You have recently published several letters favouring ‘gun control.’ I write with a different perspective.
In the U.S., 49 per cent of the violent crime is committed by a race/gender/age cohort that makes up less than three per cent of the population. This suggests firearms violence is a culture-specific issue.
There are jurisdictions with more arms and less violence than the U.S. – Switzerland and Israel – and countries with way fewer arms and more violence than the U.S. – Britain, Jamaica and Russia.
There are some 40 U.S. states that have enacted laws by which lawful, trained adults can carry a concealed firearm. In nearly every case, there has followed a drop in violent crime. In no case has there been an increase.
The most violent cities and states in the U.S. are “gun-free zones” – Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. The states where both ‘open carry’ and ‘concealed carry’ are unremarkable – Utah, Wyoming, Montana and Vermont – are, by contrast, polite and low-violence zones.
At the most recent mass murder in Connecticut, two teachers grappled with the murderer and were killed. Would the overall outcome have been better or worse if either of those teachers had a weapon?
In the U.S., the loudest supporters of gun control for, oh, little people, send their own children to private schools with armed staff.
Gun control historically has been used to suppress populations. Indians in British India were disarmed so that they could be more easily dominated. Japanese Americans and Canadians were forcibly disarmed in the 1940s. Canada invoked gun control in the 1930s to suppress socialists. The U.S. instituted its various gun-control laws to control freed Negroes. Stalin, Mao and Hitler were all absolute fans of gun control. Supporters of gun control should reflect upon the company they keep.
Closing thought: you – or your kid – in a locked-down institution, cowering under desks. Shots and screams approaching down the hall. Seconds count. Your room door is smashed in and… Do you want some competent person in that room to be a) armed or b) unarmed?
David Danylyshyn, Surrey
Taking a stand in Canada
Re: Call for more guns tough to understand, Dec. 27 column by Peace Arch News editor Lance Peverley.
I read your column and agree with your prediction; the NRA’s suggestion can only lead to more bloodshed.
However, I respectfully suggest your editorial voice can contribute a great deal more to the resolution of the gun problem which is progressively increasing in severity in Canada. While the situation here has not yet reached the acute crisis facing the U.S., our government continues to fail us with respect to the proliferation of guns and the horrific results that accrue.
You can do us all a great service by further educating your readers and persuading us all to write our elected officials and demand the prohibition of guns. Only police and the military should be entitled to possess guns.
Don Findlay, Surrey