Editor:
As I sit here reading in the July 2022 Sunset Beacon “SF Joins Nationwide Protests Against Gun Violence, Lax Gun Laws” with a copy of the U.S. Constitution in front of me, I am aghast over conclusions, references and statements given!
Of the nation’s Constitutional gun law ratified effective Dec. 15, 1791 in the Bill of Rights, Amendment 2: “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Politicians today think this is easy to change. Actually, it takes a Constitutional Convention and ratification of all States.
The first conclusion given is guns and firearms are now the leading cause of death of our children in the United States. Actually, it likely is by cars unsafely driven. Also, it is likely followed by women having abortions and then by house fires.
Then there is the conclusion that the same type of regulations should be used in order to get a driver’s license. I got my learners driving permit when I was 15 years old. Yet, it is recommended here increasing the minimum age to purchase a semi-automatic weapon to the age 21. My father gave me my first rifle and shotgun at the age of 7, and took me to the shooting range to show me how to use it and then rabbit hunting. Men are drafted in the military by the time they are 19 years old.
Then the story referenced President Joe Biden’s televised speech, “As a nation, we have to ask: ‘When in God’s name are we going to stand up to the gun lobby?'” Actually, the gun Lobby has trained civilians in classes, and the new Army recruits for our military. Not mentioned in the article is the fact that gun free areas are the most dangerous areas to be in. It referenced schools, churches and supermarkets, but not included parks, homes, garages and on sidewalks.
I got married at the age of 19, and then had three daughters and eight grandchildren. In my three-story San Francisco home, I keep a gun locker cabinet in the master bedroom and one in the garage. My wife added iron bars on all the windows and doors. With the open Southern border, and the gangs bringing guns and drugs with them, one should be able to carry guns with them when they go out just as the guards of our politicians!
Frank T. Norton
Categories: letter to the editor
Richmond Review/Sunset Beacon 
There is NO draft now.
Guns DO kill people, and most of us sane individuals do not own one.
Killing animals for sport is cruel and barbaric!
LikeLike
Yes there is no draft currently , however if one wanted to enlist , you would have to be at least 19 years old . Sport hunting by adults is like fishing . Hunting ducks, quail pheasants , deer and rabbits bring food to the table . When the war for American independence was taught it was the farmers who had the guns who first fought in the war . In many countries citizens are not permitted to own guns . It is a form of a gun free zone .
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am glad that you know how to hold a constitution in your hands, but you don’t seem know how to actually read what is in that constitution.
Namely,the complete text of the second amendment is as follows:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Why did you not include the phrase “a well regulated Militia”? What part of “a well-regulated militia” do you not understand? Why do you cherry pick the second part of the second amendment?
You then construe your misreading of the 2nd amendment to justify a libertarian world view in which all of us defend ourselves from criminals with guns just those farmers in the 1700’s. However when the American independence was fought those farmers had muskets that took a minute to load and then fired only one bullet at time. There were no assault weapons that can spray 50 bullets into a crowd in 60 seconds or less.
You are also making statements that are not supported by facts. Such as gangs and drugs over the open border along with “gun-free” zones being the most dangerous areas to be being in some “article” that you. Those statements have not been supported by facts and have been debunked over and over again.
The truth is that gun regulations make citizens safer, as is evidence by Australia and other European nations. The correlation between number of guns and mass shootings is exceptionally strong statistically. Furthermore, the “good guy” with a gun motif that justifies your non-truths has also been debunked countless times:
https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2022-05-27/uvalde-buffalo-shootings-expose-the-myth-of-the-good-guy-with-a-gun
Here are some facts along with reputable sources that justify these facts:
1)gun safety policies actually make citizens safer
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/06/02/fact-sheet-californias-gun-safety-policies-save-lives-provide-model-for-a-nation-seeking-solutions/
2)The U.S. is a primary source for crime guns in North and Central America as well as the Caribbean
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/beyond-our-borders/
https://apnews.com/article/north-america-violence-az-state-wire-tx-state-wire-united-states-f06086d8ed88450082ef9b8a403d4637
It is one thing to have a philosophical point of view. It is quite another thing to cherry pick phrases and use debunked ideas in order to justify that point of view. Which is fine if we are talking about a point of view. But we are talking about innocent people dying every week because people like Mr. Norton cannot seem to change their views in light of facts. That’s not a philosophical belief, that’s a delusion.
LikeLike
Can it be said that you are speaking facts and l am speaking the truth , or visa versa ? The main premise here is that many people are murdered and killed in our land of the the free . The human animal is the only animal not born with the fangs , claws nor the strength of some of the other animals .
To protect the population in the State of Oregon each home was required to have a gun and a member skill f to operate it.
Thank you for your opinion in this matter
LikeLiked by 1 person
Can it be said that you are speaking gibberish or vice versa? Honestly, what kind of sentence is that?
The main premise is that you are confused about the role of human beings in a modern world and seem to like to harken back to some primitive animal state where humans without fangs need to be strong because we live in the land of the free? Or something like that.
What does that animal analogy have to do with the factual data driven points that I made?
LikeLike
Mr. Norton sounds like a responsible gun owner, and I wish more guns now in circulation were owned by people like him. It is a shame that Mr. Napoli responded to Mr. Norton using such disrespectful language and blanket accusations.
LikeLike
Mr. Boris,
if you find shame in what I said, then be more specific. I did not refer to Mr. Norton with any pejorative or demeaning language, so I am confused why you chose to find shame in my well explained point of view.
The issue is not about being a responsible gun owner. More school children are now more likely to be killed by guns than by automobiles, and your wishing that more people who own guns are responsible won’t change that. Is that all you got, a wish?
But as for your statements:
What specifically was disrespectful?
What specifically were blanket accusations?
Btw “blanket accusations” are accusations that are not supported by evidence or facts. I believe provided both evidence and facts.
It is you sir, who are making the blanket accusation.
LikeLike
Mr. Napoli:
Re. your disrespectful response to Mr. Norton’s letter, here are some examples: “you don’t seem [to] know how to actually read …,” “what part … do you not understand,” “why do you cherry-pick,” “your misreading,” “your non-truths,” “debunked ideas,” “that’s a delusion.”
Re. my use of the term “blanket accusations”: “Blanket,” as an adjective, means “total and inclusive,” which is how I viewed the accusations you leveled against Mr. Norton.
Nobody in his right mind is against gun regulation and strict enforcement of gun laws, but attacking a responsible gun owner exercising his constitutional right was gratuitous.
LikeLike
Mr. Boris,
Thank you for the willingness to have a dialogue about this matter.
The intensity of an argument does not innately mean disrespectful. Hence all of what I said in your first paragraph about not having actually read the constitution is legit when someone does not state the full sentence of the the 2nd amendment. Asking if someone knows how to read and then furthermore asking what that person does not understand about the implications of the entire 2nd amendment is therefore also legit.
If someone cherry picks, that gives you the right to criticize them on that point which is what I did. I did not call someone names or say the person was an idiot. I agree that rhetorical arguments are intense, but that is not the same thing as disrespectful.
If someone says something that is not true or that has been debunked many times, that means there is nothing disrespectful when I say “non-truth” or “debunked ideas.”
A delusion by the way is when you use things that are not true and ideas that have been shown to be false to justify your belief system. Is that responsible?
You give away the game in your last sentence btw “attacking a responsible gun owner exercising his constitutional right was gratuitous.”
I was attacking the non-truths and the debunked ideas. I then provided information that was valid and true. I was not attacking and did not attack the person. So please, can you stop it with the responsible gun owner constitutional rights schtick already. That’s not the issue at all, as I think both myself and others have said.
So I guess I’ll just repeat myself.
The issue is not about being a responsible gun owner. More school children are now more likely to be killed by guns than by automobiles, and your wishing that more people who own guns are responsible won’t change that. Is that all you got, a wish?
LikeLike
Thank you for your measured response, Mr. Napoli. I would understand your intense argument if U.S. citizens were prohibited from buying guns. But they are not. I don’t see anything wrong with legally buying a gun and storing it safely in your home as a last-resort protection against intruders. (Many years ago, someone very expertly broke into my house in the middle of the night, rummaged through my younger son’s bedroom, stole our car from the garage, and drove away. Luckily, my son was not at home at the time.)
Let’s strictly enforce existing gun laws. Let’s strengthen them if need be. Let’s severely punish adults who fail to store their guns properly. Let’s crack down on the use of illegal firearms. But let’s also be careful about our belief in the existence of the ultimate truth supported by facts.
Here’s an alternative fact, gleaned from http://www.theconversation.com: “Norway and Finland have similar levels of gun ownership, but far less gun crime.” The authors think that “high levels of social cohesion, low crime rates and internationally high levels of trust and confidence in police and social institutions do appear to reduce levels of gun homicide.” So maybe gun crime will go down, even if by only a little bit, when we simply show a little more respect for the police and elect officials who are deserving of our trust and confidence.
LikeLike
Hmm okay.
The correct link btw is https://theconversation.com/us-shootings-norway-and-finland-have-similar-levels-of-gun-ownership-but-far-less-gun-crime-183933.
You are introducing an opinion however not supported by what is stated by the researchers in the article from “the conversation” when you say
“So maybe gun crime will go down, even if by only a little bit, when we simply show a little more respect for the police and elect officials who are deserving of our trust and confidence.”
The operative word there is … maybe. You are also taking a fact out of the context in which that fact was presented by the researchers themselves. I’ll explain.
It is true what you mentioned about the RATES OF GUN HOMICIDE in Norway and Finland being similar, but you cannot choose which criteria to use as inverse relation — because the relation is multi-variate. According to the article, “High levels of social cohesion, low crime rates and internationally high levels of trust and confidence in police and social institutions do appear to reduce levels of gun homicide.” Having “trust and confidence” is not the same thing as “having respect” for police and electing better leaders.
The types of guns owned by Norwegians and Finns are also different than those owned by Americans, which is stated in the article — more hunting rifles and shotguns rather than hand guns.
The second to last paragraph of the article says
“However, the evidence is now indisputable that more guns in a given country translates directly into more gun violence.”
Which seems kind of relevant, right? What does respect and better elected leaders have to do with the total number of guns in a country, which is 120 guns per 100 persons. The next country is 62. If you run statistics on the data for the per capita for all 230 countries and territories, the median is 5.9. The USA is 8.8 standard deviations from the mean of 12.4. Which is what I said is my first response. The correlation between number of guns and mass shootings is exceptionally strong statistically. It’s the number of guns NOT THE RATES OF GUN HOMICIDE. And I was talking about mass shootings anyway.
Here’s a great site : https://americangunfacts.com/gun-ownership-statistics/
AND https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country
The 3rd paragraph from the bottom says
“Attempts in the US to confront shootings, but without restricting gun ownership in recent years include scaling up surveillance – especially in schools where pupils, parents and teachers form part of a network keeping a watching eye on colleagues and pupils. They look for signs of trouble and are able to sound the alarm.”
And right before the last picture, there is this
“Researchers talk about “civilised” and “de-civilising” gun cultures, cultures where gun ownership is associated with traditional values of respect and responsibility, and others where gun availability largely empowers the criminally minded and unstable, adding to the violence and chaos.”
See what I mean? The article gives no reason supporting the idea that “maybe” gun crime would go down if citizens just respected the police and elected people who deserve our trust and confidence. Who determines what elected people should be doing to earn trust in confidence? You are side-stepping the issue by introducing an argument wrapped in a moral code.
Simply put, what you did was take fact behind door number one and wrapped that fact into some clothes from behind door number two simply because the doors both have the same color.
You are also moving the goal posts of the original argument when you state that “I don’t see anything wrong with legally buying a gun and storing it safely in your home as a last-resort protection against intruders.” Was that a hook to inspire readers who might triggered by that phrase, because I never said there was anything wrong with legal buying a gun and storing it safely in your home.”
You seem to have some special interest on contorting your arguments to suit some contrived purpose when you pursue these straw man arguments.
Have a good day.
LikeLike
Using updated data from 2022
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_guns_and_homicide
I calculated the z-scores for gun homicides per 100 and guns per 100 for all countries and territories in the data set.
Here is the format
Nation : z-gun homicides per 100 : z-guns per 100
Finland : -0.607 : 1.617
Norway : -0.729 : 1.565
Switzerland : -0.721 : 2.644
United States : -0.455 : 7.65
A normal distribution has 99.7% of the data within 3 standard deviations. For the USA the number of guns per 100 was more 7.65 standard deviations. The other 3 countries were less than 3 — which statistically means normative.
Notice that the USA still has a larger rate in gun homicide per 100 since -0.455 is larger than the other numbers for the gun homicides z-scores.
The only other nations that have a z-guns per 100 greater than 3 are Yemen and Serbia, 3.58 and 3.32 respectively, both of which have z-gun homicides of -0.68 and -0.45.
The USA is extreme. So that article is kind of generous when it says these other nations have similar rates of gun ownership.
LikeLike
Sorry, Gino, this whole exchange is becoming a little too much, so I’m tuning out. You’re saying that more guns mean more people killed, and I’m saying that the number of guns is not the only factor that determines the incidence of gun deaths. Both statements are true, and no detailed math calculations are needed to prove that.
You also contradict yourself. You previously said that Mr. Norton misread “the 2nd amendment to justify a libertarian world view in which all of us defend ourselves from criminals with guns just [like] those farmers in the 1700’s.” Now you’re saying that you “never said there was anything wrong with legal[ly] buying a gun.”
My initial comment was prompted by your rather aggressive attack on Mr. Norton. I’m glad that your subsequent comments were more neutral. I thank you for that.
LikeLike
Thank you Boris for defending me . We see an insurrection at the J6 Congressional jury against the Militia that attacked the Federal Capitol during a political rally . The Federal Capital is the people’s Federal Capital (house) and is accessible to the people during the sessions of the Senate. The locked doors were opened by the guards and the guards waved them on. Now the former president who was impeached twice and under indictment now .
See the reason for the 2nd Amendment now and the people’s right to have and bare arms shall
Not be infringed ?
LikeLike
Nothing personal y’all. We’ll just agree to disagree and move on.
Peace out 🙂
LikeLike