Mr. Pitts, I read your article and must admit I'm a little stumped as to
what you feel the compromise for gun owners would be. The way you've
presented your argument seems to boil down to a simple "if you quit
resisting so much, we'll let you keep some of your 2nd amendment rights."
To me this is no different than saying I would like to compromise with the
miami herald. I will allow you to keep some of your freedom of press as
long as they agree to never publish another op/ed piece on gun control.
Trying to find a middle ground isn't always the correct answer and it
seems like a solid ruling on the 2nd amendment is what is needed.
Past that I'd like to give you my take on some of your views. I'm not
sure if you'll listen or respond, most journalists don't, but its worth a
try. First you mention banning firearms on a national scale being
impossible. The idea of "gun ban day" with trucks rolling down the street
is of course impossible. Many gun owners feel more like gun bans are a
war of attrition where our rights are being slowly eroded. First we saw
the regulation of machine guns and sound suppressors. Items that used to
be purchased in hardware stores now required a very expensive tax,
fingerprinting, extensive background checks, etc. Then we saw machine
guns made after 1986 being banned from consumer purchase driving up the
price of existing guns 20 times over the purchase cost of new ones. Then
comes an assault weapons ban, then its .50 caliber rifles. Some states
take it further and still have their own assault weapons ban, some even
prohibit their citizens from purchasing handguns that they deem as unsafe
even if they are the handgun that most police officers in their state
carry. I think if you had a little bit more of an inside view you might
see how gun owners have a more realistic and actual view of how gun bans
get progressively tighter. We've seen how registration leads to
confiscation as well.
Personally I'm not a hunter, but I also don't believe the 2nd amendment is
about hunting. You mention assault weapons and deer hunting. Can you
tell me what makes an assault weapon to you? What most people call
assault weapons are the kind of black military styled rifles that are
semi-automatic. I guess they look a little scarier than grandfather's
hunting rifle but the honest truth is that they are far lower power and
less accurate too. Assault weapon bans mention things like bayonet
mounting points as criteria for a ban. Are you really worried about
bayonet'ings? Why is the more powerful and more powerful deer rifle
acceptable? I have one of those "assault rifles" for protection. If you
like I can tell you why they make great defensive weapons. Its the reason
why you'll find one in most police cars in the US.
And really for that matter, why all the talk about "assault weapons" to
begin with? According to the FBI of the 10,177 firearm related homicides
in the US in 2006, a total of 436 were committed with rifles.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html
That is all rifles, hunting rifles and scary black rifles. Don't the anti
gun people focus a little too heavy on this 4% of gun homicide?
Next you're talking about cheap handguns in poor neighborhoods. To me
this seems like elitism. I think you'd agree that weapons do not create
violence, they are simply a tool for it. The causes of violence are of
course linked to much deeper socio-economic factors. Shouldn't we work on
fixing those? I actually like the idea that the hardworking guy in the
poor violent neighborhood can buy an affordable handgun to protect himself
against the criminals who are making plenty of money to buy whatever guns
they want, at least if they don't steal them.
I've sold a gun from the trunk of my car. What is wrong with a face to
face sale of a gun? I can sell any of my other possessions that way.
How do background checks keep us safer? Are you suggesting that the guy
that intends to murder someone would go through the legal process of
buying a gun? If you're intentions are so terrible, breaking the law to
steal a gun or buy it illegally are the least of your issues. Bank
robbers don't care about parking their get away car in a no parking zone
and murders don't care about breaking gun purchase laws.
How about gun safety classes? You claim we'd be safer if they were
required. I'm an open minded guy, show me the evidence of that. We have
states with training and storage requirements. If those states are indeed
safer for that requirement, you should be able to show some evidence of
it. Given the low number of firearm accidents in the US each year I think
the answer is far simpler. The kind of person that would put a gun to
their head and pull the trigger because they think it is unloaded or would
leave guns in reach of their children have a thought process that isn't
going to be fixed by taking a state mandated class some afternoon.
Mr. Pitts you'll have to forgive me for not being any more willing to
compromise my 2nd Amendment rights any more than I would be willing to
compromise the other rights promised to me in the Bill of Rights. As a
journalist I would hope that you are at least as fervent with your first
amendment rights. I do hope that I've given you an insight into some how
gun owners view the assault on our freedoms. If you have any questions or
further thoughts on the matter I'd be glad to have a dialogue with you on
them.
