On Tuesday this anti-gun editorial appeared in the University of Kansas newspaper.
On Thursday a young man I am proud to call a friend of mine published the reply you will find below.
His e-mail address is jmccool@falcon.cc.ukans.edu
If you like his reply, send some positive feedback. There are not many people on his campus who support the Second Amendment and he’ll probably be getting some flames, so put something positive as the subject of your email.
Here are the address and the text of the editorial:
http://www.kansan.com/arch/2000spring/03_28_00/opinion/editorial-guns.html
Smart guns, safety locks good step, but ban on handguns better option
U.S. government´s agreement with Smith & Wesson is stride toward improving gun safety
Tabatha Beerbower for the editorial board
The recent school shooting of a six-year-old in Michigan again has ignited the issue of gun safety.
The death of a child in a school shooting has become an all-too-familiar headline. The Columbine High School deaths last year in Littleton, Colo., led to a focus on new gun legislation and put a significant amount of blame on the National Rifle Association.
While the heated debate between President Bill Clinton and the NRA rolls on, other organizations are taking strides toward improving gun safety.
Smith & Wesson, one of the largest U.S. manufacturers of handguns, has agreed to include gun locks on every weapon it sells. Its plans include the introduction of “smart gun” technology, which allows weapons to be fired only by their owners. It is hoped that such measures will decrease the number of gun-related deaths.
Smith & Wesson is to be commended for its efforts in gun safety. Its plans are effective steps toward a violence-free nation. Gun locks and smart gun technology are promising measures in preventing both accidental and purposeful deaths. The enforcement of background checks should lower the number of firearms sold to convicted felons.
But realistically, as long as guns exist, so will senseless killing. Clinton, the NRA and every U.S. citizen should focus on the priority of saving lives rather than the right to carry firearms. Inevitably, children and adults alike will find ways to disable safety locks on handguns. Until there is a nationwide ban on handguns, the problems we face always will be present.
It is time for the nation to take a step back and decide which is more important — the right to carry a weapon for individual empowerment or saving the lives of its children.
And here is John’s fine reply:
http://www.kansan.com/arch/2000spring/03_30_00/opinion/feedback.html
Banning guns hurts law-abiding citizens
John H. McCool
Evansville, Ind., graduate student in history
Banning guns hurts law-abiding citizens
I´m writing in response to the March 28 editorial on the issue of gun control and the idea that banning handguns would eliminate gun crimes. Since the editorial cites the tragic shooting of a 6-year-old girl in support of trigger locks on all guns, let us interject a needed dose of reality into this debate.
First, the little boy who killed Kayla Rolland lived in a crack house. Second, his father was in prison, his mother a junkie. Third, the boy´s uncle, a career felon, left a loaded (stolen) pistol lying around the crack house. And fourth, it would take two hands to count the felonies committed by the “residents” of this crack house, child abuse being only one.
It´s a cruel insult to the intelligence of the American people (and to little Kayla´s memory) to suggest that a drug-abusing felon would take time away from his crack dealing to check that his trigger lock was properly secured. Gun-controllers and gun-banners never have been able to deal with one fundamental reality, and to avoid doing so, they constantly engage in scare tactics and extremist rhetoric to obscure their indefensible position.
In short, criminals don´t obey the law! If guns were banned, does anyone really think that criminals would turn theirs in too? The only people who would be harmed would be law-abiding citizens who would comply with the law. Demonizing the National Rifle Association and responsible gun owners like myself will not save lives — only strict enforcement of existing laws can do that.
On Thursday a young man I am proud to call a friend of mine published the reply you will find below.
His e-mail address is jmccool@falcon.cc.ukans.edu
If you like his reply, send some positive feedback. There are not many people on his campus who support the Second Amendment and he’ll probably be getting some flames, so put something positive as the subject of your email.
Here are the address and the text of the editorial:
http://www.kansan.com/arch/2000spring/03_28_00/opinion/editorial-guns.html
Smart guns, safety locks good step, but ban on handguns better option
U.S. government´s agreement with Smith & Wesson is stride toward improving gun safety
Tabatha Beerbower for the editorial board
The recent school shooting of a six-year-old in Michigan again has ignited the issue of gun safety.
The death of a child in a school shooting has become an all-too-familiar headline. The Columbine High School deaths last year in Littleton, Colo., led to a focus on new gun legislation and put a significant amount of blame on the National Rifle Association.
While the heated debate between President Bill Clinton and the NRA rolls on, other organizations are taking strides toward improving gun safety.
Smith & Wesson, one of the largest U.S. manufacturers of handguns, has agreed to include gun locks on every weapon it sells. Its plans include the introduction of “smart gun” technology, which allows weapons to be fired only by their owners. It is hoped that such measures will decrease the number of gun-related deaths.
Smith & Wesson is to be commended for its efforts in gun safety. Its plans are effective steps toward a violence-free nation. Gun locks and smart gun technology are promising measures in preventing both accidental and purposeful deaths. The enforcement of background checks should lower the number of firearms sold to convicted felons.
But realistically, as long as guns exist, so will senseless killing. Clinton, the NRA and every U.S. citizen should focus on the priority of saving lives rather than the right to carry firearms. Inevitably, children and adults alike will find ways to disable safety locks on handguns. Until there is a nationwide ban on handguns, the problems we face always will be present.
It is time for the nation to take a step back and decide which is more important — the right to carry a weapon for individual empowerment or saving the lives of its children.
And here is John’s fine reply:
http://www.kansan.com/arch/2000spring/03_30_00/opinion/feedback.html
Banning guns hurts law-abiding citizens
John H. McCool
Evansville, Ind., graduate student in history
Banning guns hurts law-abiding citizens
I´m writing in response to the March 28 editorial on the issue of gun control and the idea that banning handguns would eliminate gun crimes. Since the editorial cites the tragic shooting of a 6-year-old girl in support of trigger locks on all guns, let us interject a needed dose of reality into this debate.
First, the little boy who killed Kayla Rolland lived in a crack house. Second, his father was in prison, his mother a junkie. Third, the boy´s uncle, a career felon, left a loaded (stolen) pistol lying around the crack house. And fourth, it would take two hands to count the felonies committed by the “residents” of this crack house, child abuse being only one.
It´s a cruel insult to the intelligence of the American people (and to little Kayla´s memory) to suggest that a drug-abusing felon would take time away from his crack dealing to check that his trigger lock was properly secured. Gun-controllers and gun-banners never have been able to deal with one fundamental reality, and to avoid doing so, they constantly engage in scare tactics and extremist rhetoric to obscure their indefensible position.
In short, criminals don´t obey the law! If guns were banned, does anyone really think that criminals would turn theirs in too? The only people who would be harmed would be law-abiding citizens who would comply with the law. Demonizing the National Rifle Association and responsible gun owners like myself will not save lives — only strict enforcement of existing laws can do that.