To The Editor:
Leave it to Bill Clinton to use tragedy for political gain. In the wake of the recent shooting by a six-year old boy, Clinton is again calling for more gun laws. I would like to ask one simple question: "What gun law would have stopped this tragedy?"
Trigger locks? Waiting periods? Background checks at gun shows? Photo licenses? The uncle that the emotionally disturbed six-year-old boy was living with is a felon and had a warrant out for his arrest. The boy's father is in jail and the mother is a drug addict, who had abused her son. There were also other fugitives, criminals and drug addicts who inhabited the house. The gun used in the shooting was stolen, and another stolen shotgun was found in the house! If you think this tragedy is due to a lack of gun laws, I once again ask, "What gun control law would have prevented this tragedy?"
Criminals and six year olds don't obey gun laws, or drug laws, or child abuse laws, or any laws for that matter. Calling for a law requiring trigger locks and photo ID, like Clinton and other Democrat leaders are, is just plain ignorant and an obscene attempt to use this tragedy to further their anti-self defense policies. Does anyone really believe that convicted criminals or drug addicts living in a crack house would have put trigger locks on stolen guns that were left lying around?
To add insult to Clinton's obvious pandering to "protect our children", we are subjected to another "big lie" - that 13 children die each day from guns. This is, at best, a half-truth because he uses the age of "children" as 19 and under!
When you see the word child or children, what do you think of? Babies and infants? A boy or girl that has not yet reached puberty? These are definitions that can be found in Webster's Dictionary and are likely to be closer to the definition most people use. So let's give Clinton some leeway here and define children as the 0-14 year old group. The National Safety Council shows the number of children who died from gunshot wounds per year to be 110, or about one every three days, not 13 per day!
Is there anything that could have prevented this tragedy? Maybe.
The most effective way to reduce firearm-related violence among children is to buy them a gun and teach them how to use it responsibly. That's not just my opinion, that's the conclusion of a study by the federal government entitled, "Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse," conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
The findings are a does of reality compared to what anti-self defense proponents might have you believe. Children, ages 6 to 15 in the study, who get guns from parents don't commit gun crimes (0 out of the 4000 studied), and are less likely to commit any kind of street crime than children who have no gun in the house.
As a libertarian, I believe in being principled and consistent in my point of view. The evidence is clear to those that want to look at it - guns SAVE lives!!! If you really want to save lives, support the Second Amendment and oppose irresponsible politicians' calls for more anti-self defense laws. It won't bring Kayla Rolland back to life, but it would make it less likely that another Kayla would die in such a tragic incident.
Lou Elwell
2 N. Bath Ave., #A3
Long Branch, NJ 07740
(732) 870-3729