Pubdate: Wed, 12 Jan 2000
Source: St. Petersburg Times (FL)
Copyright: 2000 St. Petersburg Times
Author: Richard Langham


Re: Fourth Amendment shouldn't shield armed criminals.

The writer of this letter seems to think rights and freedoms are
unimportant compared to nebulous safety.

He apparently does not study history.

Hitler and communist regimes got control of their countries by promising
the people that they'd be safer if everyone disarmed and let the Gestapo
police them. Wars were fought with terrible loss of lives due to the lack
of the freedoms and rights he eschews.

Remember, a gun is an equalizer.

With a gun, a smaller, weaker, older or slower person is equal to a big,
strong oppressor (or bully). When a male "stalker" broke into a woman's
house, she ran to the closet where she was able to shoot her attacker when
he broke down the closet door and, thus, was able to equal the strength of
the attacker.

My gun saved my life and my wife's life three times -- and I never even had
to fire the gun! Without it we'd be dead or severely injured.

The letter writer erred when he stated that "the death toll from gun
violence is too high to justify continuing to allow criminals [and
citizens] this legal force field." Of the massive millions of guns owned by
our citizens in houses, cars or carried, less than 1 percent are used in

Citizens protecting themselves shoot many of these criminals. Gun violence
has gone down and is worse usually during "prohibition" (as with today's
drugs). If drugs, like alcohol, were legalized and had controlling laws,
drug dealers could then use our court system to settle disputes instead of
having to resort to the gun.

Methinks the letter writer is willing to sell his soul and our freedoms for
his "ify" safety, making a Gestapo of our police and slaves of our citizens.

No thanks!

I'll keep my rights, thank you! -- Richard Langham, Safety Harbor
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D