Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

SHOOTING: People, not implements, are responsible for tragedy

Letter by John R. Kraynak, Puyallup on Jan. 11, 2011 at 11:09 am with 33 Comments »
January 11, 2011 11:10 am

Re: “Blood is on the hands of irresponsible gun advocates” (Eugene Robinson column, 1-11).

First of all, my prayers go out to the families and victims of the horrific tragedy that took place in Tucson.

Is Robinson aware that there are more than 20,000 state and federal gun laws currently? Which one failed to stop this tragedy?

On the same day as Robinson’s column, The News Tribune listed the manufacturer, make, model number of magazines and size of cartridge used to commit this terrible crime. And it reported that law enforcement arrested 606 drunk drivers between Nov. 25 and Jan 2 in Pierce County alone and 3,577 statewide in the same time period.

What I don’t see is a background check to purchase the vehicle or the alcohol, how many gallons of gas the vehicle holds and the blinding speed that it can wipe out an entire family.

When a drunk driver kills, we often learn that they have been arrested before for drunk driving only to be let go and given another chance. Are these victims of a drunk driver any less of a tragedy?

Robinson is of the view that just because a firearm looks or functions in a certain way that it must be bad and that a sporting firearm can’t be used to kill people.

My point is: Make people responsible for their actions, not the implement they used.

Leave a comment Comments → 33
  1. So…..I guess you are OK with any nation having nukes……

  2. “So…..I guess you are OK with any nation having nukes…… ”

    Two directions to go here…

    One – is this really relevant to the subject at hand? Is it not a stretch to use this as a metaphor?

    Ok – let’s go there… Any nation has the right to defend themselves with whatever means they can develop and/or aquire.

  3. This letter makes a good point. As tragic as this event is, there is one fact that ALWAYS gets ignored.

    Lets just say 50 people have been killed by a deranged, psycho in the last ten years in this country. I’ll venture that 500, 000 have been killed in that same time frame by not only drunk drivers, but the 90% of average people who have some kind of prescribed chemical flowing through their brains. We could easily multiply that figure if we add those who cause fatal accidents by cellphone/texting usage, inattention, or just plain careless, reckless, impatient driving.

    You will never hear people up in arms about that simply because nearly EVERYONE is guilty. It doesn’t make anyone less dead however.

  4. Dale – yes, the DWI penalties are absurdly low, especially considering the serious consequences. Other countries don’t mess around – first offense, lose your license for many years; second offense, serious jail time.

    But, the letter writer, in trying to compare drunk driving to a schizophrenic who was not able to enroll in a community college due to his mental state being able to purchase guns (which, if used in the manner they are designed for, kill), was creating a false equivalency.

    And yes, my comparison to nukes is a bit over the top but – if you are saying that gun control measures should not be in place because it is the person, not the gun, who kills – the logic holds with WMD too.

  5. And yes, my comparison to nukes is a bit over the top but – if you are saying that gun control measures should not be in place because it is the person, not the gun, who kills – the logic holds with WMD too.

    OK, cool… if I am following your logic then nope never said gun control measures should not be in place.

    In this case – Arizona – we have a few provisions in the law that would have prevented Jared J from obtaining a weapon.

    Short version – it appears some people thought he had some mental issues (the college with the letter) but it was not followed up on.

    Also the Sheriffs office has some questions about their contact with Jared J. Their were a few contacts with local police, that is an evolving situation.

    In a nutshell, laws exist that could have prevented this tragedy.

  6. Forgot to add…

    All human beings have a natural right to defend themselves from harm by any means necessary.

    Jared J was not defending himself. He engaged in an unlawful use of deadly force.

  7. mrenchirito says:

    Actually Loughner was able to go to Community College, he was kicked out due to bad behavior in class, yes he was kicked out of a Community College. The sad part is his disturbing behavior was not reported, if it were and he was held at a mental health facility then he would not be able to buy a firearm legally under current law.

  8. JudasEscargot says:

    “In a nutshell, laws exist that could have prevented this tragedy.”

    You nailed it, rr.

    Gun laws exist and when enforced, all heck breaks loose.

    Geez, I remember all the outrage when a kid from Tumwater broke a rule in football that every high school coach knows, but it had to do with his religion, thus no one was willing to coach the boy about the rule violation.

    Don’t let someone buy a gun and watch how fast the NRA sets up camp in your town.

    The fascinating part about this story is that one of the people who held the shooter down, was carrying and never pulled his weapon. Rather than filling the area with bullets, he ran at the first person he saw with a gun and tried to take it from him. In reality it was the man that disarmed the shooter who doesn’t own a gun.

    So the shooter was controlled by two men without the use of guns

  9. mrenchirito says:

    Well and the use of a folding chair which was used to bring the shooter down. I’m glad we all seem to agree that the laws exist, we just need to do a better job in society of identifying people like this who are disturbed and exhibiting irrational and violent behavior.

  10. JudasEscargot says:

    “Ok – let’s go there… Any nation has the right to defend themselves with whatever means they can develop and/or aquire.”

    Thus we have no reason to say a word about Iran and North Korea?????

  11. chip98404 says:

    I so tire of hearing the hoary and misleading platitude that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” and, while it is true in itself, it does not address the issue of readily available firearms whose primary purpose of invention and manufacture is to enable people to kill people much more easily and effectively.

    To extend that statement you could just as easily say that “biological weapons don’t kill people, people kill people.” That is just as true as the “guns” statement and yet few sane people would not lobby to outlaw biological weapons.

  12. mrenchirito says:

    Guns may have initially been invented for warfare but that does not mean people who buy them today intend to use them for killing people. Hunting, competition shooting, recreational shooting are all valid reasons that many people buy firearms in this day and age. I don’t believe anyone wants disturbed people like Mr. Loughner the ability to acquire firearms, the point we are making is that laws exist today that would have stopped him if someone close to him reported his extreme behavior.

  13. Judas – as far as your 2:22 post… whatever on the first part…

    I had not heard the details of a conceal carry bystander but that is a good example of an individual who used good judgment, restrained the use of his weapon and used close contact engagement to stop a shooting. He had the option of using his weapon and did not. OK, he needed to make that call as he was at the scene with the situation unfolding before him. Considering the number who were shot, he should consider himself lucky to have not been hit. And yes, an unarmed person can disarm an individual with a weapon. OK… and???

    Iran, North Korea… yep, they have a right to obtain the means to defend their sovereign borders. Obtaining a nuclear weapon… nope not a good idea for those countries. Now the UN, South Korea, China, US, somebody is in a position to try to stop them. Good luck with that.

  14. Chip – there are various uses for guns – offense, defense, hunting, sport.

    Offensive is typically the domain of the military… and sadly criminals.

    Defensive is typically the domain of the police, and granny

    Hunting and sport speak for themselves as it can be a family affair.

  15. Hey just saw news report that some members of Congress plan on carrying weapons…

    good enough for them… good enough for you…

  16. mrenchirito says:

    Many members, such as Diane Feinstein, are able to afford armed body guards. Ironically many of them are the same ones that want to limit your ability to protect yourself if you so choose.

  17. The left is not interested in substance, they are interested in symbolism. That is why they go after things like guns. They view the gun as the symbol of violence and murder so it must be strictly controlled because the people cannot be trusted with them.

  18. What do you mean? I’m just plain old me, redac. I’m sorry you don’t like my commentary but I am allowed to express my opinion just like anyone else.

  19. blakeshouse says:

    Robinson’s rants belong at the bottom of a bird cage only. He makes about as much sense as the Sherrif of Pima county. At least there the voters can put him out of office for his stupidity. The far left rags that publish this socislist/ neo marxists remarks on a daily basis are getting theirs too. Won’t be long before these rags fold, just like in Seattle

  20. JudasEscargot says:

    beerBoy – take a wild guess

  21. Implements don’t kill people. People (with implements) kill people.

  22. I am certainly not opposed to sound and reasonable gun control measures, but let’s be honest enough to note that many things can be turned into “implements” of violence. It all depends on who’s holding the implement.

  23. Blake, at least a bird would have the mental capacity to understand and evaluate the content rather than condemning it outright due to the source.

    If gun control (i.e. confiscation and prohibition) ever comes to America it will come from the RIGHT and be sold as a ‘unfortunate, but necessary, temporary measure needed for national security”.

  24. “If gun control (i.e. confiscation and prohibition) ever comes to America it will come from the RIGHT and be sold as a ‘unfortunate, but necessary, temporary measure needed for national security”

    The “Right” needs to catch up then becasue the “Left” has started on some legislation thet heads in that ultimate direction.

  25. “So…..I guess you are OK with any nation having nukes……” = tangent.

  26. The car accident metaphor is not applicable and the letter writer is spouting the straight NRA line of nonsense.
    Guns are designed for one purpose only and that is to kill. Semi-automatic guns are designed to kill more rapidly more often. They need to be severely regulated or abolished.
    There is no rational use for a Glock with a 30 round magazine outside law enforcement or military service.

  27. “They need to be severely regulated or abolished.”

    Good luck with that.

    “There is no rational use for a Glock with a 30 round magazine outside law enforcement or military service.”

    In law enforcement and military service there is no rational or tactical us for a 30 round magazine either. It is not a very practical magazine for use outside a gun range and if so, as a novelty.

  28. whoops…

    In law enforcement and military service there is no rational or tactical us for a 30 round magazine either. It is not a very practical magazine for use outside of a gun range.

    apologies…

  29. It seems to me that accusing someone of going off on a tangent on a thread from a letter that starts with a prayer for the survivors, lists the number of state and federal gun laws in existence, and then follows with statistics about DWI and somehow equates an implement that is designed to kill with drinking or driving a car is rather tangential. I mean, the letter is about going off on tangents so, for the thread to follow in-kind it should all be tangential.

    Dcr was the first one to really follow in the spirit of the original letter.

  30. True that…

  31. BB, I’ll be more succinct. Cars are not impliments designed to kill people so the argument to restrict them because of accidents is nonsense. Guns are a different story. Get it?

  32. and Jimm, just like guns, nukes are designed to kill. Not a tangent – the proper criticism is “hyperbole”.

  33. Publico says, “BB, I’ll be more succinct. Cars are not impliments designed to kill people so the argument to restrict them because of accidents is nonsense. Guns are a different story. Get it?”

    Get this Publico…Cars may not be DESIGNED to kill people but they DO…FAR more than any handgun, yet no one wails about it, because you’re ALL guilty.

    Quite frankly, drunk, drugged (prescribed or illegal), inattentive, impatient, irresponsible CAR DRIVERS are by FAR, the greatest MASS MURDERERS in the history of mankind

    Get THAT?

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0