Letters: Citizens have right to self-defense

The killings in the school in Connecticut present us with a very revealing picture. It is a picture of an America that has been disarmed by liberal gun-control laws. If the gun-control freaks have their way, all law-abiding citizens will be potentially in the same situation as those innocent children and teachers. They could do nothing but hide, cower and pray while one evil man with a gun mowed them down.

One good person, with a gun and trained to use it, could have saved a lot of lives. Some will argue that if guns were illegal, that man could not have killed so many people with a knife or an arrow. Please consider this, however. Cocaine is illegal. Crystal meth is illegal. During Prohibition, whiskey was illegal. Driving drunk is illegal.

My point is that just because something is illegal, that does not stop it. Guns will always be available to bad people. Gun control, gone amok, will merely make law-abiding people defenseless targets for bad people.

And let’s not fool ourselves, there will always be evil people who will shoot defenseless people. Every law-abiding American has the right to self-defense whether it be from thieves, murderers or a tyrannical government. That is precisely why our forefathers granted us the right to defend ourselves using firearms.

Remember, most people who are victims of evil people with guns are not killed in classrooms or crowded theaters. Many are killed in their own homes or vehicles. American citizens must not be stripped of the fundamental right of self-defense.

What the gun-control people really want is a world without violence. We all know that is not going to happen, and a world with violence but without guns is the worst possible world for people who are physically weaker than others. The elderly and women would be especially vulnerable prey. There is an old saying that God made man and woman, but Smith and Wesson made them equal.

Radicals will try to use the evil perpetrated in Connecticut as a reason to disarm this country. I say it is a perfect scenario for why we must never be herded over that cliff.

R. Glynn Kelly

USPS retired

Ethel

Comments

1) Comment by InPVille - 30/12/2012

@T_S: The introduction of the paper you cite states: "The work by Lott and Mustard has triggered an unusually large set of academic responses, with talented scholars lining up on both sides of the debate." Your paper disputes Lott and Mustard on the subject of concealed weapons against a large set of crimes including robbery. That there are studies which come down on both sides of the question indicates that the topic is controversial. Also the paper I cited was a different paper Lott and Landes restricted to multiple victim shootings wherein the entire intent of the shooter was to kill as many people as possible and not shootings incidental to another type of crime.

2) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 29/12/2012

InPville: I've posted his link at least three times already... Here goes number four. It's the first of many sites that pops up when you google "Lott study debunked" --- http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf

3) Comment by BigMike - 27/12/2012

brhope- No, Why? Do you?

4) Comment by brhope - 27/12/2012

BigMike- You got something that will shoot down a drone?.. or avoid detection from a thermal imaging satellite? ..or take out an ATF tank?

5) Comment by Whatnow - 27/12/2012

On_The_Fence, take some gun lessons.

6) Comment by BigMike - 27/12/2012

@postscript56 - The founding fathers also knew that it was certainly possible that it could happen again, even in America, knowing that wise men wouldn't always be the people's choice. The reason that myself & others like me are in the minority is, with the last election as proof, the majority is ignorant (lacking knowledge or education in general or in a specific subject) If you don't fear your government, knowing that those in control don't understand MATH, then YOU, sir, have proven my point.

7) Comment by postscript56 - 27/12/2012

BigMike - The founding fathers at least had the virtue of having lived through rebellion against tyranny to support their views. You and attila on the other hand just live in a country where your views have proven to be in the minority. Being a minority opinion is not, in and of itself, sufficient reason to fear your government. The fact that so many of y'all do, is what makes it paranoia.

8) Comment by BigMike - 27/12/2012

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster "A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace." - James Madison "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." - Joseph Story "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts You were saying, postscript56?!?! Thats what I thought......

9) Comment by old yat - 27/12/2012

Paranoia strikes deep, Into your life it will creep, It starts when your always afraid, Step out of line, The man comes to take you away.....Paranoid?maybe,Afraid?not really,Stepping out of line?you dam right!!!! and when the MAN does come he better bring his lunch and a big bag!!!!! You know, I never thought of myself as a minority before,oh well,when do I start getting all the free stuff? Again,just my opinion...God Bless you all&God Bless America,the greatest country on earth!!!!!

10) Comment by HRoark - 27/12/2012

The most shrill gun rights advocates typified by these comments are not main stream gun owners, but represent the paranoid fringe that feed on the NRA's drumbeat that us liberal control freaks want to pry their guns from them. As noted, but apparently overlooked, mainstream gun regulation advocates aren't out to take your guns away, but want to minimize the availability of a select subset of weapons. Those are the ones that criminals, paranoid mentally ill people, and, yes, our gun loving commentators here don't really have any business owning. It's that last part that has their underwear bunched. The very idea that something they want is regulated and they can't have it now and without red tape hits the selfish entitlement button. Grow up, that's part of living in a civil society. Or, as mentioned, go to Somalia where you can live without regulation and be a pirate...arrrrgghh. As for the John Lott controversy, the Wikipedia article is an interesting read and has all the relevant citations. By any reasonable assessment, the guy has no credibility. Until the country grows up and stops hiding behind the fabricated intentions of the founding fathers, the problem will continue. Gun lovers will use them to prop up their self esteem and the wrong people will get hold of them and kill people for no good reason and with alarming frequency.

11) Comment by gofigger - 27/12/2012

Get to the root of the problem, isolate the idiots.

12) Comment by MBW - 26/12/2012

There are plenty of countries with much lower rates of violence....we may not be able to eliminate it, but we can bring it way down from where it is here.

13) Comment by MBW - 26/12/2012

So because we can't eliminate all violence, we should just stop trying?

14) Comment by postscript56 - 26/12/2012

attila - not gonna get into a pointless 2nd amendment argument, but the 2nd amendment doesn't have anything to do with citizens protecting themselves from government. that's the kind of goofy paranoia that lost y'all the last election. keep that kind of thing up and you'll lose this issue, too. shutupandthink - i don't care what caliber it is you can't hunt with a 30 round clip. that kind of weapon wasn't made for hunting, guns you can hunt with you can also use to defend yourself with. an assault rifle has no legitimate civilian use. like i said before, if you really believe you might have to defend your home against an invading force you are not stable enough to own an assault rifle.

15) Comment by Springer98 - 26/12/2012

http://www.news10.net/news/article/222195/2/1-dead-in-Sacramento-home-invasion

16) Comment by old yat - 26/12/2012

I actually took the time to read each and every comment posted below and I must agree that most of you make valid points about the content of Mr. Kelly's letter.I also respect each persons opinion,with that being said ,I would like to make three quick comments,....my opinion. #1 GUN CONTROL IS BEING ABLE TO HIT WHAT YOU AIM AT. #2 WHEN YOU OUTLAW GUNS ONLY THE OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS. #3 YOU CAN TAKE MY GUNS WHEN YOU PRY THEM FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS. Just my opinion!! You don't have to agree with it,just respect it as I do yours!!! Happy Holidays,God Bless each of you&God Bless America(not perfect,but still the best place on earth!!!!) PS--Postscript56,you should take the time to read the 2nd Amendment before saying"it doesn't have anything to do with citizens protecting themselves from government"...Your words not mine.

17) Comment by InPVille - 26/12/2012

@Tea_Slayer: If you have a source showing the Lott study methodology and findings are invalid, please provide a link to back it up. I don't see any other references to the study in any comments other than your own to this letter and there were none in the comments to the letter where I first mentioned the Lott Study. It is true that the Lott study did not include robberies and here is why: "We excluded multiple shootings that were BYPRODUCTS OF OTHER CRIMES-[emphasis added]- (e.g., a robbery or drug deal) or that involved gang activity (e.g., drive by shootings), professional hits or organized crime. We also did not count as a multiple shooting serial killings or killings that took place over the span of more than one day. There are two reasons for excluding these types of multiple shootings. First, since shall issue laws permit law-abiding citizens to carry guns, they should have little impact on killings related to gang activity, drug deals and organized crime. Putting to one side, injuries to bystanders, individuals involved in gangs, drugs and organized crime are already engaged in unlawful activities that often require them to carry guns. Their behavior will be largely independent of whether a law on the books permits or prohibits citizens from carrying concealed handguns. Hence a “right-to-carry” law should not impact whether gang members or drug dealers are armed or kill each other. Second, economic theory suggests a reason why a right-to-carry law will have a greater effect on multiple shootings in public places than on other types of shootings. Assume that concealed handguns increase the number of individuals carrying handguns. Further assume that a right-tocarry law will have a greater deterrent effect the greater the likelihood that a potential victim (or bystander) is armed. Conversely, the law would have little deterrent effect if the offender knows in advance that the victim (or a relevant bystander) is armed. The latter circumstance is unlikely for public places unless there are separate prohibitions on carrying guns in certain places (e.g., near schools). In short, a right-to-carry law should increase the likelihood that an offender will encounter a potential victim or bystander in a public place who is armed."

18) Comment by Attila - 26/12/2012

It has been said that an armed person will kill an unarmed person with monotonous regularity. Even a liberal cannot dispute that.

19) Comment by Chucky - 26/12/2012

poke you with a stick.

20) Comment by Protean - 26/12/2012

Billynurse, you really have those "libs" quivering in fear with your daydreams about owning an AR-15 with 30-round magazines ... when you grow up. Protecting your family? Your family needs protecting from you. If you really did face a situation that demand lethal self defense, you and your toy AR would be the greater threat to your family than to any intruder. Commit the deranged? Be careful what you wish for. There's a fairly common trait that runs through the many of the mass muderers we've heard so much about. They just love to chest-beat about how well armed they are. "My caliber is bigger than your caliber". "I got a hundred guns, so when da gummint come to get me in themthar black hellee-copters, I can grab the entire arsenal and take 'em all on! So go ahead, little fella. Tell us how many of them shiney new high capacity mags you gone buy ... as soon as you're old enough.

21) Comment by On_The_Fence - 26/12/2012

For the first time in my life, due to the passing of several family members, I am alone. I live in the country. I hear guns firing day and night for whatever reason. I have never lived in fear and yet fear is my new paradigm. I have several guns which I've inherited by default. I have never fired a gun in my life. I have no idea. I do know that if someone were to break in, I have a mode of protection. Possibly. Or would an intruder overtake me and use the gun against me. Possibly so. The dilemma is I live alone. I am afraid because I do live alone. I have guns. I do not know how to use guns. I have never had a background check. I do not possess gun permits. The government does not know I am alive. The government cannot keep track of me or my guns. I do have a big dog. I do not have a closet to hide in. My backdoor opens to a pasture. I can't run. I can't hide. I am the one on the fence. I wish I were not alone. I wish I was not afraid. I wish. But there it is. If not at least the possibility of protecting myself should the situation arise; what am I to do? There is always a gray area. Believe me, I have learned quickly and I live in it.

22) Comment by billynurse - 26/12/2012

I'm looking for a good deal on an AR-15 w/ 30 round mags because: 1) The ability to protect my family while waiting the 25 minutes for cops to show up, & 2) You say I shouldn't have them. Admit it, Libs. You're not nearly as concerned about preventing these tragedies as you are licking your chops to punish self-reliant citizens. Commit the deranged, and actually put away those who use guns to do do the crimes.

23) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 26/12/2012

Did I miss something? Why are we talking about "taking guns away" when the topic is stricter regulation? Stricter regulation means owning your guns, but a bit more paperwork, closing loopholes in gun shows and internet sales, and limiting the number of rounds in a magazine. Who is not going to be owning their guns? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>I also agree with postscript, the second amendment was due to us not having (or wanting) a standing army. In case of invasion, we were the army. It also states, "well regulated." Now I know the Constitution lives and breaths at times, but we have never adopted an amendment reversing the "well regulated" aspect of the 2nd Amendment.

24) Comment by KilgoreTrout - 26/12/2012

No comparison, just example to emulate. Louisiana has been on the right track for some time now. Delighted we got the idea.

25) Comment by shutupandthink - 26/12/2012

@kilgoretroutnow we are comparing the USA to third world countries?

26) Comment by shutupandthink - 26/12/2012

and not caliber specific...

27) Comment by KilgoreTrout - 26/12/2012

Arming everyone at all times is the solution. Works real good in Afghanistan and Somalia. Works so good, they don't even need schools.

28) Comment by shutupandthink - 26/12/2012

@postscript56, bushmaster is only a brand name, and claiber specific, AR style rifels come in all calibers from .17 to .50 which all can be used for hunting.

29) Comment by potkcalb - 26/12/2012

In the event thatI have been misunderstood I am not railing against a legal right "to carry." I'm simply predicting what will happen if everyone does.

30) Comment by potkcalb - 26/12/2012

As a matter of record I grew up in a family with a long history of hunting (I did not "inherit" my 60 db. sensorineural noise trauma hearing loss).I think it is fantasy to think that a "kid" or anyone else is going to be deterred from a mass killing because he thinks someone may be armed. More likely I suspect he will see that as a challenge. Would I want to be armed with a weapon if I encountered an intruder or anyone who intended harm? Certainly! But if all citizens were armed with weapons we would see a level of mayhem not imaginable even in this era of violence.The youth and young adults of today are only too willing to settle disputes, no matter how slight or imagined, with guns. Too many in the current generation see guns as the first resort in settling differences, and they lack the impulse control to act otherwise. After all this is the age of if it feels good do it, do your own thing, manners don't matter. How many remember or have even heard the phrase "polite society"? (Yes I know I'm old fashioned, no need to remind me).

31) Comment by nimby? - 26/12/2012

when all personal weapons are banned and an incident such as in Conn occurs with weapons from a failed government program what will be said ?

32) Comment by Reb - 26/12/2012

If all guns are confiscated there will be no need for signs saying "come on in, no guns here" ..... It will be a given that the owner of the house doesn't have the courage or the means to defend his family. I am amazed that so many are AFRAID to even try to defend their families.... gutless...

33) Comment by Attila - 26/12/2012

I have a theory that gun control advocates are, for the most part, insecure. They are terrified that they lack the intestinal fortitude to respond to an act of unprovoked violence; hence their belief that taking weapons that they, in their misguided minds, feel are "too dangerous" or "not needed" gives them a sense of security that is as false as it is obtuse. I personally do not own an assault weapon. I have tree handguns and a boatload of sporting arms. If the direction of the country continues as currently happening AR 15's will be supplanted by Browning 50 calibers. The second amendment was not passed simply so that citizens could arm themselves for personal protection from those that would steal, injure, or kill them....it was also to protect themselves from an out of control government. If a person does not want to own a gun that is their decision and their right. That being said just what in Heaven's name is accomplished by promoting and advertising certain places as a " gun free zone". You may as well tell someone bent on mayhem to "come on in, no one here has the ability to stop you". Lunacy...sheer lunacy.

34) Comment by DMJ - 26/12/2012

It's sad but if people like Mr. Kelly were half as concerned about preventing gun violence than they are about keeping their own guns, we might actually be able to do something about this national epidemic. Unfortunately, with gun-rights advocates, ME comes first and everyone else....well.....that's their problem.

35) Comment by swinham - 26/12/2012

It is hard to imagine what could possibly justify the printing of this letter. It contains nothing new and little that is factual. Further, it comes from a person already proven to have stolen the bulk of the content his last letter from a right-wing publication. I can only guess it is an effort to appease those who accuse the ADVOCATE of a liberal bias.

36) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 26/12/2012

InPville, and as others and myself have posted. Lott's "study" has been debunked by real statisticians, specifically that Lott purposefully excluded robbery from his statistics.

37) Comment by postscript56 - 26/12/2012

HelloBR - Owning a firearm to protect yourself is one thing. Owning an arsenal of assault weapons is another. Where to draw the line? According to people like Kelly there is no line. So we all end up in fifty years or two hundred armed with every weapon conceivable because we never drew the line and now we have to be armed like that. I guess drawing a line is too nuanced for some folks. For them it's an all or nothing proposition. That's the problem. I own guns for hunting, not for killing people. I could use one for killing someone if I needed to but I hope I never need to. But if I do ever have to kill someone I doubt I'll need 30 rounds to do it.

38) Comment by InPVille - 26/12/2012

@Hello Baton Rouge: "Do you really think that kid would have attempted a mass shooting at a school in a county that is known for having armed security or staff on site?" -[**]- As to your point I repeat what I posted on the subject in another letter: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=272929 An empirical analysis of multiple victim public shootings by John R. Lott, Jr. of the Yale University School of Law and William M. Landes of the University of Chicago Law School first published in November of 1996 and last revised in October of 2000, and which looked at the time period of 1977 to 1997 in the United States, found that laws which permit the carrying of concealed weapons have been the most effective means of reducing such shootings. "contrary to a popular misconception, permit holders are virtually never involved in the commission of crime, let alone murder (Lott, 2000)" - - - "We find that right-to-carry laws reduce the number of deaths, and that these deaths were increasing before passage of the law and falling thereafter." - - - "Conclusion - Right-to-carry laws reduce the number of people killed or wounded from multiple victim public shootings as many attackers are either deterred from attacking or when attacks do occur they are stopped before the police can arrive. We are able to provide evidence for the first time that the harm from crimes that still occur can be mitigated. Given that half the attackers in these multiple victim public shootings have had formal diagnoses of mental illness, the fact that some results indicate concealed handgun laws reduce these attacks by almost 70 percent is remarkable. Differences in state right-to-carry laws are also important: restricting the places where permits are prohibited increases murders, injuries and shootings; more training requirements reduce injuries; and higher fees increase injuries and the number of attacks. The much greater deterrence that right-to-carry laws have for multiple victim public shootings than for other crimes like murder is consistent with the notion that a higher probability of citizens being able to defend themselves should produce a greater level of deterrence. The results are robust with respect to different specifications of the dependent variable, different specifications of the handgun law variable, and different control variables."

39) Comment by dday198 - 26/12/2012

ps. i understand why a mail man would see the need to pack heat

40) Comment by dday198 - 26/12/2012

can this man in EVERY letter that he writes repeat EVERYTHING he hears on the radio? is there no line in what a person can own when it comes to a weapon? if so where is it at? Brand New 90 Round Magazine 223/ 5.56mm Hi Capacity AR-15/ M16, Returns: Accepted within 14 days Buy It Now $220.00 Free shipping Time left:Time left: on ebay

41) Comment by Hello Baton Rouge - 26/12/2012

postscript56 that's interesting how you chastise the author of this letter because of what you think the world will be like in 50 years if we allow people to protect themselves by owning a fire arm, yet you start out your next statement with 'I own several guns'. Let me tell you, guns have have been around since the 15th century and are more prevalent now than they have ever been, yet you think that in a mere 50 years the face of the country will change? Get real. Do you really think that kid would have attempted a mass shooting at a school in a county that is known for having armed security or staff on site? I doubt it. They don't want a firefight or resistance. They're cowards and they seek the unarmed. That fact makes only one solution viable. Arm yourself and let it be known that you're armed. Simple.

42) Comment by postscript56 - 26/12/2012

Two more thoughts. I own several guns I hunt with and, if necessary, can protect my home with. But I can't hunt with a Bushmaster .223. So how many people do I need to kill to defend my home? People who really think they need to defend themselves from an invading force are probably not mentally or emotionally stable enough to own an assault rifle. Second, I'm not advocating anyone losing their rights but using the argument of law-abiding citizen in the case of mass shootings is weak. To the best of my knowledge all the shooters in recent mass killings were law-abiding citizens...up until the moment they weren't.

43) Comment by postscript56 - 26/12/2012

In fifty years, when every home is an armed fortress complete with land mines and surface to air missiles and all citizens are armed to the teeth, when shootings occur daily because so many suspicious and fearful people are quick to draw down, people like R. Glynn Kelly will still be whining about how the culture of gun violence is all the fault of gun-hating liberals. I wonder when people who believe that a death-dealing instrument like a Bushmaster .223 should be readily and easily available are going to take responsibility, instead of blaming everybody else. There is no legitimate, civilian use for a weapon like that.

44) Comment by Bighug - 26/12/2012

The writer makes good sense. If I decide to go into the business of armed robbery, I will avoid the states of New Hampshire and Vermont, which allow any legal resident to carry a gun either concealed or open. I would rather do such business in places like Chicago or D.C., which have some of the most restrictive laws against gun ownership in the U.S. Maybe that is why the first two states have the lowest crime rates in the country and the two cities are among the highest.