Letters to the Editor: What Bob Taft refuses to understand Pt. II

Leaders in the Senate and representatives of the dominant political party in Ohio, take note:

Ohio's self defense rights activists, who are indeed some of the most active and numerous grassroots volunteers in Ohio politics, are speaking loudly and clearly in the days since HB12 was stalled. They have had it with the anti-self-defense actions of Bob Taft, and they are ready to take action against any legislators and a sympathetic media who enable him.

Click on the "Read More..." link below for still more letters to the editor, which reveal still again that the common Ohioan understands what Bob Taft refuses to acknowledge.

The letters provided below are only excerpts. Click on the links to read the authors' entire letters.

Cleveland Plain Dealer: Gun foes are firing wildly - three pro-self-defense letters* from:

South Euclid's DAVID WEST:

Once again, The Plain Dealer's editorial staff is out of touch with reality. I understand that The Plain Dealer is a Democratic newspaper in a Democratic city, but it ignores the facts in many cases.

Brent Larkin is correct that Gov. Bob Taft is waffling on the concealed-gun issue (June 19). I also think that Taft is wrong - but only because too many restrictions have been added to the bill. Forty-four other states already have this right, and we are still dealing with a flawed Ohio Supreme Court decision from 1919.

Can you honestly tell me that we Ohioans are not as intelligent or trustworthy as those residents in the 44 states that now have affirmative concealed-carry laws?

LaGrange's KENNETH A. SEDLAK:

Excuse me, but I don't remember any part of the Constitution that states that the Highway Patrol has to give its blessing for citizens to exercise their constitutional rights. I understand patrolmen's concerns about the people having firearms, but our rights as a free people out weigh those concerns.

All of this discussion about the restrictions in the gun bill is much ado about nothing. The Constitution mentions nothing about restrictions, but does mention this right will not be infringed. I do not understand why this concept is so difficult for some people to comprehend.

I resent having to jump through any kind of hoop to satisfy a tiny portion of our population, such as the Ohio Highway Patrol.

Chardon's DOUGLAS B. BROWN:

I would like to suggest a quid pro quo to Brent Larkin's assertion that whenever passage of a concealed-carry law causes the death of an innocent Ohioan that Gov. Taft be required to attend the funeral and explain his support of "this needless law." Starting today, every time a law-abiding, defenseless Ohioan is killed by a gun- or knife-carrying, club-wielding, fist-swinging or foot-stomping violent criminal and there is no police officer there to stop it (which will be almost all of the time, since most violent criminals do not commit their acts in front of the police) that Larkin attend the funeral and explain to the family and friends of the victim why he and The Plain Dealer's editorial board did not support this law.

Further, whenever such a death occurs, the legislators who did not support this law should be required to write all of their constituents and, after specifically referencing the manner of the victim's death, explain why they opposed giving Ohioans the means to defend themselves against violent crime.

*NOTE: The Plain Dealer also became the latest newspaper to reprint Bob Taft's letter, in which he promotes his "Car-jacker Protection" provision.

Dayton Daily News: `DDN' wrong on concealed carry - three pro-self-defense letters from:

Kettering's MIKE NEWMAN:

The recent Dayton Daily News editorial "Taft should just say no to gun lobby" was filled with misleading information, and obviously written by someone who doesn't have the slightest clue of what the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights means.

Ohioans for Concealed Carry (www.ofcc.net) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization comprised of volunteers from across Ohio. The organization's focus is reforming Ohio laws regarding lawful possession and use of firearms in self-defense.

In this editorial, the DDN says that Gov. Bob Taft deserves credit for shaping Ohio's proposed concealed-carry bill into a better bill. What planet are you living on? Taft has done everything possible to butcher the bill, and turn it into something that doesn't even resemble what our forefathers declared as every citizen's right.

The editorial was so one-sided and out of touch with reality, that words alone cannot properly reflect my frustration with the DDN for printing it.

Miamisburg's DAVID F. MILLER:

The Dayton Daily News' position on carrying concealed weapons ("Taft should just say no," June 20), is nothing short of sour grapes and wrong-headed thinking.

On the wrong-headed side of things, we have this "ludicrous" claim by the DDN that a criminal will not be deterred if there is a possibility that the victim might have a gun. Really? Criminals are stupid in general, but not that stupid. No one wants a bullet.

If people think law-abiding citizens should not be allowed to be "walking around with guns," then why don't they lobby to disarm all those police officers? That would be setting a true example, wouldn't it?

Waynesville's CHRISTOPHER R. ENGEL:

The Dayton Daily News is nothing if not predictable. The June 20 editorial ("Taft should just say no to gun lobby") makes a variety of unsupported assertions regarding the carrying of concealed weapons in order to come to a preordained, liberal conclusion. It is a practice with which DDN readers have become all too familiar.

The editorial states, referring to persons carrying weapons: "Some will end up accidentally shooting another or wishing they hadn't shot when they did. Or most tragically, some children will get hurt." Really?

The experience of more than 40 states is that there has been no increase in accidental injury from firearms after enactment of concealed-carry laws, and, to the best of my knowledge, not a single concealed-carry weapons holder has been found to have acted outside the law when using a firearm in self-defense.

You state: "Common sense and society's experience with guns overwhelmingly favor that ... (we are) are better off with fewer guns in circulation and by discouraging ordinary citizens from protecting themselves with lethal weapons..." Really?

Society's experience is actually just the opposite. While Ohio's violent crime rate edges up, the nation as a whole--most of which has concealed-carry laws--has seen a decline in such crimes.

A little more attention to your subject and a lot less demagoguery would serve the DDN, and its readers, well.

Canton Repository: Do we really have a civilized society>

Jackson Twp's JASON PAWLOW:

In “Ban guns, please,” (June 25), the letter states that a gun has “no use in a civilized society.” Since debating such a topic is of little use to those who display dogmatic and homophobic tendencies, I prefer to instead pose a few questions.

Have you read the Canton Repository lately? Where is this so-called “civilized society” that is referred to? I don’t believe our society is anywhere close to this utopian ideal. Have you ever visited Great Britain and Switzerland? Since virtually banning firearms in the 1990s, Britain’s crime rate has skyrocketed and, in certain categories, higher than the United States. Contrast Switzerland where adult males are required to own and maintain a rifle in their place of residence. Compare their crime rate to Britain’s. I think you will be surprised.

Have you read history? A disarmed populace has historically been prone to victimization by its rulers. The following is a list of nations and peoples that I hope we in the U.S. don’t ever join: Germany, Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Rwanda, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, the Jews, the Armenians, the Kurds, the Shi’ites, and the list can go on. Each had massacres and mass-murders inflicted upon them in the 20th century. None were armed. Maybe their societies weren’t so “civilized,” or maybe they actually were.

Ignorance of human nature and history can be costly indeed.