Letters to the Editor: Oct. 22, 2013

Gun deaths trigger genuine emotions

I would like to respond to Ken Pickens’ letter in the Sunday (Oct. 13) Daily Journal concerning emotions and facts in the ongoing gun debate in this country.

He is correct that I get emotional when people are gunned down at work. I also get upset when people are shot as they are out for a night at the movies. I cry like a baby when little kids and their teachers are slaughtered in their school rooms. Shot with high powered bullets at close range, shot so many times that their little limbs are blown off. Yeah, I get emotional.

These are facts, and the list is long. Another fact that boggles the mind is that we as a nation do nothing. Where is the common sense? All I’m asking for is some common-sense gun laws. What’s wrong with expanded background checks on all gun sales? No more gun show loopholes.

I would also ban all military-style assault weapons. The name says it all. No one needs one of these.

The same goes for high-capacity ammunition clips. Where is the common sense?

I remember when the NRA was a nice organization, mostly for hunters, promoting gun safety. It has grown into a monster and is now the school bully of Congress.

And please don’t quote me Rev. Wayne’s talking points for scaring the public.

Michael A. Dorman


  • Guest Person

    Thank you for your comments Mr. Dorman and a bigger thank you for standing up for common sense.
    It would seem that at this time with our political enviroment the only recourse we have is to promote and support business that post “NO FIREARMS ALLOWED”. We might not be able to stand up to the gun lobby’s money hold on Washington but we can speak with our wallets here at home.
    Next time you go to a store just ask the people – where is your sign?

    • FrereJocques

      Here’s your sign. Courtesy of Bill Engvall and Jeff Foxworthy.

      In case you’re not interested in looking it up, it’s a sign with big huge letters that reads,

      “I’M STUPID!!”

      • Guest Person

        You think it is stupid that a business owner would not want open firearms in thier store?

        • FrereJocques

          Let me put it this way: If I’m sitting in a restaurant peacefully enjoying my meal, and a nutcase with a gun walks in and starts shooting people at random, I WILL hope and pray that SOMEONE ELSE in there has a gun, will pull it out, and take down the shooter.

          How about you?

          • Guest Person

            In an ideal world that might sound nice but many people do not understand the intense training law enforcement professionals go through to prepare for gun battles. It is not like the movies and shooting at someone shooting at you is chaos at best. Your average person will not be able to respond effectively not to mention the harm they could do to others. If you ask me it just makes them the first target. As I said before unless you have your gun drawn, chambered and ready a gun is just a useless piece of metal if someone comes in shooting.

            Then you bring into the picture those like the guy at Wal Mart who shot himself in the leg getting into his car or those that just have their guns taken from them. Everyday you read about children and people getting killed by guns left around as if they were not dangerous. The more guns in the mix just leads to more danger.

            The point is for every possible sencario you give there is a safety reprecussion. People are not comfortable with people carrying open weapons and I for one don’t trust anyone who is dangerous enough to think they can use one.

          • Winston Smith

            In an ideal world there aren’t criminals shooting up restaurants.

          • Guest Person

            ummmmm – can you list where one has been shot up in Mississippi?

          • Winston Smith

            I thought we were talking hypotheticals?

          • Guest Person

            I am not – there is a real danger with multiple untrained people openly carrying firearms in public places where there is not over an abundance of people walking in a place shooting it up here in Mississippi.

          • Winston Smith

            I’m actually not in favor of open carry either. I don’t have any problem at all with people who want to carry concealed, but open carry just seems like an invitation for trouble to me.

          • Guest Person

            I have no issue with concealed – IMO it adds a level of security just to go through the steps to qualify. To me security equals responsibility. I have just seen way to many yahoos get a gun that have no business walking around with one.

          • Pragmatic

            To qualify for a CCP in Mississippi all you have to do is submit the paperwork and the fee. 2 months later your CCP comes in the mail. Yes, that level of security instills tons of relief.

          • Guest Person

            They took the time and investment to go through the process and follow the law. That displays a degree of responsibility than those who don’t. Is it cut and dry – NO – but better than nothing.

  • wxdawg

    The posting of a “No Firearms Allowed” sign equates to posting “Please Commit Armed Robbery.” Criminals always gravitate to “gun free zones” for obvious reasons.

    • Guest Person

      Your logic makes little sense considering the fact that when someone brandishes a weapon your holstered and secured weapon is just a useless piece of metal. A gun holder in this case is just as much a victim as a non gun holder.
      The issue here though is those of your mindset want the general public to trust that you can walk around with your firearm secured – the point is we don’t.

  • 1941641

    If it’s any consolation, common sense tells us that a gun toter is more likely to shoot himself or herself in the foot or an innocent bystander somewhere as a gun toting potential shooter on the prowl.

  • Winston Smith

    If a kid walks into a school with a handgun with a 20 round magazine or two ten round magazines what’s the difference? The problem is that a child walked into a school with a handgun and bad intentions, the problem isn’t how many bullet’s their pistol can hold. As for military assault rifles, you can’t buy them. I understand what you’re talking about, but it seems rather evident that you don’t know much about guns. An AR-15 isn’t an assault rifle. As for Assault weapons, I suppose that could be anything, seeing as how it’s a made up term. Banning certain weapons due to cosmetic features is dumb in my opinion. A shooter could do just as much damage with a shotgun as they could with an AK-47.

    As for the points we agree on, I 100% agree that the gun show loophole needs to be closed. As of right now, a convicted felon can go into any gun show buy whatever they want and walk out business as usual without a background check. This is obviously something that has to be changed. The issue is with the regulation of private sales, and it’s rather complicated. Say I buy a pistol from a pawn shop, that shop is going to run a federal background check on me to see if I’m a felon, or have any other court issued reason to be rejected from owning a firearm. Now, if I pass that background check and purchase that pistol, I’m free to turn around and sell it to whomever I choose (unless I’m already aware they cannot legally own firearms) without a background check. Gun shows are a collection of private gun owners who gather together and make personal sales, therefore they aren’t required to run background checks. So the obvious solution would be “No private sales without a background check” but the problem is that’s not really an enforceable law. There is no database of what individual owns what gun, so once it leaves the store, it’s essentially a naked gun, and could belong to anyone. Okay, so what about a National Gun Database, with every gun accounted for and tagged to an individual owner? There mere mention of a Federal database containing every individual who owns a firearm and what firearms that individual owns is enough to make ANY republican politician with any sense of self-preservation go bananas. Therefore there’s no way in hell any such legislation would go anywhere. And we’re back to square one. Without a national gun registry you cannot track private sales, without tracking private sales, the gun show loophole can’t really be closed, and there’s no way a national gun registry could ever be passed.

    The other solution, I suppose, could be more regulation over the events themselves. Create a legal term for what constitutes a gun show, and require all participants to perform background checks at said events. However, that sounds like a simple solution, and we all know how much lawmakers hate simple solutions. Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to extinguish the flames leaping from my keyboard after furiously typing a short essay on my silly opinions.

    • Guest Person

      At Sandy Hook the shooter left the shot gun in his car and took the Bushmaster in – in less than 5 minutes he fired over 154 rounds.
      That is a lot of fire power for some one who is not in the military and a lot more than he could have fired with a shot gun.

      • Winston Smith

        A 00 buckshot round contains about 8 pellets, if he could fire that shotgun 20 times in five minutes that’s about 160 lethal projectiles. But really my point is that he could have caused massive damage with either weapon. Say we had an assault weapon ban and magazine limitation in place, he could have committed the same heinous crime using his shotgun, which would be a legal weapon to own even with those laws in place.

        I’m obviously pro-gun, but I’ll be the first to say we need to take intelligent steps to curb our countries problem with gun violence. I just don’t think an assault weapon ban or magazine limitation will accomplish those goals. Personally, I think we would see better results if we focused our efforts on making sure people secured their firearms, to keep children and crazy people from getting their hands on them. And if we had a system in place to keep people with mental health issues form owning or having access to firearms.

        • Guest Person

          An AR 15 is desgined for mass fire power and it is faulty logic to compare that too a pellet count of a shotgun. I agree both weapons can do damage but if you know firearms your comparison is false considering loading time of a shot gun.
          Allowing weapons like the AR-15 out to untrained people is a major danger.

          • Winston Smith

            Allowing any weapons to untrained people is a major danger. I think if you’re going to own firearms you should be trained in their proper handling, operation and storage. Again, my point is he could have committed the same crime with either weapon or basically any weapon. He murdered a group of helpless children trapped in a classroom. I understand your point, but I think if a person decides to commit mass murder, an assault weapon ban or magazine limitation won’t prevent them from doing so, or even lessen the devastation they can cause. On the other hand, if we really focus on mental health perhaps we can prevent people from ever committing these acts of violence in the first place. Also if we focus on the safe storage of firearms we can help prevent all these instances of young kids showing up to school with firearms they picked up at home and killing other children.

            Why would you say an AR-15 is not alright to own but another gun, such as a shotgun, is?

          • Guest Person

            I agree about the mental health issues and I think a better background check system should be looked at. I also would not mind looking at some form of insurance system for certain weapons to add another layer of security using the free market. The higher the risk a person is the higher the cost of insurance. The policy would have to stay with the gun.

            As far as the AR 15 – the gun does not worry me as much as the high capacity clips etc – well I disagree there. First of all I cannot think of any reason a civillian would need hundreds of rounds in a shooting. They did not even isue that much when I was in the service. Second it just seems like when ever these crazies go on a shooting spree they seem to stop when they run out of rounds. Some can reload but that is a chance to stop them or like with Sandy Hook – he put the 155th round in his head.

            So reducing the fire capicaty IMHO can reduce the damage or at least allow law enforcement a window.

  • Pingback: Letters to the Editor: Oct. 31, 2013 | Daily Journal()