* Approx 80,million Americans exercise their constitutional rights to Keep and Bear arms. They use them for Hunting, collecting, personal protection and target shooting (A international sport). Misuse of these legally owned firearms is less then 0.2%.

* Fatalities in the USA have dropped 67% in the last 50 years.

* You are twice as like to accidentally die from choking as from firearms

* You are three times as like to die from drowning.

* You are 32 times as likely to die in an automobile accident.

* 2,5 million American citizens use a legal firearm every year to stop a crime. Many times no shots are fired.

While driving a car is more 32 times more dangerous then a firearm, it is not protected by the constitution. Owning a firearm is a constitution right if you chose. If you agree with the right to keep and bear arms, joining the NRA is a great way to project your views to politicians.
Charles Davis
A certified Firearms instructor in Massachusetts

The issue of gun control largely comes down to the heritage of this country being contested by people who honestly feel they can legislate the behavior of others. People who attack gun ownership, as pointed out by Mr. Allen, appear unknowing and/or uncaring of the nation’s traditions. I submit that they also feel they can somehow turn our society into a British society by legislating away the legal ownership of the tools we used to get rid of British domination. Changing people is, I feel, delusional. Taking away my firearms will merely render me defenseless in the face of people who would never possess their firearms legally, anyway. The thugs would realize how much easier it would be to attack the law-abiding, without fear of danger to themselves.

The issue of wording, and reference to militia, is quite understandable to the student of American history. In the early colonies, the only standing army was the occasional unit of the British Army, grudgingly committed by London to our defense against, usually, France. The colonists knew that their real defense was their own manpower, who were required to be enrolled as members of the militia, to provide their own arms and their own ammunition, and to be subject to whatever organization and training their particular local governments required. Were these men really soldiers? Not in the sense that they gave a sense of comfort to professional British officers under whose orders they occasionally came. But were they effective? Very much so–I’m reminded of the bitter words of a British Army officer during the Revolution, who wrote his family that he and his troops only had safety on the ground they physically occupied–the rebel militia controlled the countryside. I submit that such a situation was very much in the minds of our founding fathers. Armed citizens were our trump card.

I did a career in the regular army, and I always felt that my boyhood training in shooting and hunting made me a far better soldier and officer. The army never had the range time really needed to make expert riflemen of our soldiers, so those of us who already knew how to handle weapons were invaluable in the training of those who had no such experience.

Again, my compliments to Mr. Allen and to the Saturday Evening Post for speaking for the Nation’s and the citizen’s defense and right/ability to defend what is precious. If we ever give away our rights, or allow them to be legislated away, there is no one else on earth to stand in our defense.

The anti gun groups often cite statistics that show gun related deaths here are the highest among progressive nations in the world. The countries cited in this comparison are those who severely restrict, or outright ban, private ownership of guns.
Of course we’re the highest. When both the good and the bad have guns, there’s going to be more deaths. The difference is that the increase in deaths is on the bad guys side, while the victims side actually will be lower.
Take the case where the attacker has a knife or baseball bat and the victim is unarmed. Chalk up one death of an innocent person who, poor guy, doesn’t even get counted in the gun related deaths count. But suppose the intended victim had a gun? Now, we have a gun related death involving a living innocent person and a dead criminal. Those kind of increases I can live with anytime.
How about running a comparison between the bad guy/good guy deaths? Divide the criminal deaths by the innocent victims deaths. That eliminates population differences between the various countries. I’ll bet America would come out way ahead. It’s quite logical, arm the victims and less of them will die.
There’s also articles where the writer states the intended victim should flee rather the stand his/her ground. Those same writers never suggest the aggressor should flee when the tide changes and the intended victim produces a gun.

Les Milewski
9091 St Andrews Dr
Seminole, Florida. 33777
(727)397-8483
LesMiles@aol.com

Sincerely,
John J Hall