Letters to the Editors

All good citizens deserve the right to self-defense

Re: Defense against guns, editorial, Jan 4.

I do not understand the point of this editorial. Inexpensive handguns and shotguns are available not as the weapons of choice for criminals, but as the self-defense device of choice for people who can't afford something better. Firearms are very serious devices capable of doing severe damage to anything or anyone struck by a projectile fired from one. Everyone knows this. Guns are a fact of life in America. Unfortunately, they are most often related to untimely death when they are abused or misused by criminals or irresponsible individuals. The problem is crime and criminals, not the tools they use in their trade.

I am almost 50 years old, and during my lifetime have been shot twice and missed several times by people shooting at me or in my direction. I have also been stabbed three times. None of this was job-related, "in the line of duty" or due to any criminal activity on my part. I was just a very average kid growing up in a bad neighborhood.

My mother, sisters and father all carried relatively inexpensive handguns for protection in Chicago. The guns provided real peace of mind, and real protection from our "neighbors." If you've never been under fire, or in a situation where you had to be able to defend yourself from someone meaning to do you harm, you simply wouldn't understand. I disagree with the lawsuit you reference, and the verdict handed down by the jury. Nathaniel Brazill chose to bring the gun to school, and subsequently chose to shoot his teacher. He was properly tried, convicted and incarcerated for his actions. This incident was and is tragic for all involved. I fail to see how the manufacturer or distributor of the gun is even remotely responsible for Brazill's actions.

All guns can be used to maim or kill, regardless of their cost. And the apparently unpleasant reality is that there is no substitute for a gun when you really need one. The unavoidable qualifying factor is the person involved, and the manner in which they choose to use the weapon, as evidenced by the millions of people who own them responsibly without managing to make it into your publication. We live in interesting and increasingly dangerous times. And until the day when people no longer represent a threat to each other, all good citizens deserve the right to defend themselves and their families. One could argue that it is even a responsibility. Nothing as yet invented enables a person to do that like handguns -- inexpensive, or otherwise.
-- Donovan Hunter, Palm Harbor

Why blame an inanimate object?

Re: Defense against guns, Jan. 4.

I cannot understand how the editors of the St. Petersburg Times can blame an inanimate object for killing a person. Guns or almost any object can be used in an illegal, lethal manner. When someone steals a weapon then purposely uses it illegally, that person should be punished to the full extent of the law. If someone steals a car and it is involved in a crime and/or fatality, do you advocate banning cars?

Not all people can afford to buy high-priced firearms, cars, TVs, etc., therefore there are inexpensive firearms for sale. That does not necessarily mean it will be used in a crime. What about self-defense?

Any person buying a lethal weapon assumes a great burden to use it in a safe, legal manner. To punish a gun manufacturer/distributor/gun store for selling a legal product is absurd. Florida and other states have passed gun product liability laws for a good reason; the wrong person was being blamed for someone's misuse of their product.

As for U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft destroying background checks, he is just following the law that was enacted by Congress. The National Instant Check System mandated that they be destroyed when the check is completed. Any "ballistic fingerprinting" scheme would cost billions, produce back-door firearms registration and could easily be defeated by a file in a few minutes.
-- Robert L. Simister, Largo

Aiming for deep pockets

Re: Defense against guns.

Incredibly the lawsuit in this case did not seek damages from the killer himself, perhaps because a 13-year-old's assets are rather slim, nor even from the manufacturer, Raven Arms, as it had been out of business since 1991. The jury then found the owner from whom the gun had been stolen 50 percent responsible, the school board, which had presumably not searched the boy for weapons, 45 percent responsible, and the distributor (wholesaler), Valor Corp., 5 percent responsible because the gun had been sold by Valor to the pawn shop without a "proper" safety lock, some 10 years earlier!

Small, cheap handguns, such as the Raven, are most commonly used by lower-income people in need of a low-cost means of self-defense, and are more likely to be stolen by criminals. The gun functioned as it was designed to, and the actual make and quality, and even size, of it, were immaterial to the crime itself.

Brazill committed murder with a stolen gun. He is the one who pulled the trigger. He is responsible, and yet the jury found no monetary liability. There was a deep pocket in Valor Corp., which was far removed from the crime, and which simply sold a legal firearm which did what it was designed to do.

Had the victim been stabbed with a stolen kitchen knife, would the knife manufacturer be liable? Or if the criminal had stolen a car and killed with it, would Ford or Chrysler be blamed? Inanimate objects don't kill, people do. Guns, cars and knives don't kill, people do.

Miami-Dade County's 1999 case against 25 gun manufacturers and trade associations was thrown out, and the Florida Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal. The congressional bill sponsored by Rep. Cliff Stearns to prevent these frivolous lawsuits should be supported. There's one federal law that's truly needed.
-- Lee Hanson, Hudson

Cost of the weapon is not relevant

Re: Defense against guns.

Nathaniel Brazill broke into a home, stole a gun and killed a person. It doesn't matter if the gun cost $50 or $500. He committed a crime, he was convicted -- case closed. I cannot see how the Palm Beach County jury handed down a $1.2-million verdict against the gun's distributor.

The majority of the 80-million-plus American gun owners use a firearm for self-protection. If you read professor John Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime or professor Gary Kleck's book Point Blank, you will see that more than a million people each year use a firearm to defend themselves, but in only 2 percent of the cases is the gun actually fired. Law-abiding civilians shoot more criminals than the police because they are at the scene of the crime when it starts.
-- John E. Gluck, Seminole

Look to tort reform

Re: Defense against guns.

I would suggest, respectfully, that your editorial space would be better served addressing the lack of enforcement of the existing numerous federal, state and local laws pertaining to criminal activities with weapons. Your erroneous statements and obvious anti-Second Amendment stance not withstanding, what we are really talking about here is a convicted murderer and a citizen who illegally allowed his weapon to be accessible -- yet another lawsuit was aimed at an innocent third party. At some point personal responsibility and tort reform had better take place, or we are all in jeopardy. That includes newspapers.
-- Dennis J. Devlin, Largo

We need a call for public safety

Re: Defense against guns, editorial.

The Times has done an excellent job explaining how our legislatures, both state and federal, have failed to protect public safety and have chosen instead to protect the activities of gunmakers and distributors who have saturated our communities with a product that has killed more people in the last 50 years than were killed in all our wars during the same time period. The gun violence prevention community and cities decided long ago that it had to become involved in gun control by tort law because it was becoming evident our legislatures were not going to protect our communities from the ravages of uncontrolled gun sales.

More than half of our states, including Florida, have passed legislation that provides gunmakers and distributors blanket protection from lawsuits, and now our federal legislature is moving to provide similar blanket immunity for all U.S. gunmakers and distributors.

The chief argument the NRA and our legislatures use to justify this outrageous protection is that since guns are a legal product, lawsuits against them would just cause a flood of lawsuits against most other products, that these problems are simply caused by people violating the law not illegal activity by gunmakers and distributors and of course the old NRA canard that such lawsuits in someway violate the Second Amendment.

Our Congress first abdicated its responsibility to protect public safety in the early '70s when it passed legislation to exempt firearms from the oversight of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which reviews product for safety features and is the main reason we have the safest products in the world, except for guns.

The gun that killed the Lake Worth school teacher was made by Raven Arms Inc., and had no safety at all. That Saturday night special and millions of other defective, unsafe and guns suitable only for military use have been allowed to circulate without oversight or recall and have cost the lives of untold thousands of people.

Manufactures and distributors have saturated our communities not only with unsafe guns and guns used primarily by criminals but also with guns designed only for military purposes. The end result has been the sale of far more guns than law-abiding citizens could possibly consume, guaranteeing the oversupply would end up in the hands of the lawless.

Lawmakers have abdicated their responsibility to ensure guns are safe to use, and our Congress is considering once again voting in favor of the gun lobby instead of public safety. Contact your senator and congressman and make it clear you want a vote, not for the gun lobby, but for public safety.
Arthur C. Hayhoe, executive director, Floridians for Gun Safety, Inc., Wesley Chapel

Gambling money for our budgets

I would like to voice my agreement with Why should we force gamblers to get seasick? (letter, Jan. 1). If the politicians would pay attention to the traffic on Interstate 10, they would know where the money they need for their budgets is going.

I, for one, travel to Mississippi to visit the casinos and I see the number of cars over there as well as the bus groups and the people who fly there. I do believe that if so-called puritans would open their eyes, there would be a lot of money for the budgets.

The governor shouldn't have to wonder why the seniors are not retiring to Florida anymore. Gambling would allow taking less out of their pockets to satisfy the misused money in the school budgets.
-- Carl F. Pudimott, New Port Richey

Share your opinions

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They also can be sent by fax to (727) 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length.

For e-mail users: Letters can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com . E-mail messages must be text only and cannot include attachments. If you're using a word processing program to write the message, use the cut and paste functions to place it into your e-mail program. Please include your return e-mail address, as well as your name, mailing address and phone number, in the text of the message.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright