Subscriber Login

Forgot Your Username?
Forgot Your Password?
Guns in society are serious threat PDF Print E-mail

Letter to the Editor:

In the aftermath of last month’s mass murders in Connecticut, two letters to this paper have attempted to explain the existence of such violence.

One, by Uno Bloom, places the blame squarely upon what he sees as a widespread spiritual failing.

The other, by Warren Anderson, expands upon that theme explaining that it is moral relativism and a general disregard for “traditional morality.”

Some have expressed the view that a violence-prone entertainment industry must bear responsibility, while others tell us that the answer to gun violence is more guns.

It is people, not guns, who kill people, they say. Or that guns are symbolic of “freedom.” Or that we need a better mental health system.

But what about guns themselves? All the concerns mentioned above may have merit, but relatively little space, in my opinion, has been given to guns as a public health issue.

Forget, for a moment, about bad guys and good guys, or the right to bear arms. Let’s concentrate in­stead on some facts about guns and society and ask ourselves whether a nation which has nearly as many guns as people is a healthy and safe place in which to live.

A great deal of evidence suggests that this is not the case — especially when the topics are suicide, domestic violence and fatalities among children.

Suicides, most of which occur at home, account for well over half of all gun-related fatalities. Of all manner of suicide methods, death by gunshot is by far the most effective.

And, according to the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, “Access to lethal means, especially firearms, greatly increases the likelihood that someone will commit suicide. A gun in the home is 11 times more likely to be used to attempt a suicide than to be used in self-defense.”

In a paper about firearms and domestic violence, the Violence Policy Center points out that: “An analysis of female domestic homicides (a woman murdered by a spouse, intimate acquaintance or close relative) showed that having one or more guns in the home made a woman 7.2 times more likely to be the victim of such a homicide.”

How about guns and children? An analysis by the Children’s Defense Fund in 2012 found that of 23 industrial nations, “87% of the children under 15 killed by guns in these nations lived in the United States. The gun homicide rate in the U.S. for teens and young adults ages 15 to 24 was 42.7 times higher than the combined rate for the other nations.” And the American Academy of Pediatrics advises that “the safest home for children and teens is one without guns.”

These findings are not outliers. Nor are they the rantings of left-wing liberal bloggers intent on banning and confiscating all our hunting rifles. What they reflect is a vast amount of research concerning the prevalence of firearms in America. And that research clearly indicates that guns in society — at the levels that we apparently take for granted — represent a serious threat to the health and safety of many American citizens.

Jeff Laadt

Eagle River


Tuesday, January 08, 2013 4:22 PM
Last Updated on Wednesday, January 16, 2013 3:39 PM


-20 #12 2013-01-12 17:04
Liberal: "Those military style guns are dangerous! No one needs a 30 shot clip!!"

Conservative: "I just saw a really good movie in which only the police & military had guns."

Liberal: "Really? What was it's name?"

Conservative: "Schindler's List"

Enough said.
-18 #11 Frank Gabl 2013-01-11 14:05


To backtrack for a second, I stand behind everything in my first post which stated that you and your liberal/socialist counterparts are mainly culpable for this nation’s cultural division, decline and decadence which all led to Newtown. And that your attempt to blame a tool of freedom for the obvious consequences of a bankrupt ideology is intellectually dishonest.

So what’s so hard to understand about yesterday’s post? You’re an atheist, and therefore you don’t believe in the Judeo-Christian moral principles and traditions, that until recently, have guided this country to prosperity for more than 236 years. As a result, you and your comrades are hell bent on changing America into a godless culture based on moral relativism where anything goes. And congratulations - you’ve gotten lucky lately.

Cont. below:
-17 #10 Frank Gabl 2013-01-11 14:00

Twenty years ago, homosexuality was still largely in the closet and the concept of gay marriage was yet to be invented. Today, I’m considered a bigot for retaining an historical aversion to homosexuality as well as the conviction that gay marriage is an oxymoron. Through education indoctrination and media, the liberal “ideals” of: homosexuality, gay marriage, free condoms in the halls of Philadelphia’s high schools, Brent Musberger bad/Kathy Griffin good, one million abortions per year (including twelve thousand late-terms where the baby is poisoned, dismembered and pitched in the garbage) and “All My Baby Mamas” are heralded as entirely normal behaviors and the only way a society can “progress” toward a final destination of peace, love and …gag me with a spoon.

Cont. below:
-18 #9 Frank Gabl 2013-01-11 13:59

The normalizing of pedophilia that was exhaustively explored in Britain’s mainstream newspaper, the UK Guardian, is merely a predictable stepping stone in the progression of liberalism which continually needs a stigmatized behavior to get behind (oops) in order to help facilitate its goal.

And since, according to you, I have limited parameters of thought, I just figured I’d ask someone with a deep and wide-ranging progressive mind to help me understand how to rationalize this newfound “sexual orientation” which is guaranteed to be considered wholesome in a mere 10 – 20 years. After all, America must keep progressing so what is considered immoral today, will be celebrated tomorrow.

Cont. below:
-18 #8 Frank Gabl 2013-01-11 13:58

Now go back and read the entire article over and over again with all of its references, studies and scholarly perspective and I’m convinced that sooner or later you’ll get your mind right. I mean, you’re not a bigot are you? They were born this way, weren’t they? They’re not affecting your relationships, are they? What are you, an old white dinosaur?

And never forget what you told Doc Anderson about Newtown in your post under his letter: “This is not about what you may see as moral decay in this country. It is about guns.”

-17 #7 Frank Gabl 2013-01-10 19:26

I'm busy right now so you'll have a full response waiting for you in the morning. But for right now, to nip any misunderstandin gs in the bud, I am utterly shocked that your mind would conclude that I am accusing you of condoning pedophilia.

Talk about "outrageous."

Is it possible that you really don't get it? Is that even possible?
+17 #6 2013-01-10 16:44
I wrote what I believed to be reasonable thoughts on gun issues. I paraphrased (accurately and without judgement) the ideas of Bloom and Anderson. You may agree with me, or not. It's your choice.

But from this you make some kind of irrational leap to what....accusing me of condoning pedophilia? And because I am a liberal or an atheist? Or that all liberals must, by their evil nature, support such ideas? This is pretty outrageous, Frank.

Jeff Laadt
-17 #5 Frank Gabl 2013-01-10 13:36


You stated:

“One, by Uno Bloom, places the blame squarely upon what he sees as a widespread spiritual failing. The other, by Warren Anderson, expands upon that theme explaining that it is moral relativism and a general disregard for “traditional morality.”

And in your post yesterday, you repeated the same theme that you’ve opined in the past, that I can’t tolerate or think outside of my limited parameters of thought.

So, I’m asking you for help on the following in order to understand how these morally bankrupt and mentally confused liberal “intellectuals” (this is only my close-minded opinion and I’m not trying to be insensitive to openminded liberals, of course) can normalize the following perversion. And, secondly, how long do you think before this is mainstream thinking and behavior – five to ten, or 10 to 20 years?

Cont. below:
-16 #4 Frank Gabl 2013-01-10 13:26

I will await your unlimited parameters of thought for guidance.

“There is a growing conviction, notably in Canada, that pedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality.” "It is the quality of the relationship that matters," O'Carroll insists. "If there's no bullying, no coercion, no abuse of power, if the child enters into the relationship voluntarily … the evidence shows there need be no harm."

(This is an in-depth article)

-14 #3 Frank Gabl 2013-01-09 17:44

I don't hate you or respond to you differently than you have to me or others.

Paranoia? Hardly. Just reality, such as the executive order on gun control Biden spoke of mere minutes ago.

I grudgingly give your side credit for being persistent in a way honest Americans are incapable of. Just don't look for capitulation and silence from me.

Add comment

Comments exceeding 1,000 characters will not be accepted. Please refrain from using texting language and spell out all words. All comments are reviewed and must be approved before they are posted.

Security code