Las Vegas Sun

April 16, 2014

Currently: 78° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Letter to the editor:

Letter should be read by lawmakers

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

Kudos to Richard Pratt for his letter, “A comparison of guns and cars.” Mr. Pratt’s response was the best I’ve read in a long, long time. He makes sense, which is hard to come by these days, and especially so when it involves a very sticky issue.

I was so overwhelmed and taken that I sent copies of this letter to my elected representatives. Think they can learn a thing or two? I hope so. I did.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 10 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. As I recall the letter writer's defense for more gun laws was: "Something is better than nothing." That's not a defense for a law and the reason the U.S. has 9000 gun state, local and Federal gun laws on the books or close to it. Yet some like the letter writer are still looking to pass more gun laws.

    Let's enforce the gun laws on the books. Prosecute the offenders/violators and sentence them to jail time. Taking the offenders off the streets is the solution. Not taking guns away.

    Carmine D

  2. http://www.bop.gov/locations/weekly_repo...
    The problem with Carmine's analysis is that the prison system is jampacked to the gills. State prisons are overcrowded to the point where some have three times as many inmates as they were designed for.

    If you look at the federal prison systems weekly bed report there are around 218,000 inmates in the system. This is way overcapacity. The feds have to hire out to private prisons to hold all the inmates and there aren't enough private prisons. For the most part when an inmate goes in the front door someone has to be released out the back door.

    Do what the frontier towns did. Get rid of the guns! That will eliminate the problem. There are millions of guns confiscated in this country used in crimes. If they would stop constantly selling new ones to replace the ones that are being destroyed over the next hundred years the problem would solve itself.

  3. Reference Future's opening comment. Future certainly doesn't have a one track mind. Unfortunately, all his tracks go in one direction.

  4. Gerry:

    So let me see if I understand your point. The jails are full, so pass more laws. Really? If you leave criminals on the streets with their guns because you can't house them in sufficient correctional facilities, you get more crime and gun violence. Not less.

    Let's solve the overcrowded prison conditions. I understand there is a brand new jail built outside of Chicago with government stimulus money that is unused. Let's put to into operation.

    I opine there are US military bases and GSA buildings that have been shuttered, and are unoccupied, that can be used. What do you think?

    Carmine D

  5. Gerry says "Do what the frontier towns did. Get rid of the guns! That will eliminate the problem. There are millions of guns confiscated in this country used in crimes. If they would stop constantly selling new ones to replace the ones that are being destroyed over the next hundred years the problem would solve itself."

    Really gerry?

    There are "millions of ounces" of drugs confiscated in this country every year. There are no legal sales of cocaine or heroin to replace the quantity that is being destroyed, so has that problem "solved itself"?

    It's the exact same scenario you propose for guns. No legal production, no legal sales, confiscation and criminal penalties for possession....but has that eliminated the supply or availability of cocaine and heroin to criminals?

    Please explain how your proposal would prevent guns from being smuggled into the country and obtained by criminals via the exact same channels that drugs are currently smuggled in and obtained by criminals.

  6. Wendor: You're simply restating the argument the pro-gun-violence group has used for years. We can't stop 100% of the problem, therefore, we shouldn't try to stop ANY of it.

    Applies as well to DUI or various drugs as it does to guns.

  7. No rebert, I'm stating that gerry's assertion that if we ban the manufacture and sale of guns in this country that "the problem will solve itself" because criminals won't have guns anymore is a complete fallacy.

    But hey, let's take your statement. You disagree with "we shouldn't try to stop ANY of it"...so show us some evidence to support the idea that these laws will actually "stop ANY of it". Show us a jurisdiction that has passed similar laws and seen an attributable reduction in gun violence or gun deaths as a result.

  8. Jeff:

    You should read your own. I have. You win hands down in the wordy and worthless categories.

    Carmine D

  9. Wendor (Charles Gladu): In your 3:22 p.m. comment, you ask me to "...so show us some evidence to support the idea that these laws will actually 'stop ANY of it'. Show us a jurisdiction that has passed similar laws and seen an attributable reduction in gun violence or gun deaths as a result."

    In one word, Wendor: Australia. For more detail, see http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-con...

  10. robert, guess you missed (from your own citation) this section:

    "Some scholars even credit the 1996 gun law with causing the decrease in deaths from firearms, though they are still debating that point. A 2003 study from AIC, which looked at rates between 1991 and 2001, found that some of the decline in firearm-related homicides (and suicides as well) began before the reform was enacted. On the other hand, a 2006 analysis by scholars at the University of Sydney concluded that gun fatalities decreased more quickly after the reform. Yet another analysis, from 2008, from the University of Melbourne, concluded that the buyback had no significant effect on firearm suicide or homicide rates.

    So there's no consensus about whether the changes decreased gun violence or had little to no effect."

    So it would appear that Australia fails to "have seen an attributable reduction in gun violence or gun deaths as a result" since the experts fail to agree.

    For example: The head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, said that there is no definitive evidence that a decade of restrictive firearms laws has done anything to reduce weapon-related crime.
    http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-...

    Remember, this is the guy in the government whose whole job is to compile and analyze crime statistics.