Anti-gun violence views don’t hold up to facts

RochesterMay 3, 2013 

This is addressed to the people that don’t want gun safety legislation enacted. Explain the logic of your position in light of these facts:

In response to the killing of 3,000 people by terrorists, we have given up personal freedoms all over the place and deem that as a reasonable response to keep us safe. Remember the “Patriot Act” that was enacted after 9/11 and reauthorized?

We are searched at airports, our personal communications are searched and our rights to legal representation are subverted if it is deemed in the national interest. But, in response to the killing of 800,000 U.S. citizens yearly, we are not going to do anything? Is it not in the national interest to try to stem that amount of carnage?

It is said that registration would not have kept the Newtown children safe. True, but the regulations will keep somebody else’s “babies” safe. I say that your solutions enable unwarranted deaths and you have nothing to suggest to change that.

The only hope that I can see is that “we the people” need to show the politicians that we will hold them accountable during their next election for this unwillingness to act and that neither the gun industry nor their political arm, the NRA, will protect them from that.

I know that’s what I plan to do. That and sign on to any initiative process that takes this issue directly to the people for a vote.

The Olympian is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service