Don't Miss
Home >> Opinions >> Letters To The Editor >> Responding to ‘False Security’

Responding to ‘False Security’

To the Editor:

In response to Ms. Ann Marchi’s Feb. 24th question: “For all you who find it necessary to own a gun for protection, did that gun save you from a robbery or assault?” Yes, it did! I was confronted by an intruder, who invaded my home at 3 a.m. With my personal weapon [a gun], I was able to neutralize the threat and hold the intruder at bay, until police officers from St. Peters arrived and took the intruder into custody.

Ms. Marchi stated: “Guns are made to kill and not save lives.” I counter that guns are inert objects. They cannot by themselves commit crimes. It is only when they are in the hands of “evil-doers” that robberies and killings take place.

Guns in the hands of knowledgeable and law-abiding citizens can and do save lives.

Due to a gun, my wife’s and my life were saved that night. The intruder was subdued and unharmed.  However, in today’s politically correct and anti-gun news media this type of event isn’t newsworthy nor proper to publicize to the public.

Regarding Ms. Marchi’s statement about having a sense of “false security,” I do not have a false sense of protection because I own a gun. I live in an imperfect world, where sometimes “good” does triumph over “evil” in spite of the mongering of ill-informed politicians and citizens.

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” – Socrates

Kevin Edler

• • •

To the Editor: 

I would write on Dr. Thomas Sowell’s behalf but I hold these truths about Dr. Sowell to be self-evident.

He is a Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He served in the U.S. Marine Corps during the Korean War. He received a bachelor’s degree, graduating magna cum laude from Harvard University in 1958 and earned a master’s degree from Columbia University in 1959. In 1968, he earned his Doctorate in Economics from the University of Chicago. I can list so many more of Dr. Sowell’s achievements but there isn’t enough room.

However, Mr. Branson [“Letters to the Editor,” Mid Rivers Newsmagazine, Feb. 24], I think you get the point. Also, I will not accuse you of being a racist for disagreeing, albeit mistakenly, with Dr. Sowell.

Let’s move on.

In his letter to the editor, Daryl Branson writes that many nations have chosen to disarm their civilians, claiming this makes everyone safer. What he meant was, governments chose this action arbitrarily.

In the same “Letters to the Editor” section, Ann Marchi states, “Did that gun save you from that robbery or assault? Of course not.” My advice, Ann, is to ask rape victim Kimberly Corban of Colorado and then read Democrat Colorado state Rep. Joe Salazar’s and Colorado Democrat Sen. Evie Hudak’s ignorant comments about women and rape.

Daryl and Ann make their statements based on emotions and apparently nothing else. What are the crime statistics in these “safe and gun free” countries? Like China? I can say that in the summer of 1960 when my dad was out of town for a few days, if my mother had not been in possession of a handgun when a criminal tried to break in to our home at 2 a.m., my mother, siblings and I may not be here today. Yes, Ann, that gun did save us!

What would Ann have suggested to my mother had Ann been there? Scream for help? Pick up the phone and calmly dial the police and hope they get there before the worst happens? Use a whistle? Run to a safe zone? Soil herself and hope that the criminals’ concern for proper personal hygiene will save the day for us?

Unfortunately, like all morally superior progressives, Daryl and Ann are, to put it plainly, plagued by misguided feelings and bereft of facts. I suggest Daryl and Ann read the Supreme Court decision: DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court definitively stated that a state’s failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause. Also read Warren vs. The District of Columbia and South v. Maryland, in which the Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws. Does this suggest the police do not care? No. It does mean that as law-abiding citizens and adults we are responsible for our personal and our families’ safety at a higher level than the government can offer, and everyone has a God-given right to self-defense.

This is a quote from Detroit Police Chief James Craig describing an armed citizenry as part of what has been successful in fighting crime in the city: “When you look at the city of Detroit, we’re kind of leading the way in terms of urban areas with law-abiding citizens carrying guns. It used to be that we would only have one or two women in a class, now we are seeing much, much more. This past May, I held a class where we trained 300 ladies.”

Also read the research of criminologist Gary Kleck, Ph.D. and Dr. Marc Gertz on firearms, conceal-carry and gun laws in the United States. Dr. Kleck is a card-carrying member of the ACLU and a registered Democrat.

So, what do Daryl and Ann suggest the average law-abiding, disarmed, “gun-free” citizen do when their lives are in danger? Are those crickets I hear?

One last concern that I find particularly disturbing: Mr. Branson’s use of murdered police officers to casually make an erroneous point. These brave men died at the hands of criminals, not law abiding gun owners.                                     Greg Dalay

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share this: