Subscriber Login

Forgot Your Username?
Forgot Your Password?
What you didn’t know about armed Americans PDF Print E-mail

Letter to the Editor:

I am writing in response to the Mary Friedel-Hunt column of Oct. 30 titled, “Did You Know?” The author states she is waiting for stricter gun laws and marches and written appeals to Washington.

This is the predictable response of anti-gun advocates who utilize tragedies for their agenda. It also reflects the Left’s dependency on government to solve social problems.

Here are some hard facts. The weapons used at Columbine and Sandy Hook were acquired legally. The perpetrators were evil individuals serving some sort of deranged agenda. We’ll never be able to keep guns away from the criminal element who acquire them on the street the majority of the time. Only 2% reported acquiring them at gun shows (Forbes Foundation).

The Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms division of the Department of Justice rarely prosecutes felons who willfully submit false gun applications. In 2012, only 77 of 71,010 were pursued (PolitiFact/ They apparently are devoting their time to more effective initiatives like “Fast and Furious.”

Law-abiding citizens would suffer the most from the draconian anti-gun proposals of the likes of George Soros, Michael Bloomberg and President Obama. They know it, and over the last decade, have taken matters into their own hands. According to FBI figures last December, a record 2.78 million back-

ground checks were conducted, surpassing November’s 2.1 million. For all of 2012, there were 19.6 million applications.

It seems the other half of our populace isn’t about to depend upon government, or local authorities, to protect their families and homes. Women alone increased gun purchases a whopping 83% (National Shooting Sports Foundation.)

This may shock liberals, but here’s some good news. Americans arming themselves has had a converse effect on gun crimes. U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39% over the past 18 years, from 18,253 to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, nonfatal firearm crimes decreased even more — a whopping 69% (Department of Justice.)

In 12 states surveyed, more than 500,00 right-to-carry permits have been issued this year. Nationwide, there are now 8 million carry permits.

Conversely, the FBI reports violent crime in 2011 dropped for the fifth consecutive year, down 19%. Can you guess where 15% of these crimes occurred? Illinois, New Jersey and New York — the states touting the “toughest” gun laws. Sobering, isn’t it?

Just read “Disarming Realities as Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet” at It seems criminals are thinking twice before attacking these supposed unarmed citizens.

It is plain to see stricter gun laws only aid criminals and put honest Americans at risk. I have prayed for the families of the victims of the recent tragedies, but I can’t help but ask myself, what if the teacher in Nevada had been trained and legally armed? By neutralizing the attacker, he might still be with us today and two students would have been protected.

As for me, I will do whatever is possible to protect myself, my family and my home by the rights guaranteed me in the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Robert Vogt

South Milwaukee

and Conover

Tuesday, November 05, 2013 11:54 AM


+12 #23 Denny Erardi 2013-11-20 11:03
I have no idea what you're accusing me of twisting. I don't know you and I did not go back and reconstruct what you'd said in a completely different thread to ascertain what you do or don't do as a volunteer.

It is patently not my job (figuratively) to attempt to figure out what you're trying to communicate that requires reading between the lines. For the most part, I attempt to take what is written here, from anyone, at face value. If I can't figure out what's said regarding policies or events in the public domain, I'll research it.

Going back to my original point, I don't believe that criminals and the mentally unstable should have access to guns. It's a simple concept. It is inordinately complicated as we have seen in our society, to implement. I don't argue that point. It's an imperfect system and I think it can be improved.

I have not been uncivilized to you nor have I made pejorative comments about you personally.
-7 #22 2013-11-20 10:20

In post #3 what example did I use? As I have stated in other articles and posts, I am a volunteer EMT. Add the two together. I hoped you would have tumbled to that, rather than twisting it in a different way. Remember, civilized conversation?

Like many, I don't like to talk about that sort of stuff.

See, the law that was discussed earlier this year would have prohibit anyone from ever having anything like PTSD (for example) of EVER owning a gun, EVER again, in their entire life, even if they were "cured". Note that PTSD was only one of the many "mental illnesses".

That is the "slippery slope" I talk of, and why I am so adamantly against it.

Those laws while meant to protect real pshychopaths from getting weapons, would ultimately hurt people like myself, my friend, and millions of other Americans including nearly all of our past, present, and future service members.
+10 #21 Denny Erardi 2013-11-19 16:28
In your own posts, you've talked about you beating around the bush, and about my ability or lack of ability to read between the lines of your posts. Both of those concepts presuppose some sort of need to assume. So yes, I assume that you subscribe to the slippery slope. Yes, I assumed that your comment "you just won't understand unless you have been there" meant that you had been there and I hadn't.

If you have the expectation for someone who doesn't know you at all to be able to "read between the lines" of your post, you are pretty much figuratively forcing them to make assumptions in order to understand your position.
-1 #20 2013-11-19 12:30

Let it be known that I was not making any assumptions about you or your experience. You are however, making assumptions about my experience, and my stance in general.
-10 #19 Frank Gabl 2013-11-19 12:23

Never mind, it was an obvious rhetorical question anyway.

However, in light of your first response, I would be interested in the gun restrictions you consider lead to an ultimate outcome other than the sole answer to the original question.

Maybe I'm missing a different angle, although, I still can't think of a single one.
+12 #18 Jeff Laadt 2013-11-19 10:08
Your question was straightforward , addressed to "anyone", and not prefaced upon any other context.

Clearly I mean no disrespect to either Denny or Tim, or their discussion. If you had intended your question to be limited to their discussion you should have made that clear.

Jeff Laadt
-1 #17 2013-11-18 15:45
Well, I am not going to beat around the bush anymore. I have already brought up more than I care to bring up anyways. So, I will let this one go.
-12 #16 Frank Gabl 2013-11-18 14:32

It's not an absurd question at all unless you try to make it absurd by ignoring the obvious context in which it was put forth; with Denny and Tim's debate in mind.

So please try again.
+11 #15 Jeff Laadt 2013-11-18 13:21
That's a pretty broad question, and it assumes some common objective among many disparate groups and individuals who may have different objectives. And when you throw in the phrase "of any kind" you are pretty much reducing the question to an absurdity.

We live in a world in which restrictions of many kinds apply: from contract law to driving a car to the types of drugs we may possess -- and so on. Most of these are not particularly controversial.

Perhaps the question should be turned around. Why are restrictions of any kind on gun ownership so offensive to some people?

Jeff Laadt
-14 #14 Frank Gabl 2013-11-18 11:18
Can anyone explain the ultimate, bottom line objective of those who advocate for gun restrictions of any kind?

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