Letter Response [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Letter Response


Captain Caveman
01-30-2013, 08:45
Sent off more letters yesterday. These are the only responses so far.


Thanks for taking the time to write and for staking out a clear position on gun control.



Like most people I was shocked and a bit scared when I read about the massacre at New Town. I remember desperately wanting to leave the meeting I was attending so I could run home and protect the school. Seems silly, but I still drive by when I'm in town just to make sure everything looks safe.



I believe there are a few things we can do to reduce or mitigate against these types of mass shootings, and we should really explore these ideas and implement the ones that are proven to work.



Unfortunately, the gun control measures offered by the likes of Diane Feinstein don't work; if anything, they make people less safe. It has been proven over and over again that taking firearms from law-abiding gun owners increases violent crime. The converse, allowing law abiding gun owners greater freedom to possess guns has been shown to reduce crime. To me this case is closed.



I think that doing away with "gun free zones" or criminal safe zones in places of public accommodation will reduce both gun crime and violent crime. I also think that school boards should be allowed and encouraged to let well trained teachers carry or have access to firearms at school.



Finally, I want to deal with this notion that all gun transfers should require background checks.



I know this idea sounds good at first offering, but it is really a dangerous idea. Number one, it is unnecessary. It is already illegal to sell a gun to someone you know or think can't legally purchase a gun. Period. That law should be and is enforced. But explain why I should be forced to make an appointment and pay for a background check before selling or giving a firearm to my son, niece, neighbor or friend whom I've known for 20 years?



Further, the law is completely unenforceable in any instance except to track down a firearm after it was used in a crime (which they can already do) without a centralized registry of firearms and firearm ownership. How else could a Parks and Wildlife Officer make sure that the weapon you are using hunting is yours and that you went through a background check when you bought it?



The reason that this is dangerous is that I can think of no instance in world history where a centralized registry wasn't misused at one point. I'll give two examples: when the United Kingdom decided to start limiting ownership of firearms, they were only able to do so because they had a registry of ownership. Second, in New York, a newspaper published the names and addresses of registered firearms owners in the region. One of those law abiding citizen's house was subsequently burglarized and the firearms stolen, and that was all that was taken. Do you really think that a nationwide registry would not be misused at some point? Ever heard of wiki leaks?



I am adamantly opposed to additional gun control and will vote accordingly. I will continue to work to expand our liberties under the Second Amendment.


Greg B.
Spelling errors are Apple's fault, I own the grammar.



Thanks for your email. I too have a great amount of respect for the 2nd amendment and law abiding citizens who responsibly own guns. I will work hard to protect your rights, liberties and the freedoms that are part of who we are and continue to be. Please feel free to contact me on any issues of concern, and I urge you to send communications to other legislators who may not be so inclined to defend our liberties.


Regards,

TIM