in line next to someone "packing heat" as you put it. Those people have to pass a background check and be trained in firearms safety and laws before they are allowed to carry, or "pack heat." These people are nothing to fear.

Criminals will always have guns because they ignore the law. Why do you think passing more laws will keep criminals from having guns? And why do you think that disarming law-abiding people who have no intention of harming anyone is a good idea?

 

[lamazza]

CBS News asked, "In general, do you feel the laws covering the sale of handguns should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?" Two-thirds of respondents nationwide opted for "more strict."

where and who did they ask? Not me for sure.

 

[Ohio Rifleman]

You can manipulate polls to say whatever you want. I don't trust 'em.

 

[teknoid]

Network news polls (ABC & CBS). Does anybody actually watch the network news programs anymore? I stopped years ago. Around the time that "NEWS" turned into "Opinion and Editorial". Also, this is a Chicago paper. I lived there for far too long not to realize the mindset of mindless liberal drones such as this.

 

[Matt King]

Remember:

Make your letters clear, concise, and to the point. We don't want to give her any ammunition that she could use against us.

 

[Ohio Rifleman]

You think I did alright in my email to this anti, Matt King?

 

[Ieyasu]

CBS News asked, "In general, do you feel the laws covering the sale of handguns should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?" Two-thirds of respondents nationwide opted for "more strict."

From Gary Kleck's, Targeting Guns:

"Survey findings can require a very close reading, as there is sometimes less than meets the eye in the results. Some are based on questions that violate fundamental rules of survey question construction. For example, one rudimentary rule that every beginning student of survey research learns is 'Do not ask questions which assume knowledge that respondents (Rs) are not likely to possess.' This rule is routinely violated in gun control polls.

. . .

"Perhaps the most meaningless public opinion results in the entire gun control area are responses to a question asked repeatedly by the Gallup organization: "In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of handguns should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?" The question necessarily assumes that Rs know how strict controls are now, a demonstrably false assumption."

Kleck then cites a 1975 national survery showing that "most Americans know little about how much or how little law of any kind exists, including gun law."

 

[scurtis_34471]

This is my response:

I just read your article in the August 27 Chicago Sun Times and I am a bit confused. Why would I have a problem with standing next to a responsible armed citizen in any store? People with concealed weapons licenses are among the most law-abiding in the country. The State of Florida has issued over 1.2 million licenses since 1987. Over that 20 year period only 161 were revoked for criminal use of a gun. 161 out of 1.2 million over 20 years. Why would I feel anything less than comfortable?

I think you're problem is that you don't know who gun owners are. I am a 37 year-old married father of two. I have a Master of Science degree in Computer Information Systems. I live in a middle-class suburb and drive a VW. I work for a national medical company in a senior technical position. I also carry a gun. The other 450,000 current concealed weapons license holders in my state come from all walks of life and all income levels. The only thing that we have in common is that we all made the choice to be responsible for our own safety and the safety of our loved ones. We respect law-enforcement officers and the job they do, but we recognize that they cannot be everywhere at once and cannot insure the safety of individual citizens. We respect the law and are accountable to it for our actions. We hope to go a lifetime without drawing a gun on another human being, but will do so if necessary to save a life. Apparently, we are also the people you don't feel safe around. You might want to rethink that.

 

[Matt King]

You think I did alright in my email to this anti, Matt King?

Yes. The only thing that I would cut, is the "And I'm proud of it." It makes it easy for her to stereotype you as an overzealous NRA member.

 

[Ohio Rifleman]

Ah, well, it's been sent. I'm tired of the fact that I'm a proud NRA member seems to be something to be ashamed of. And I'm tired of being pushed around by the antis and letting them set the rules.

 

[Matt King]

Ah, well, it's been sent. I'm tired of the fact that I'm a proud NRA member seems to be something to be ashamed of. And I'm tired of being pushed around by the antis and letting them set the rules.

It's nothing to be ashamed of! It's just easy for her to use that against you; especially considering that her readership is composed of Chicagoans.

 

[PershingRiflesC-7]

scurtis:

Your letter is the most well-written response I have seen on this subject in a long time. Straight to the point, good use of facts/data, and no ad hominem... award yourself a gold star!

I also highly commend your use of reason and logic to the author's appeal to emotion -- her head will probably explode because an "NRA buffoon" has the temerity to call her to task without the use of coarse language.

 

[Ohio Rifleman]

Nevertheless, I think it's minor. I'd be surprised if she even READS my response. I just want to show her that use "petulant, gun-toting NRA stalwarts" can be intelligent and eloquent.

 

[Matt King]

Nevertheless, I think it's minor. I'd be surprised if she even READS my response. I just want to show her that use "petulant, gun-toting NRA stalwarts" can be intelligent and eloquent.

Point taken.

 

[Ohio Rifleman]

No problem. I'd rather "disarm" the anti with logic, rather than statistics, since statistics can be fudged. But don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with using hard data in a debate, I just think that logic is probably best when you're dealing with someone like her.

 

[cbsbyte]

<deleted>

 

[Standing Wolf]

Do you want to be standing in line for gas, popcorn or a gallon of milk and find yourself next to someone who's packing heat? If he takes the White House, we can all go shopping for embossed leather holsters and pearl-handled pistols. I'll be looking to accessorize that with rhinestone-studded boots.

Too much gin on the Wheaties again.

 

[orionengnr]

Please critique before I send...

Ms Washington;
After reading your 27 Aug 07 column, I’m not sure whether to be amused or amazed. Check that; appalled will suffice for the time being.

Mike Huckabee, just like any other CCW holder, is a law-abiding citizen by definition. One does not obtain a CCW without an extensive FBI background check. You have nothing to fear standing in line “for gas, popcorn, or a gallon of milk” next to Mike Huckabee or millions like him nationwide. You probably stand in line next to a legal CCW holder several times per week. Legal CCW holders are not a problem; they are potentially part of the solution to a problem.

The reason anti-gunners gain no traction is that they focus on punishing the law-abiding while ignoring the fact that criminals do not, and will not, obey the law. Ironically, your column references the VT massacre. Please stop and consider that:

1)The shooter obtained firearms illegally (read up on the 4473 form, utterly unreported in the mainstream media, but common knowledge to anyone who has ever purchased a firearm legally)
2)The shooter broke a multitude of laws, up to and including murder(!)
3)The presence of just one legal CCW holder might have significantly altered the outcome that day.

Your column refers to a “gun menace”. The reality is that we have a “criminal menace”…individuals who flaunt the law because we have a law enforcement system that is unable to enforce the law, and a judiciary that is unwilling to enforce accountability for actions.

This is an individual and personal accountability issue.

To own (passive verb) a gun is not a crime.

To Kill/maim/injure (active verb) someone is a crime, and should be punished accordingly.

I look forward to your reasoned response.

 

[Gator]

You probably stand in line next to a legal CCW holder several times per week.

She lives in Chicago, IL, so no she doesn't. She probably stands in line next to armed criminals though!

The shooter obtained firearms illegally

This draws attention to how simple it is to lie on the 4473. I don't know if that's a plus or minus.

To own (passive verb) a gun is not a crime.

To Kill/maim/injure (active verb) someone is a crime, and should be punished accordingly.

As a Sun-Times reader, I think this will be lost on Ms Washington

 

[Steve499]

The odds are against the majority of Americans who are terrified and sickened by the gun menace.

If the majority of Americans are truly "terrified and sickened by the gun menace" it should follow that the odds would be in their favor rather than the other way around.

Gun control activists, she wrote me, "are TRYING HARD but they are seriously affected in state after state by lack of funding and contributions."

If they truly are the majority, I would expect a contribution level from their many adherents which should outstrip those given to the N.R.A. What's the deal?

 

[Regolith]

scurtis - excellent letter. I know the likelihood of that letter actually being read is small, and the writer actually taking it to heart even smaller, but nonetheless it was extremely well written, short, and to the point. It also challenges the writer's established stereotypes, and is something that needs to be done more often.

 

[average_shooter]

Let's get organized and shove tougher gun policies right down their throats.

WHAT!?!?

I abhor "gun-control" but that doesn't mean I would force anyone to own a gun. However, they do wish to force everyone to not own a gun.

The old saying is so very true; It is not about guns, it is about control.