Letter to Editor: Hardy King

I don’t dispute the facts a lot of people die due to violence every year. And yes, a lot of the deaths are due to the use of a gun.  But I have also read a post stating if you took all the deaths due to guns that incurred in cities with “strict gun laws” such as Chicago, Detroit, DC, etc. out of the equation, America would have one of the lowest death rates due to gun violence in the world. Why? Because criminals will still get guns, and no matter how many background checks, new gun laws are complete bans, they still get guns and use them. Law abiding citizens buy their guns from gun stores, and yes, sales at other events, gun shows, etc. Some of which still require documentation and a CWP in order to purchase. So how does making it tough for a law abiding citizen to buy a gun keep guns out of the hands of criminals, it doesn’t. Some say more background checks makes common sense, I disagree.  

I do agree a criminal with a record of certain crimes should not be able to buy a gun. But they will, just like buying illegal drugs is done every day, so is buying guns illegally, done every day. And as stated in the previous letter to the editor “keep guns out of the hands of people who are a threat to themselves and others”.  Who is that? My common sense tells me who that is, but the same people who espouse that, would have a fit and have, if schools, churches, employers, etc. try to flag somebody as mentally or emotionally unstable and/or troubled. That would be labeling, profiling, “stigmatizing”, and not acceptable. Yes, people you and I think should not be able to buy guns because we believe they could be a threat, get undealt with. And then you read about a school or church shooting and the individual’s past troubles in school, elsewhere, and you don’t understand why they were allowed to buy a gun. Common sense isn’t too common in today’s politically correct environment.

I do not believe banning assault-style rifles or high capacity magazines will have much effect on whether an individual decides to go into a building with a weapon with one high capacity magazine or a weapon with smaller capacity magazines but has 3 or 4 extra magazines on their person. A comment also made said “these guns are designed for one purpose. To kill human being as efficiently as possible”.  All guns are designed to kill, yes, that is what they are designed for. To shoot, and kill, animals or people, but also for defense, to defend myself, my family, my loved ones. That is why they are designed to carry easily, concealable, easy to draw, shoot, and to be done so safely. And how do you kill someone “efficiently”, or inefficiently for that matter? Does it matter if it is done with a gun, a knife, or a bat? Maybe that is not efficient. Not sure if that matters to the one getting killed or to others, just a way for the previous writer to try to sound sensible, when in fact, I don’t believe it does.

As to why anyone outside of the military or law enforcement would have these weapons? That is easy.  Because criminals do. And we have a right to defend and protect ourselves against criminals and an overreaching government if one day that is necessary. It was considered possible when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written, and most do believe it’s still possible today. All one has to do is look at other nations who didn’t have that right to bear arms and see that an overreaching government does happen.

Am I opposed to common sense gun laws? No, most law abiding citizens aren’t. But again, what I and the previous writer would/could agree on as common sense gun laws probably are not the same. I believe we already have a lot of common sense gun laws. Expanding background checks will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. That is a joke, and that is not making any sense. Closing “the Charleston loop hole” sounds sensible, but will that really keep a gun out of that individual’s hands, no.

Banning assault-style weapons does not ban assault-style weapons, it only bans law abiding citizens from buying them legally. As far as the “red flag” law, are we really saying we are ready to “red flag” your neighbor, your classmates, your students, or your co-worker? If this were possible, I do believe this is worth considering, and may be worth doing, but I also see a lot of difficulty when teachers, principals, co-workers, employers try to warn police officers and authorities to “red flag” Little Johnny who can do no wrong.  And after reading where a teacher in Florida got fired for giving her students a “0” for not turning in assignments, I really don’t believe the same people who push for “common sense” gun laws, will ever support common sense “red flagging”.

Years ago a young child walked up to my kindergarten-aged daughter at the cafeteria table in the public school system, and pointed his finger and said “Who wants to die?” and proceeded to “bang, bang, bang” each child at the table.  When she shared this with me, and I visited the school, you wouldn’t believe all the excuses that were given to me about how he was just young, nothing to worry about, don’t be concerned, yak, yak, yak. Did they want to “red flag” this young child? No, they didn’t, but I did.  

I had waited to see if any other 2nd Amendment Irmo Neighbors would respond to the previous Letter to the Editor, but since they hadn’t, I decided I would.  

Hardy King

A Resident, First and Foremost

Leave a Reply