GUN CONTROL

I grew up in the Cumberland mountains on the Virginia/Kentucky border. During the great depression, a 22 rifle often made the difference of whether or not we had meat on the table. Then, at age 18 our government put an M-1 rifle in my hand and taught me how to kill people. They added to my already considerable knowledge in the areas of gun care, gun safety and gun use. I consider myself to be as responsible a gun owner as there is. I keep my guns loaded in a locked cabinet for which I have the only key.

Im not necessarily trying to crank up another support group opposed to gun control. 

I do personally and firmly believe in the unrestricted right to own firearms. 

According to a Lawrence Research survey of registered voters in 1996  84% believe we are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms under the constitution.  75% favor the right to carry laws.

The first thing we ought to do is teach the anti-gun lobby what the word automatic means.  A full automatic firearm is a handgun, rifle or larger military arm, self operating and will continue to load and fire as long as the trigger is depressed and ammunition is in the magazine.  These automatic firearms have been illegal since the Al Capone days. Ordinary citizen collectors and shooting clubs may legally own one,  but it requires an expensive hard to get and well controlled federal permit.

My perception is all the way through the last 60 years our government failed to make an appreciable effort, in accordance with existing law, to root out the illegal full automatic firearms in this country.

A semi-automatic firearm is self reloading, but requires a separate trigger pull for each loading and discharge cycle.

Eighty five percent of firearms in the United States are not in either category and require a manual effort by the shooter to re-load before the trigger can be pulled to re-fire.

Back in 93 Ms. Clinton, in support of the Brady Bill on national television said, "I just dont what else we can do".  Well, I took it upon myself to tell her " What we can do" in the following letter.

1 OCT 93

Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton

Dear Ms. Clinton

I was amazed at your statement "I just don't know what else we can do" when you spoke yesterday on behalf of the Brady Bill and in support of Draconian measures for prohibition of firearm ownership by "We The People".

With respect to firearm ownership, there are two kinds of people, the "Good Guys" and the "Bad Guys". There are several fundamental differences between the "Good Guys" and the Bad Guys" that I hope you will consider.

Firstly, consider the "Good Guys":

• They outnumber the "Bad Guys" by several orders of magnitude.
• In the main, they don't allow their children to carry guns to school.
• They purchase their firearms from legitimate dealers that are controlled by legislation.
• Fatal shootings caused by firearms owned by the "Good Guys" represent a tiny fraction of the total firearm related fatalities.
• They consider firearm ownership a constitutional right.
• They mostly maintain their firearms in a safe and orderly manner.
• And they VOTE.

Secondly, consider the "Bad Guys":

• They constitute a minority of firearm owners.
• They don't know if or care whether their children carry firearms to school. Perhaps they even encourage them to do so.
• They get their firearms from illegitimate sources that cannot by controlled by legislation.
• They are responsible for the vast majority of firearm related fatalities.
• They do not expect to be seriously punished.
• They don't know or care about constitutional rights.
• They maintain their firearms near their person in a ready to shoot condition.
• They do not VOTE.

It seems to me that what your husband's administration is trying to do is deprive us honest citizens of our fundamental rights while neglecting the "Bad Guys".

The next time you are invited to comment on firearm related issues, I urge you to consider the following things that could and should be done in order to mitigate the "Bad Guys" problem along with their bad guy guns:

• Mandatory prison sentences for serious offenses including sex offenses and use of deadly weapons.
• Tougher sentences with no early parole.
• Stop plea-bargaining and sentence offenders for their real offense.
• Mandatory life in prison for the third serious or violent felony.
• Death penalty for first degree murder with a firearm.
• Adequate prisons and jails that allow inmates only a quality of living equal to "We the People" living at the poverty level.
• Across the board reform of the juvenile justice system.
• Comprehensive and enforceable crime victim rights.
• Sufficient government prisons capacity at all levels.
• Permit private prison institutions.
• Use abandoned military bases with large fences around them to house some classes of prisoners.
• Protection against liability for use of deadly force by "We the People" in self-defense.

Very truly yours,

John Wallen

Alas! I did not receive an answer. My perception is a file clerk opened the letter, read it and threw it in the large pile of "against" and maybe made a mark on the "against" side of the ledger. The letter certainly did not have a noticeable effect on the Clinton Administrations efforts to take away all our guns. I offer the letter here because it pretty much presents my attitude on the whole subject.

Please consider this.

• You are standing in the middle of the road. There are a thousand loaded unattended firearms in a stack on the right side of the road and a berserk teenager with a sharp knife on the left. At that moment which side of the road presents the greatest danger to you?  The point is guns don't kill people, people kill people.
• The first thing dictators do when they have the authority, is remove firearms from the hands of the citizens..
• Suppose John Smith owned a firearm that was the cause of death in a homicide. The gun was fired by another person. Unless he could document that the gun was stolen Mr. Smith should shoulder a large portion of responsibility for the crime and should also share in the punishment.
• Background checks are a good thing. Im sure recorded John Q. Criminal trying to purchase a firearm from a legal licensed dealer will be refused. I hope the American Public realizes  John Q. Criminal has thousands of illegal sources to obtain firearms. My perception is the Brady Bill will not and cannot stop John Q. Criminal and his tribe from obtaining, keeping and using illegal firearms.   The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has reported that only 7% of career criminals obtain firearms from licensed gun shops.  That means 93% of criminal gun purchases are not controlled by the Brady Bill.  Our president said "last year 40,000 criminals were refused gun purchases because of background checks".    Even I can calculate the remaining 93% amount to 531,000 guns bought by criminals that the Brady Bill could not prevent.
• What we can do is bring John Q. Criminal to a speedy trial and tuck him away behind bars for a long long time.  Yet from 1960 to 1980 the number of prison inmates per 1,000 violent crimes dropped by 75% while the crime rate tripled.  71% of convicted criminals are free, on the streets, on probation or parole.  Every day in America these liberated criminals commit 48 rapes, 14 murders and 578 robberies.  Come on Mr. Clinton!  Build more jails.  And keep the bad guys in there till they rot.
• The media has been making a big deal about "assault weapons". They have woven the term around a class of mostly military weapons made all over the world including the US. In the hands of a responsible shooter the AK-47 presents no more danger or enhanced kill capability than did the M-1 carried by us infantry types of WW2 or my bolt action hunting rifle. Assault is synonymous with attack, invasion and aggression. By this definition every weapon, be it handgun, rifle, blow gun, air rifle or slingshot made in the world is an assault weapon.
• My perception is the media and the liberal government are using the term "assault weapon" to brainwash the public into believing all firearms are a threat to national security and crime prevention.
• If we restrict the term "assault" to storming the beach against an entrenched enemy, full automatic weapons are a good thing. My perception is full automatic weapons have no place in our society other than with recognized collectors and shooting clubs.
• Remember Full automatic weapons of any sort have been illegal since the 1920 era. Why doesn't our government just enforce the existing law and stop trying to totally remove firearms from our society?

Today (21 July '98) on the "Today Show" Matt Lauer conducted an interview with John Lott the author of "More Guns, Less Violence" a book that presents the results and conclusions of 18 years of research on the effect of "Right to Carry" laws on crime.  Mr. Lott is a professor at the University of Chicago.  The other side was presented by Doug Weil the director of the Center of Prevention of Handgun Violence.

Thirty states issue "right to carry" permits with relative ease.  Fifteen states issue the permits if the applicant can show need.  The remaining seven states do not issue the permits under any condition.   Two of these seven states have the subject on their legislative agenda.   Obviously, the American public believes in handguns and the right to own them and the right to carry them. 

Lott maintains that violent crime has diminished considerably in the states with permit to carry laws.  Wiel maintains that the reduction in violent crime is caused by a reduction in the use of crack cocaine.   Lott presented statistics.  Weil presented half truths and platitudes.   And so it went, back and forth, until NBC concluded the interview.

Weil claimed the three young men in Phoenix who were shot during an argument was evidence that right to carry laws are not a good thing.  Weil did not say the three young men were carrying without carry permits.

I remember an interview with an experienced lady shooter who was present in the restaurant in Kirby, Texas and watched her parents and 20 some odd other people killed by a deranged shooter.  Her handgun was outside in the car due to her not having a concealed carry permit.  Her statement to the press, which got limited coverage, was "If I had been legally allowed to carry my handgun into that restaurant, I could have prevented a majority of those deaths".   Having lived in the state of Texas for many years, I guarantee Texas Women can do that.

The criminologist Gary Kleck says there are 2.5 million protective uses of firearms each year in the United States.  That's almost 7,000 each day.  Without the right to own and carry handguns what do you suppose would have happened to the daily 48 rapes, 14 murders and 578 robberies.  It boggles the mind. 

Maybe it's possible to bypass the spin doctors and shed a little rational, logical, factual and unbiased light on the subject.   I would like a panel of criminologists and sociologists to moderate an old fashioned debate according to parliamentary rules of order between the anti gunners and the pro gunners. I would furthermore want this debate to be broadcast live and unedited on national prime time and well advertised.  No lies, no half truths, so spin doctoring -- just the simple unvarnished and provable documented facts.  I'm sure the NRA and I would be happy to participate.  I'm equally sure the media or the government or the liberals don't have the conjones. 

  Go to  Top of Page