This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
Dear Sarah by
Wade Siers, Correctional Cadet Submitted
by the Second Amendment Police Department Originally published on this
website July 5, 2001 To whom it may concern: Hello. I have a favor to ask of you. Following this introduction is a
letter I would like to forward to Sarah Brady (Handgun Control, Inc.). I
went to her web page and there seems to be no way to contact her via e-mail.
I trust you can help me? Please read this letter in its entirety before you respond to me (and I do
encourage you to do so). If you are a magazine/publisher, I hereby grant
permission to publish this letter in its entirety. I realize the volume of letters you receive annually from both sides of the
gun control issue must be staggering. If you are, in fact, reading this,
allow me to thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to consider
my opinion. As a gun owner, I am quick to notice the media reports of firearm-related
violence and organizations who wish to ban guns. As yours is the most
prominent of these organizations, I formally take issue with your position
on guns in American society. Are you still reading? Thank you. I realize you must have a pretty strong
pre-conceived stereotype of gun owners. Be assured I am educated, have no
criminal history, active in my community, have never hit my wife, and am as
appalled by crime as you are. The first point I wish to address is your statement that guns cause crime.
Nothing could be further from the truth, as demonstrated by what happened in
Japan June 8, 2001. Perhaps you are familiar with what happened - a man
armed with a knife entered an elementary school and stabbed eight children
to death, wounding fifteen others. While this number may not be comparable
to the Columbine Massacre, remember we are talking about ONE MAN WITH A
KNIFE. So the question is, since the crime occurred, where was the gun? The answer
is, no gun was necessary for the commission of this crime. As evidenced,
you can remove the tool, but the element will remain, and if determined
enough, the element will devise other means of achieving its goal. As far as Florida's crime rate increasing after allowing concealed carry,
there are several factors you neglect to consider. Realize only law-abiding
citizens comply with conceal carry laws. How does training a responsible
individual to comply with the law increase crime? Also, what types of
crimes are you discussing? The ratio of homicides to lawful concealed carry
seems rather disproportionate when compared to states such as New York and
Washington, D.C., which reserve the right NOT to issue permits to carry
weapons. In the state of Arizona, where I reside and where carry of a firearm is
freely permitted by law, we suffer a lower homicide rate than states with
what could be called extreme gun control. Call it lying propaganda if you
will, but check the FBI database again. The facts speak for themselves -
Arizona, Vermont, Montana, and other states with free gun laws have a far
lower murder rate than California, New York, Washington, D.C., or Illinois. Your webpage openly criticizes the intelligence of the armed citizen,
suggesting that only police officers possess the astute judgment to handle
a firearm properly in a dangerous encounter. I pose this question: in a
life or death situation where a firearm is a must (i.e. encounter with an
armed/dangerous individual, hostage situation, et cetera), who would YOU
trust more? A police officer who has been on the job three to five years
who never handled a firearm before choosing public service, or a private
citizen who has been taught safe handling and use of firearms since
childhood who practices regularly? I assume you will answer the police officer. So, are we to
trust police
solely for our protection? The Supreme Court of many a state have ruled
police are under absolutely no obligation to protect us, merely to respond
to and investigate crime. With this in mind, how can a single mother rely
on law enforcement when an attacker is tearing her door down? By the time
she is on the phone calling for help, said attacker may already gain
entrance and have his hands on her. By the way, I'm curious. If common citizens are supposed to rely on police,
why do the gun-control elite - Rosie O'Donnell, Hillary Clinton, Barbara
Boxer, Diane Feinstein, and Janet Reno - have armed guards? Can't they just
call 9-1-1? This is not an insult on police officers. The majority of law enforcement
are fine, overworked/underpaid citizens who understand and encourage
responsible gun ownership among law abiding citizens (I do), and are more
than capable with their weapons. However, to assume a citizen can not use a
firearm to deter crime is to imply submission to an attacker, and THAT
contributes to crime more than any weapon ever did, bar none. As far as
other methods of crime go (bladed weapons, martial arts training, pepper
spray), I have had police officers personally tell me that none are as
effective as proper firearms training. For more information on this subject, I encourage you to obtain a copy of
"The American Rifleman", the official publication of the National Rifle
Association (I am not writing this letter on behalf of the NRA, or any other
organization for that matter). There is a column called "The Armed
Citizen", which details real-life accounts from newspapers across the nation
of how citizens with firearms prevent crime, and aid others from coming to
unnecessary harm. A home with a gun in it is how many more times to have a murder? Ms. Brady,
how many of those murders were actually justifiable homicides? Intruders
shot during a burglary, a battered wife defending herself against an enraged
husband, or a murder where the weapon was not a firearm? Once the questions
are asked and the facts laid out, your theory quickly
fades. When the
actual number of accidental killings are brought to light, you will find
more children die in bicycle accidents or drownings than by firearms. Which would lead to your next step, that you're "doing it for the children."
I was raised in a family that was very involved with firearms, from
hunting to target shooting to gun smithing. My grandparents, uncles, aunts,
cousins, and parents had several firearms stored within their homes. The
grand total of firearms accidents in my family? Zero. You see, my parents educated me about safe, responsible handling of
firearms. We knew the consequences for unsafe practices - you could be
injured, and you would surely be disciplined. This bred a healthy dose of
respect. Respect for the destructive power a weapon could bring if used
irresponsibly, and respect for the authority of my parents. So now I hear the real issue is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
Ms. Brady, the bill named in honor of your husband is just about the only
thing we can do as a free society to even attempt this. Don't get me wrong
- I think it's great that retailers have the ability to legally deny sales
to those who should not possess firearms. However, it appears this is not
good enough for you. Some propose an outright
ban. The folly in this goes without saying. Less
guns for people, more for criminals. Decreased self
defense, more crime.
Door to door searches for guns without warrants would be permitted,
violating the Fourth Amendment (although you don't seem to hold much regard
for the Constitution). Still, some hold to the theory of a total, complete
ban. After all, look at how well it has worked with drugs. Registration is a good concept, in theory. However, it takes little thought
to see its failures. Does registering your car help police find who stole
and used it in a crime? Then how would registering a gun be any different?
You would know who originally bought the gun, and if the weapon is in fact
stolen and used in a crime, you would have "step one", but that is about how
far police would get. Registration also violates laws of privacy; guns are,
after all, personal property. Time and time again history has demonstrated
that registration is the first step towards confiscation. Organizations
like yours adamantly deny this would happen, though New York and California
have both proven you wrong. Now I hear you wish to ban private sales. Do you SERIOUSLY think criminals
will care if you outlaw private sales? How will you enforce the rule? Only
by becoming an absolute police state through the surrender of our civil
liberties can you hope to accomplish this. Even then, those determined will
find a way around. A closer look at countries with tight gun control such
as Mexico and China will prove this - both countries consistently fail to
keep guns away from criminals. Ms. Brady, I know why you wish to ban firearms, and believe it or not, I can
actually empathize with you. The anger you feel every time you see your
injured husband must be beyond comprehension, but I assure you that no law
in the world would have prevented what happened to President Reagan and Mr.
Brady. That man was bent and determined. However, I too have experienced
crime. I have looked down the barrels of firearms, have been threatened,
assaulted, and afraid. Do I seek to punish responsible citizens for the
actions of a deranged few? No. Do I seek to render responsible citizens
defenseless so they can know how I felt? No, and I hope no one ever knows
that feeling. It seems the real issue is not gun control, but crime in general. Rather
than fronting a campaign to violate civil rights, why not focus all of your
energy into an educational campaign? Instead of threatening to take guns
away, aim to inform those who lawfully wish to participate in firearm
ownership on the principles of responsible gun safety. Make known the
methods available to secure firearms, consequences for misuse/allowing a gun
to fall into the wrong hands, and resources available for further voluntary
training. The NRA has an excellent, award-winning safety program for
children; perhaps you could ally yourself with such an organization in the
name of safety rather than distancing yourself in the name of confiscation. The Second Amendment states the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.
Not THE STATES, not THE NATIONAL GUARD (although the provision for a
well-regulated militia is there i.e. The Army), but THE PEOPLE. If "the
right of the people to be secure in their dwellings" and "the right of the
people to peaceably assemble" refers to the people, then the Second
Amendment also refers to the people. Straight across the board, no
compromises. By twisting the Constitution to suit your own personal agenda,
not only are you decaying the very fundamentals our Founding Fathers built
this country upon, you are encouraging the assault of civilized society. I know you have your own formulaic, calculated retorts to these questions
you have undoubtedly heard thousands of times before. Every issue you
raise, every so-called fact you cite, every lie you spew lacks credible
evidence. I advise you to do your homework, and maybe even look into
actually TRYING firearms as a recreational activity. You might be surprised
at what you're missing. Wade Siers, Correctional Cadet To Get Your Letters Printed Here |
||||||||