|
| | | | |
|
|
Response to Cinc. Post Ed.
From: "Quigley, Thomas (QUIGLETW)" <QUIGLETW@UCMAIL.UC.EDU>
To: postedits@cincypost.com
To The Editor:
Your "Editorial, Chasing the Wrong Answer," is itself the wrong answer.
As could be expected, you parrot the liberal
party line, and continue to occupy a politically correct fantasy world wherein
the police are capable of teleporting instantaneously to the scene of any ongoing
crime to provide assured safety for all Cincinnatians, where criminals don't
already carry guns at will, and where the best way to prepare for the possibility
of violent crime is to make yourself as defenseless as possible. You probably
think that laws against concealed carry make criminals think twice, that owning
or carrying a gun puts you and your family at greater risk than not owning one,
that we're not in danger from criminals unless someone is inclined to stand
up to them, and that it is wrong to carry a gun for self-defense, but unfortunate,
unavoidable and not relevant to this issue when an unarmed person dies at the
hands of a criminal.
The thought of legal self-defense even outside of one's home may be "scary"
to those of you true believers who think that public servants are completely
responsible for your safety, but for many others like me who lived in uncomfortably
close quarters to the riots, and the ongoing crime wave in our city, it seems
self-evident that not only are we all responsible for our own safety, but it
is reasonable and responsible to be prepared for such an occurrence. Are you
aware that no police department has ever been successfully sued for failing
to protect an individual citizen? That's right, your individual safety is NOT
THEIR JOB. Are you aware that only one-quarter of 911 calls are responded to
in less than five minutes? Still want to bet your life on it?
This is not a "philosophical fantasy"--it is hard, cold reality: If the bad
guys are armed, and it is clear that there are plenty of bad guys in this city
that are armed, everybody else must either avoid many neighborhoods in this
city (some of us can't; we live in them); break the existing law against concealed
carry, or hope we are lucky. Nor was it a "philosophical fantasy" that people
were pulled out of their cars only a few months ago and beaten with rocks and
bottles. Violence is very real in this city. It is, however, a fantasy to think
we will ever get guns "off the streets," i.e., out of the hands of violent criminals.
The media, yourself included, tends to portray gun ownership, and concealed
carry, as more dangerous than not. Often, ideologically slanted and methodologically
flawed studies by doctors and sociologists (of one particular political persuasion,
need I say which?) are quoted to support your perspective. If you were to wake
up and investigate the other side, you would notice that there is a body of
far more substantial and methodologically sound evidence supporting not only
the benefits of gun ownership, but concealed carry. There are 44 other states
with some form of concealed carry, none of whom have reported increased shootouts
between "bozos" who carry for self defense. Get the facts straight instead of
spouting Al Gore's party line.
I cordially invite you to move to California, New York, or Massachusetts, where
there are plenty of other Starry-eyed Socialist Sheep who share your point of
view.
Sincerely,
Thomas W. Quigley.
You may view the original editorial at: http://www.cincypost.com/2001/aug/13/edita081301.html
To Get Your Letters Printed Here
Click here and read submission guidelines.
|
|
|
