More guns will not solve the problem of violence
That someone would contend that the answer to gun violence such as the recent tragedy at Kirkwood City Hall is more guns rather than less is as predictable as that night will follow day. But, let’s take a closer look at the situation. On that fateful evening there were three individuals who were armed and approximately 35 who were not. All three of the men carrying weapons are dead as are three who were unarmed. The first person to die that night was an experienced, highly trained police officer. As it turns out, the only way he could have survived would have been for him to shoot Mr. Thornton, without provocation, as he approached! Mr. Thornton then took that officer’s gun, so, now he had two guns as he entered the Council Chambers! Once inside, he again targeted the armed police officer. Had the approximately 35 individuals then pulled their guns and begun firing, someone might have disabled Mr. Thornton before he could have killed all of the three other victims, but, how many innocent people would have been killed or wounded in the hail of bullets from the guns of 35 basically untrained and unskilled shooters? Has this country sunken to the level where everyone must carry a gun for personal protection? If so, how long will it be before disputes are again settled at the OK Corral? Since the letter writer seems to think that taking away the concealed-carry permit is sufficient punishment for those who use their guns illegally, I certainly hope that Mr. Thornton’s permit has been rescinded!
William Klopfenstein
Edwardsville
Fish, you have made that abundantly clear .I’ll bet your prolife too!
Last December, at 3:00 am on a Thursday night, a 22 year old punk kicked down my back door, walked through the house and out the front door. He then stumbled and passed out on my front lawn. My wife called 9-11…..The police arrested him. The kid got drunk at a hockey game and was looking for his buddy’s house……
I could have been a real NRA hero.
True story. I’ll keep you updated on the court proceedings.
Fish your the one with the gun……who’s afraid?
It is clear that the “NRA heroes” that we hear from on this board don’t exist in great numbers in Missouri, otherwise we wouldn’t have crime, heck we even wouldn’t need a police force !
http://www.disastercenter.com/missouri/crime/6629.htm
You know, Mr. Fish, I have no problem believing that that is exactly what you would do.
But your comment only serves to prove my point about a proclivity to violence. Anyone that can take someone’s life and not be troubled by it should not own a gun; they would seem to lack the social instincts needed for a peaceful society.
Mr. Scout: The NRA is too often on the other side of an issue opposite the police and sheriff’s departments of this country. The NRA was against the ban on automatic assault weapons; the police were strongly in favor of taking such weapons off the streets. In issues like this concerning the public safety, I prefer to listen to the police, rather than to lobbyists for the gun industry.
#54 [nitty66]: Rampant gun ownership and no police force ? I just think you described the nation of Afghanistan or perhaps the northwest territories of Pakistan.
By the way, Mr. Scout, thanks for the comment concerning my “ignorance”.
I could reply and say something like, “It’s good to know that the person with whom I disagree is the product of poor upbringing combined with exposure to too many John Wayne movies”, but I won’t.
Mr Walsh, one more than one occasion you have said the NRA supports automatic weapons. Automatic weapons have been banned since 1934. Update your propaganda.
Poor upbringing? I think my name might point to other wise. My point was that although I am pro-gun, Pro NRA, and a CCW permit holder I still am looking at both sides of an argument. Unlike your debating method of just ignoring sources, most of the people posting here give them a chance (Hell even Garrison from time to time). Your close mindedness shows your immaturity.
I note with interest that NONE of the pro-gun folks here have attempted to answer the question I’ve posed repeatedly on this and other similar threads:
How would you PREVENT some crazy from arming himself so that he could go out in a blaze of glory?
This is all about the John Wayne, he-man stuff: what I’d do if……
OR, does your love of the second amendment mean that you accept a certain level or carnage as the price of a free society?