Letter: A rebuttal to commentary about gun ownership
A rebuttal to commentary about gun ownership
The guest opinion of Kimball Shinkoskey (Herald, June 23) is the best example of illogical logic I have ever read. It is clear from his writing that he thinks that if private ownership of guns was ended, somehow we would all be safer. That is nonsense.
I think back to a TV interview in 1972 of Utah spree killers Myron Lance and Walter Kelbach. They dreamed of the day they might be paroled and hoped the ownership of guns would be banned by then. In their words, they said they would always be able to obtain a gun (it is called the black market) and in such a scenario the rest of the population would be helpless against them. That night my wife changed her mind and agreed with me to own firearms.
Research by FSU researcher Gary Klech has shown that thousands of citizens are able to save their lives, or the lives of loved ones, by owning a gun. Also homicide rates trend lower with higher gun ownership rates.
Finally, all my life there have been people who want to end the second amendment and admit they will proceed one step at a time. People like myself are determined that they can never be allowed to take that first step and start the slippery slope. If they can ban so-called assault weapons, then it is just a matter of time before they ban all weapons (especially guns).
Mister Shinkoskey proudly asserts “….but we have hard working professionals who can help us deal with personal enemies.” When our lives are in danger and seconds count, those professionals may be minutes (or even hours) away. I prefer to own a gun in those instances.
Finally, his opinion states that we could have fewer deaths per incident if killers could not get a military type weapon. Maybe society should concentrate on finding the killers beforehand and less on what type of weapon they have access to. No one wants gun violence, but disarming the law abiding population is not the way to end it.
– Neil Mitchell, Provo