Letter: More guns on more people a bad idea

The National Rifle Association, with the blessing of the gun industry, has operated as an organization similar to rolled pastries on steroids, flexing its muscle lobbying prowess to get legislation passed favorable to the industry.

The gun lobby believes that every one of us would be safer if we only carried a gun. Some advocate we should carry guns openly on our person. The NRA backs students carrying guns onto college campuses, patrons inside local bars and even for congregates wearing them inside our houses of worship while studying God’s holy word.

I know of no gun-control advocate who wants to take guns from hunters, thwart homeowners from defending themselves from possible home invasions or preclude marksmen from perfecting their skills. Where is the logic, though, behind civilian gun owners needing assault weapons with large-capacity ammunition magazines for self-defense or for hunting, along with enormous quantities of ammunition, such as the 6,000 rounds purchased by the Aurora shooter?

Why do we allow civilians to purchase body armor such as that worn by the Aurora, Colo., movie shooter? Body armor counteracts the NRA’s claim that we all would be safer if we carried guns on our person, only for us to learn later that shooters wear protective armor. Does this fact call for the rest of us to purchase body armor to wear with our concealed weapons?

The United States is the most violent developed nation on the face of the Earth because our gun laws are the most permissive. The NRA’s legislative initiatives for the omnipresence of guns as the answer for reducing gun violence in our culture is a myopic understanding of how to diminish gun violence in communities across our nation. More guns, in more hands, in more places, for more accessible use by more people is a prescription for more gun violence, not for less.

Where is the obligatory national debate in the midst of these sickening violent gun atrocities on the need to balance a citizen’s right to own a gun under the Second Amendment with the need to pass reasonable gun-control legislation for public safety? It is crucial for our legislative leaders to hold a national debate on this subject, for it is not going to go away.

Jerry W. Doyle

retired federal employee

Alexandria


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (36)


1) Comment by DMJ - 20/08/2012

Again....like I already said...gun control on an individual city-by-city basis can't work, obviously. If you can just drive to the next county...or state and get a Tech 9, then what's the point? And excuse me, but we've never tried gun control on a federal level....oh wait....yeah, we did. We had an assault weapons ban that expired during W's terms. This ban would have prevented Jared Loughner from purchasing a 33-round clip (and prevented them from being sold in the first place). The yahoo who shot up the theatre in Colorado wouldn't have been able to buy the assault rifle he used either. But not to fret....we like guns more than we like peace in America, so as long as "gun-rights" advocates stay on the winning side of policy and debate, we'll have more shootings. It's inevitable. Sure, we'll act surprised...we'll talk about mental illness...a few Democrats will offer bills that will be killed in committee...and then some more people will get shot. Like I've been saying....this is what winning the war over gun control looks like. Happy?

2) Comment by Whatnow - 20/08/2012

People can just cross the border and buy American guns from Mexico.

3) Comment by Bighug - 19/08/2012

Compare the crime rates in the US where there are very strict laws against guns, such as the cities of Chicago and Washington, D.C., with the most lenient places, such as the state of New Hampshire. In New Hampshire, there is no restriction on the purchase of legal firearms, nor the carrying of them openly or concealed, by citizens not otherwise restricted by law for being too young, a felon, etc. According to some of these posts, that would make the state of New Hampshire a very dangerous place to live, and D.C. a safe place. That is true only if you are a criminal!

4) Comment by nimby? - 19/08/2012

it's obviously not working on a federal level either , or Mr . Holder might be more willing to answer questions ....

5) Comment by DMJ - 19/08/2012

Obviously, gun control can't work on a local level....someone could simply drive to the next town or state and get whatever they wanted. I'm sure they have ridiculous gun shows in Illinois as well. But hey... we won't have to worry about gun control on a federal level. So all good patriots can relax. Meanwhile, an anti-government group with "a stockpile of weapons" just killed some cops in St. John the Baptist Parish. This is gun rights at work. This is what it looks like. Happy?

6) Comment by nimby? - 18/08/2012

how many deaths due to driving while cell phoning/texting ?

7) Comment by nimby? - 18/08/2012

over the past few years it would seem black people don't like other black people . where do the guns come from ? ask them , I'm sure you'll get a clear and honest answer ....

8) Comment by Dawson - 18/08/2012

There are many posters on this forum and many other forums that Stalin, Lenin, Hitler and Marx would be very proud of. All four were big government liberals (communist, socialist, marxist, revolutionaries) that overtook their societies by slowly reducing individual freedom and removing guns from their opponents. Then guess what happened? Their opponents were slaughtered. I believe these types of people, in that day, were referred to as "useful idiots" by Marx. Gun control creates more crime...are there no historians on the liberal side?

9) Comment by Chucky - 18/08/2012

DMJ- of the 10,000 were they all murders or just homicide's ?

10) Comment by nimby? - 18/08/2012

in the heat of this discussion comparison is made of the U.S. vs countries banning firearms . like to make my own comparison . London has a population of over 7,000,000 , the greater London area almost 12,000,000. New Orleans has a population near 300,000 , 500,000 in the metropolitan area . why is there more violent crime in New Orleans ? why is there little mention of Chicagos' rash of gun related crime in the midst of some of this nations toughest gun laws ?

11) Comment by Whatnow - 18/08/2012

Criminals don't get permits nor training. Only good law abiding citizens get them, along with training. Now, who are you going to trust with a gun?

12) Comment by DMJ - 18/08/2012

Ahh...so a well-regulated militia is anyone with a gun who likes to shoot? Got it. I feel safer already. What a sad, dangerous joke this issue has become. But hey, you guys won. And the fruits of your labor are 10,000 gun murders a year. Congratulations.

13) Comment by Dawson - 18/08/2012

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'. In the 20th century over 50 million "citizens" of their own countries were killed by their governments after "gun control" laws were established. The founders knew exactly what they were doing when they included the right to bear arms. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property. Gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Do liberals EVER study history? Its hard to imagine a Federal Employee that believes in curving the freedoms of individuals.

14) Comment by phil - 18/08/2012

Guns do not kill people, people kill people? Actually I think it is - guns do not kill people, but nut cases and thug with guns do kill people. That leads me to think that there should be better checks on who can get a legal gun and anyone even caught with an illegal handgun should face very stiff penalties including jail time. What I am talking about are handguns and people who carry concealed (or in the open) handguns illegally. Personally I like shotguns for home protection use and they are fairly hard to conceal or carry around, so if I want a handgun to carry around I will obtain a conceal permit to do it. Basically I am saying we need to attempt to keep guns away from thugs and nut cases the best we can, but I also realize this problem will probably never be solved now. There are just too many illegal handguns around now to completely stop this.problem .

15) Comment by Scrooge - 18/08/2012

Placing faith in one's guns will not protect you.

16) Comment by Chucky - 18/08/2012

Better people would go a long way in curving the killing. Better people with guns.

17) Comment by The_Host - 18/08/2012

Oh and Jerry think when I get home from the range today I will go ahead and buy an AR15 and a couple of high capacity mags in your Honor Sir. For each letter I read going forward I will purchase a case of ammo for that AR again in your Honor! You see Jerry I have lots of dead relatives that fought so I could do just that!

18) Comment by The_Host - 18/08/2012

Don't look now Jerry but I just bought 5000 rounds of ammo and I have in excess of 10000 on hand. Now since you know what we all need why don't you tell me how long that will last me as a competitive shooter? Tell me Jerry how many rounds will I use each match and when I practice at my house? Jerry do you even know how the NRA came into being? It had nothing to do with fighting gun control zealots. The only reason they got into lobbying for gun owners is due to all those people that don't want to take away our guns for hunting, shooting and self defense. To say that is so dishonest it is laughable, no no they don't want to ban all guns. Well except in Chicago etc where they do indeed wish to take anything they can get their hands on. Obviously gun control is just going splendidly in Chicago right? You are never going to get guns away from Americans to even think such a thing means you have absolutely no problem with another civil war because that is what will happen and the government will lose and they know it. Telling these people to read the Federalist Papers etc is a waste of time. They can not grasp such concepts as is evident by their belief that guns are the things that commit the crimes to begin with. You reads the Founders words and they are so lucid and meaningful in every sentence. Then you listen to today's politicians talk and it is utter nonsense. So I want to know was Lincoln killed by an "Assault Weapon" was Reagan shot with an "Assault Weapon" or how about JFK? I would hazard to say that each case was indeed an Assault to be sure, but none of them were from what we call assault weapons now. A Derringer, a revolver and a Bolt action rifle were used, go figure. All 3 combined held a total of maybe 11 rounds. Yeah you are going to get guns away from people if you just have enough discussion and debate and pass enough laws to go with the thousands already on the books. If laws worked they would work now wouldn't they? This is not up for debate or discussion. The powers that be can choose to waste their time thinking of ways to get guns that is all fine and dandy. The gun owners have already decided and NO ONE is taking our guns. End of Debate!

19) Comment by ABayouBoy - 18/08/2012

There are areas of BR that I would not care to enter, even with an AK-47. Its not the guns that are the issue here, its the violence that you see daily on TV and else ware. Its the lack of morality, ethics, and yes, the lack of consideration for others. Me and my .45ACP for self defense get along just fine....my deterrent.

20) Comment by Bighug - 18/08/2012

Yes, DMJ, I know many who are actually in a well-regulated militia, including myself. In the language of the day, "regulated" meant equipped, and "militia" referred to the armed populace. If you would take just a little time to read The Federalist, you could learn much about the thinking behind the Constitution.

21) Comment by nimby? - 17/08/2012

I'm glad for those who have never been victim of a violent crime . I hope they never do ...

22) Comment by Springer98 - 17/08/2012

Concealed weapons permit carriers are subjected to a thorough background check. If you have anything on your record more than a traffic ticket, you can't get one. I have had a permit since they became legal. Twice I have avoided being accosted by being armed. If any of you want to be as a sheep among wolves, just remain unarmed. Just don't tell me that I can't protect myself or those entitled to my protection!

23) Comment by DMJ - 17/08/2012

Anyone know anybody who's actually in a well-regulated militia? Me neither. I'm still amazed the 2nd Amendment has been twisted to prohibit even the most reasonable gun control legislation.

24) Comment by DMJ - 17/08/2012

This nation's obsession with guns is costing us around 10,000 people a year. Great Britain (population: 40 million) doesn't allow guns....last year, they had fewer gun murders than Louisiana. Clearly, gun control works. Unfortunately, we'll never have effective gun control in this country. Heck, even Barack Obama increased gun rights. I feel bad for people who think they need a gun. It must be tough living with that kind of fear and paranoia all the time.

25) Comment by nimby? - 17/08/2012

I would love to live in a world without fear . unfortunately the bad guys don't play by the rules ...

26) Comment by potkcalb - 17/08/2012

Whatnow I don't disagree with a lot of what you have said. I too keep a weapon on the premises. But I think that if everyone is 'carrying" its going to be mayhem on an internecine scale.That's just an opinion.

27) Comment by Whatnow - 17/08/2012

@potkcalb, of course the criminals won't be the only ones shooting and killing. That's the point. A lot of us will fire back in self defense. It's not youth's lack of inhibition and impulse control. It's their lack of intelligence. It's something they see everyday. They think it's cool. When they get AK-47s, so will we. You can't protect yourself with a .22. When they shoot at you, it helps to have a gun that will kill them. That way they don't have a chance to shoot again. Thus, you have to match what they are using or better. I don't want to live in a world where the only people to have big guns are the government and the criminals.

28) Comment by Sandy - 17/08/2012

Mr. Doyle misses the whole point of the Constitution. It is not there to allow us the rights that are considered reasonable. It is meant to guarantee us all rights that the government does not have a valid reason to take away. In this case, it guarantees that I will not have my rights stripped away because of a crime committed by someone else. The government does not have the right to tell me I can't own something because I don't NEED it. Need has nothing to do with it.

29) Comment by potkcalb - 17/08/2012

I acknowledge the Constitutional right to own guns, and gun ownership for hunting has been a tradition in my family. But I do not think that the framers of the Constitution thought that gun ownership was unlimited.My guess is that they would be aghast at students carrying firearms in schools or the faithful carrying them in churches. If everyone was carrying a gun, as some advocate, shootings and gun deaths in America would be almost too innumerable to count. Many of the youth of today and the adults of today that the youth have grown into have no qualms about using guns as a first resort in addressing even minor grievances. The most striking thing about the current generation of youths and young adults is their lack of inhibition and impulse control. Given that mind set it is naive to assume that only criminals are going to be shooting and killing.

30) Comment by nimby? - 17/08/2012

a recent assault of a family member along with the authorities attempt to brush it off as a minor incident hasn't sat too well . if you must arm yourself do it responsibly . respect your piece , get proper training , keep it secured properly . and if need , don't be afraid to use it ....

31) Comment by dday198 - 17/08/2012

Two sheriff's deputies in Louisiana were shot to death and two others were injured in an early-morning shootout west of New Orleans, authorities said Thursday. Five people - both male and female - are in custody, and … Continue reading → let's all go out and buy an AK

32) Comment by rgeraldwallace@cox.net - 17/08/2012

Doyle is willing to "allow" citizens to have a gun in "reasonable" situations? Mr Doyle obviously has his spurs tangled; doubtless he's convinced himself that he and those who share his beliefs have the moral right to tell the rest of us what to do and to usurp citizen rights guaranteed to us by our constitution. His hogwash is nonsensical; leave my well-being and safety to him and his ilk?

33) Comment by jdk944 - 17/08/2012

Mr. Doyle is another one of those with "good intention" mindsets at the EXPENSE of our freedoms and rights in the consitution as others who have commented before me have referenced. There IS reasonable gun control legislation already in place Mr. Doyle!! And your contention is utterly FALSE about no one wanting to restrict gun ownership. Every time there is a shooting it goes "viral" on the mainstream news followed by their selecting "anti-gun" ownership supporters.

34) Comment by CountryBoysCanSurvive - 17/08/2012

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

35) Comment by dday198 - 17/08/2012

let's put a copy of the the 2nd amendment to the constitution in every casket buried in baton rouge maybe that will ease the families grief. R.I.P. AMENDMENT II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

36) Comment by dday198 - 17/08/2012

let's put a copy of the the 2nd amendment to the constitution in every casket buried in baton rouge maybe that will ease the families grief. R.I.P. AMENDMENT II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

37) Comment by Bighug - 17/08/2012

The violence in the US isn't caused by gun ownership. Those who quote figures comparing gun violence in the US with other countries conveniently omit the comparison of other types of violence. If they did, you would see that all types of violence are relatively more common here than in those other countries. Another statistic that isn't mentioned is the number of cases where the legal possession of a firearm results in protecting the owner and his family from violence by criminals. There is no Constitutional protection for the right to own and bear arms for hunting, target shooting, or self-protection. That is probably why the anti-gun group always says those rights will be protected. Too bad the study of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers aren't required in out schools.