All News & Blogs
Visit the Photo Place
William Dowling's letter ["Flawed logic is used in gun-regulation debate," Feb. 3] states, "Dozens of first-world nations have had gun restrictions for years and their people are safer from gun violence."
Here are the facts from the U.N. and the CIA fact books on countries with gun bans and their neighbors without and their gun homicide rates per 100,000 people:
Russia, handguns banned, 20.54 per 100,000.
Finland, allowed, 1.98 per 100,000.
Norway, allowed, 0.81 per 100,000.
Belarus, banned, 10.40 per 100,000.
Poland, allowed 1.98 per 100,000.
Either Dowling believes these are second- or third-rate nations, or he can't read statistics. Every single large American metro area, those greater than 250,000 population, with bans on private firearms, especially handguns, have homicide rates and violent crime rates involving handguns at a rate 500 times greater than those that do not ban private ownership. This is a fact even the Brady campaign can't deny.
If Dowling believes it is the job of the police to protect him from a gun-wielding intruder in his home, I invite him to ask a police officer what the average time is for an emergency response to a residence. Call 911 and wait, sir. I choose to protect myself and my family.
The misconception here is liberals wondering why anyone needs a gun. Quite simply, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with need, any more than you need indoor plumbing, an SUV, a microwave, or, for that matter, the First Amendment.
The Second Amendment was not written to defend my right to defend myself against others, but to defend myself against a tyrannical government. An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject. So for everyone who believes guns are bad, fine. You choose 911, I'll choose .357.