July 3, 2008 Lathrop-Manteca,CA

Forum Login

Latest Forum Posts

None

Banning guns doesn’t work

Written by Al Barth/Manteca Saturday, 07 April 2007

A letter from Al Barth

As a proud National Rifle Association life member, I thank the Sun Post for printing its March 30 editorial, “Citizens’ right to keep guns has been vindicated” (Page 6).

For the life of me, I cannot understand what took those six Washington, D.C., residents so long to challenge local gun-ban laws that prohibited people from registering a handgun and carrying it from room to room in a home. As reported in the Sun Post, D.C. laws also required that all licensed firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.

Few people know (or care, it seems) that the firearm death rate in Washington, D.C., (up to 2006) is 80.6 per 10,000. If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the last 22 months (up to 2006) and a total of 2,112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 10,000 soldiers for the same period. That means that you are about 25 percent more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. capital, which has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the nation, than you are as a U.S. soldier in Iraq.

The government should vote to give the citizens the right to self defense, or we should pull out of Washington, D.C., immediately, as it cannot protect the citizens of its community.

For those who think banning guns works, why do the New York, Washington, D.C., Detroit and Chicago cops need guns Hint: Each of these cities voted to ban the legal ownership of firearms for the “everyday” citizen. Big shots can still get away with it.

If banning firearms work, why is Washington, D.C.’s low murder rate of 80.6 per 10,000 due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis’ high murder rate of nine per 100,000 due to the lack of gun control

By the way, has anyone ever read the crimes-against-the-person rate of Vermont or Alaska Another hint: It’s very, very low. Why Both are right-to-carry states and have what is called the “Shall Issue,” which means you qualify to buy a firearm, you pay your money, there’s a quick phone check and, if you are clean, you are out the door with the firearm and have the right to carry it concealed! Gasp — can you imagine that And their crime rate scrapes the bottom of the charts.

Suffice to say, the politicians, media personalities, etc., need to give up their armed bodyguards and try to live like the rest of us. If they did that, the laws would change.

Al Barth of Manteca is a life member of the National Rifle Association.

Comments (6)add
...
written by dennis ellis , April 07, 2007
Well Al I totally agree with you on gun control! I think every state should be shall issue! I have a concealed weapons permit I never leave the house without my 1911 combat 45! And as far as I'm concerned there will be a day when I need to protect me and my wife with it! I think every 50 states ought to have concealed weapons permits available to anybody that can pass the stringent tests, I think if that were possible there would be a lot less crime in places such as Alaska and Vermont? You've got these ignorant people in places like orange county California putting such stringent possibilities to get a concealed weapons permit that it's impossible in places like orange county where there's terrible crime and robbery, NO WONDER! I can tell you right now I never leave the house without my handgun and if I'm ever subject to a robbery or anything of the sort such as somebody trying to assault me or my wife with a deadly weapon? God help the person that attempts it! Because I will not hesitate to retaliate with deadly force as I am licensed to do, I am a fugitive recovery agent law-enforcement and have a concealed weapons permit on top of it, and I will not tolerate or mess around anybody that has intent to do harm! Thanks for your article AL I respect it, sincerely, Dennis ellis Colorado Way.
...
written by Jim Walk , April 07, 2007
Great column! You have solid facts, the gun grabbers only argue "feelings".
...
written by Chris Meissen , April 07, 2007
Good commentary, Mr. Barth. And excellent points. One tires of reading so-called news articles that merely repeat tired, weak claims that high big city crime is somehow caused by guns from lower crime areas with weaker restrictions. One never seems to see today's "reporters" ask the obvious question, i.e. if the presence of guns causes crime then why are the crime rates LOWER in those high gun areas? In fact, one never sees reporters even acknowledging that "inconvenient truth."

Hopefully, those citizens in locales like Los Angeles and Los Angeles county who are forced by their armed and/or bodyguarded officials to be helpless in the face of crime will band together and throw their elitist officials out on their ears. Or, at the very least, make people like Chief Bratton give up their own guns and reside with their families in the highest crime neighborhood of their city.
...
written by Mike C , April 07, 2007
Im a CHP holder in Virginia. Ever since we got permits about 11 years ago our violent crime rates go down and our Sister State of Maryland, which has very strict gun control, goes up. I think the gun control states serve as "vents" for the criminals. We don't want to close all the vents. Let Maryland, Illinois, and LA County serves as collection points for the armed criminals and voluntarily unarmed liberals. They need each other. Mike in Virginia
...
written by Norm , April 07, 2007
Al gets it!
...
written by roger k , April 25, 2007
The DC figure of 80.6 is an annual figure, while the 60 figure is a monthly figure. 2112 deaths divided by 160,000 soldiers divided by 22/12 years gives an annual death rate of not 60 per 100,000 but 720 per 100,000.

You must be logged in to comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
busy