This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
Facts, Fairytales, and Loopholes
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 13:11:16
-0800 (PST) Your editorial calling for closing
the gun-show loophole was a shameless propaganda piece.
A quote: "Law-abiding citizens
buy from licensed dealers..." So you imply that no law-abiding citizen
would want to buy from a private collector?
"But criminals... may be drawn
to tables... marked 'private sale.'" (emphasis mine).
True, they may be drawn to
such tables. Do your editorial writers care enough to find out, or is unsubstantiated
innuendo what passes for critical thought at the Times? Ask the FBI: fewer than
2% of guns used in crimes comes from a gun show, and no one has yet bothered
to find out if any of those guns were actually obtained illegally by repeat
offenders, or if they were bought legally by people with no criminal history.
But why let lack of facts get in the way of some good self-righteousness?
The "slippery slope" argument
is not "tired" at all to the residents of California, who can no longer
sell a gun to one of their friends without paying a dealer to fill out the paperwork.
Nor is the record-keeping associated with background checks harmless in the
eyes of Chicago residents, whose government recently convinced a federal judge
to hand over the FBI's gun-purchase records, in hopes of finding an otherwise
lawful gun owner who had committed a paperwork error.
Meanwhile antigun researchers Ludwig
and Cook have concluded, much to their own chagrin, that background checks have
not had a measurable impact on crime. You can read it for yourself at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v284n5/abs/joc91749.html.
It makes little sense to advocate a new law simply because another law with
similar provisions is on the books. This is doubly true if the old law has been
clearly shown not to fulfill the promises of its backers. Your use of innuendo
and speculation in an editorial which is utterly devoid of actual information
serves to undermine your credibility. It appears to most gun owners that the
Times, and gun-control advocates generally, do not care a whit for truth or
reason, and instead are simply out to punish gun owners for being politically
incorrect. You can hardly expect much cooperation when you yourselves have poisoned
the well.
Robert Lyman To Get Your Letters Printed Here |
||||||||