Firearms not to blame for violence

2013-02-09T20:56:00Z Firearms not to blame for violence Napa Valley Register
February 09, 2013 8:56 pm

This letter is in response to “City will review gun investments” in the Feb. 6 Napa Valley Register.

Now is the time for cooler heads to prevail and to let the grief felt for the children and brave staff of Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., be turned into the energy and hard work of an analytical search for solid root causes for that horrific mass shooting, as well as others of the recent past.

The nature of the changes and mass punishments being proposed in the anguish felt for the loss of innocent lives is fueling a mob-like mentality that matches the murderous sentences of the Salem witch trials, and the long list of racist atrocities in the 1960s.

The mob is looking for a target for its anger; firearms are demonized, as are everyday citizens who choose to own them for home defense, shooting competitions and putting food on the table in Appalachia, Alaska and several other states where “poor people” subsist.

How about we level the playing field and boycott Napa Pipe and all other pipe vendors as potential sources of pipe bombs?

Fuel oil, fertilizer and rental truck businesses provided Timothy McVeigh everything he needed to build a bomb that killed more than 100 people and wounded 500 others. Every oil distributor, feed store and truck leasing business must be equally examined.

All vendors of clothespins, rubber bands and copper tubing will have to be probed, because any kid in a street gang knows how to use those items to create a “zip gun.”

Finally, and perhaps a shock to those who choose not to deal with firearms, is the need to consider seizure of 3-D printers, from which operable pistols have already been built.

I don’t want to belabor these points; I just ask for impartiality and analytical thought, instead of burning witches at the stake — again.

Perhaps a good starting point would be to acknowledge that America is home to 15 million sociopaths, 2 million psychopaths and a very large unknown number of psychotically ill living undiagnosed among our general population. And those statistics don’t count the imprisoned.

There is also far more at stake in what happens over the next two to three months, buried in innocuous and innocent-appearing executive branch directives. Hiding behind the drama of the acrimonious campaigns and the misdirection of American attention by the Sandy Hook atrocity, two documents are composed and ready to be forwarded for action.

I enjoin you to make a part of your cool-headed look at the entire landscape of our constitutional rights the careful reading of two documents: Executive Order 13609 of May 1, 2012  and the United Nations Small Arms Treaty offered to the U.N.

They are linked documents, both written loosely enough to — “in the spirit of international cooperation” — allow other member nations to levy a new and different set of gun ownership regulations, and at the direction of the United Nations, have enforcement, creation of a world database and gun checks carried out by non-American, blue-helmeted U.N. soldiers.

When you read the two documents, please carefully note how the verbiage allows one to play into the other for execution. Our Second Amendment can easily be modified and superseded by U.N. laws, with no reclama from the United States. Another “my hands are clean” rendition.

As a postscript, I am a husband, father, grandfather, friend, patriot, combat veteran, former member of a military shooting team, and military range safety officer.

In 51 years of shooting for combat, food and competition, and two home invasions, I have never seen one weapon jump out of its holster or rifle rack and create heinous mass deaths. The person behind the weapon was going to kill, even if they had to use a zip gun.

William J. Harris / Napa

Copyright 2015 Napa Valley Register. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(10) Comments

  1. rocketman
    Report Abuse
    rocketman - February 10, 2013 7:02 am
    Mr. Harris,

    The issue of gun control and specifically reasonable gun control is not coming up out of the sympathy, grief or anguish from the recent school killings. The children killed are being exploited for a radical gun control political movement. It is sick and demeaning to the children that were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

    The liberals know that the proposed gun control will have no effect on school shootings, but they simply don't care. It is a political agenda and Senator Diane Feinstein is one of it's leaders. She is still reeling from defeat from her 10 year grand experiment (The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban) that did nothing for the safety of our children or anyone else for that matter.

    ALL of the statistics point to the fact that criminals will not follow the law. California is a perfect example. We have ALL of the laws being proposed and they have ZERO effect on gun violence.

    No common sense is being presented.
  2. glenroy
    Report Abuse
    glenroy - February 10, 2013 8:11 am
    Never let a tragedy go unexploited….that’s how they created this mess.

  3. fmmt47
    Report Abuse
    fmmt47 - February 10, 2013 8:57 am
    Mly thoughts exactly William.
  4. Micah
    Report Abuse
    Micah - February 10, 2013 9:57 am
    William thank you very much for your letter in support of common sense, decency and most importantly *rational, logical debate* of gun control, it's necessity and it's results.

    The emotionalization of the gun control topic serves entirely to empower a small yet highly vocal brand of utopianism that believes that doing what "feels good" is more important than doing what actually works. And unfortunately most people, who either don't have the time to dedicate to the critical deconstruction of false arguments or who are frankly not capable of understanding the difference between emotional reactionism and good policy, go along with these knee-jerk arguments. Because who wants to be against "making kids safer" or "doing something about gun violence?" No one. So the most vocal and, not coincidentally, the often least informed propagandists carry the day, much to the chagrin of decent insightful people such as yourself.

    We who have been silent need to speak up, or all is lost!
  5. Micah
    Report Abuse
    Micah - February 10, 2013 10:03 am
    Exactly, rocketman, exactly. This is all political grandstanding so that corrupt legislators and other politicians can curry favor with an electorate who seems to be too busy or too ignorant to actually think these things through. Instead, they want their "representatives" to "do something" and this is the result: The quickest, easiest emotionally charged legislation that will SOUND good, regardless of whether or not it actually addresses any issues at all.

    Which, to be honest, is ok with me, we get the government we deserve. Liberal utopians have successfully created a dependent underclass who believe that if the gub'ment says it's necessary, well darn it it must be necessary! May you go forth and may history show that you were no countryman of mine.

    But when my rights and freedoms are going to be actually encumbered by this kind of intellectual dishonesty and political propaganda I feel I must say something, or I have no right to complain.
  6. CommonSenseGunSafety
    Report Abuse
    CommonSenseGunSafety - February 10, 2013 1:19 pm
    Mr Harris,
    Thank you for making the case for common sense gun safety legislation so clearly.
  7. selim_sivad
    Report Abuse
    selim_sivad - February 11, 2013 8:09 am
    When pipe bombs start killing ten thousand people per year then we can start looking into restricting their purchase.

    And until guns made from 3d printers are killing ten thousand kids; effective legislation will be put into place. And the intellectual barrier to entry for 3d printing is enough to keep things in check.

    Here's the deal...and here's what you all miss: you have had plenty of time to be responsible with ownership and create sensible laws to make sure that hunters, recreational shooters, and paranoid "home defense" people all get to keep their guns while the crazy felons can't. But you have not been reasonable or responsible in cooperatively creating legislation. I don't think all guns should be banned at all, but I also believe that if a community is irresponsible in policing itself then the gov't needs to step in. Show responsibility and you get the status quo. If not, then get ready for big brother. You've earned it.
  8. glenroy
    Report Abuse
    glenroy - February 11, 2013 10:30 am
    Well slim that’s because there is nothing reasonable in Thompson’s legislation….and less in Pelosi's.

    Some 90% of the murders occur in urban….wastelands….controlled by Thompson’s party 5 decades now, while under same gun laws as he proposes all of us to be subjected. This has a similar relationship to Obama claiming all the energy we need for the future can be found by filling up…our tires….meaning no effective other than making matters worse… intentionally worse to come back and demand more restrictions and tax dollars. That’s the liberal MO for the last 5 decades...all the while they profit from other peoples misery.

    So….why should any law abiding citizen go along with a Democrat Bill that will more than likely than increase the murder rates in the rural areas where law enforcement is sparse, that is exactly what happened in our urban wastelands. EXACTLY....
  9. alucawanza
    Report Abuse
    alucawanza - February 16, 2013 8:35 pm
    92% of Americans believe in background checks for the sale of all guns. If that boy's mother had stored her gun correctly, knowing that her son was mentally unsound, the outcome may have been different. IMHO background checks should include who has access to the gun, any gun, and how it will be stored. You can have all the legal guns you want...just store them properly. Put it in your nightstand drawer if you need protection. Lock it up when it is not in your control. I know you are all responsible gun owners, but there seem to be many who are not.
  10. alucawanza
    Report Abuse
    alucawanza - February 16, 2013 8:36 pm
    When did Oakland and Chicago become rural areas?
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick