Letters To The Editor

FIREARMS

Lindholdt never learned responsibility

Re: Roundtable commentary of June 27 by Paul Lindholdt.

Lindholdt sounds like one those individuals who had access to guns, but to whom his father and other authority figures failed to teach responsibility, accountability and respect for the laws of God, man and nature.

The guns Lindholdt used to kill without using good judgment in his choices were never at fault for the reckless and misguided use to which they were put. Only Lindholdt and his inattentive elders were at fault.

I have only one question for The Spokesman-Review. The statement at the end of this commentary submitted by Lindholdt identifies him as one of your contributors. Why? His “confession” merely points out, belatedly, that his lack of common sense was the result of a youth who was allowed to use a piece of equipment that requires education both of the conscience, and the “when and how” necessity of adequately learning a useful skill.

He comments that the barbarous use of guns is rife. This may be true, but why should the immoral use of guns by some be used as a punishment against those who chose to be adequately educated and wisely use that education to procure edible food as many of my family members have lawfully done? Why should Lindholdt’s bad judgments reflect on us? Constance Brenner Republic, Wash.

`Guns with bullets kill people’

Paul Lindholdt’s timely and rational guest column, “I just don’t need or want firearms any more” (June 27) struck a chord with me. In my teens on a North Idaho farm, I had a .22 and my parents did not object when I bought a shotgun. With my dad’s .303 Savage, I got an elk and a deer. With the .22, many squirrels bit the dust.

Today, I have no interest in guns partly as a result of my experience and also because of the ridiculously large number of killings in the United States. I saw out-of-state drunk hunters firing their guns into a valley where all they could see were leaves. I had been in that valley earlier, before the hunters progressed from coffee to liquor.

Compare Japan and the United States. Japan has widespread use of violent movies and video games and a high population density, yet the daily gun killings in Detroit are greater than the annual gun killings in Japan.

Compare Canada and the United States. Our societies are almost identical, but Canada’s much stricter gun laws result in only one gun for every four people. The United States has one gun per person! U.S. gun killings are more than 12 times higher per capita.

Guns with bullets kill people. K. Julian Powers Spokane

Good riddance to hunter Lindholdt

I’m an avid hunter and fisherman who was very pleased to read that Paul Lindholdt is no longer going to associate himself as a fellow of mine.

Lindholdt doesn’t appear to have ever had the field and ethical training one needs in order to call himself a hunter and sportsman. My ethics and those of my compatriots don’t allow us to club a wounded owl off of my dog’s head; they don’t even allow us to shoot an owl. Our code and the code we teach our children when they are trained sufficiently to go on their first hunt, doesn’t allow us to shoot anything for “fun,” unless it’s a target at the rifle or pistol range. Neither do we shoot the elusive coyote for fun. Separating their heads from their shoulder makes their pelt useless. We don’t shoot mythical and charismatic protected species; we spend our weekends working to protect them.

Lindholdt says that although he and his friends weren’t proud of their “lapses in the law,” “they just went with the territory.” I suppose that makes it OK.

Lindholdt’s firearm and hunting legacy should end today. They have no place in today’s world. But they had no place in yesterday’s world either. I’m ready for Lindholdt and those like him to give up their guns and hunting too. He represents the bad apple. As for the millions of responsible, ethical and well-trained hunters and firearm owners, we’ll pass our legacy on to another generation. James A. Layman Spokane

Many gun owners into true sport

I am delighted that Paul Lindholdt is now ready to give up his guns. People such as him who own and use guns only for the hard-hearted, cold-hearted “thrill” of killing for killings sake are, in my opinion, the very ones who should not have guns. I fear them.

I am also delighted that this newspaper elected to print Lindholdt’s treatise, since it so vividly exemplifies the false and foolish notion held and loudly pontificated by most anti-gun activists.

“Guns are made only to kill!” they scream.

The truth of the matter, however, is that many - perhaps even most - gun owners in our day and age never kill anything with their guns. True sport for them is in accurate, pinpoint, precise target shooting. It is foolish and/or dishonest to put them in the same category as the blaze-away, bloodthirsty Paul Lindholdts. Ken Campbell Deer Park

Good there’s one less `slob hunter’

Re: Paul Lindholdt’s June 27 guest column.

I feel that the world is probably a better place if a self-admitted slob hunter does turn in his gun.

For those of us who abide by the law and are sportsman, I feel this commentary is kind of a slap in the face because this gentleman is admitting that he is what the rest of us refer to as a slob hunter. The world is a better place if, as he professed, he has given up guns and hunting. Ted Theodore Medical Lake

Anti-NRA cartoon `ignorant drivel’

I was amazed that a major newspaper would print such ignorant drivel as the anti-NRA “cartoon” seen on your Opinion page of June 25.

The National Rifle Association most certainly does not support “lax” gun laws. In fact, for years the NRA has campaigned for vigorous enforcement of all laws that would take dangerous criminals off our streets and put them behind bars where they belong.

Unfortunately, our criminal justice system is often unwilling or unable to endorse the laws we already have. The perpetrators of the Colorado school shootings and other such recent tragedies broke numerous existing laws when they committed their crimes. Noel L. Zimmerman Davenport, Wash.

Article full of `voodoo statistics’

“States are not waiting for gun laws” was the headline of a piece by Kevin Harris of Knight-Ridder (Spokesman-Review, June 26). The writer contrived to show that states are rushing to pass stricter gun control laws.

If you read enough of the article, you find that this is not true.

What bothers me is the statement that 55 percent of those surveyed want stricter gun laws. Information about the basis of this survey is at the end of the article. Most readers do not read to the end of a news story. The survey was an ABC-Washington Post poll of 761 adults. So the writer is trying to intimate that the survey represents public opinion across the United States.

The population of the United States is more than 260 million. Assume that half of these are adults. The writer is saying that survey of 0.00059 percent of the public (and one probably concentrated in the Washington Post’s area of circulation) also represents the opinion of the remaining 99.999 percent of the population.

These are voodoo statistics. They make good copy but in no way have any relationship to reality.

The media need to look at the extent of a survey, how well it represents the makeup of the population and how the questions were worded.

Just remember that figures do not lie, but liars can figure. Gene Carpenter Moscow

Uninformed opinions worthless

Gary Crooks’ editorial of June 25 (“We can and must make guns safer”), in which he suggests government mandates should “make it impossible to adapt weapons for automatic clips” is a perfect example of why it is so difficult to have an intelligent discussion about guns with those who can’t understand why pro-gun people are so unreasonable.

As is typical of so much of the anti-gun crowd, Crooks is long on opinions and short on facts; he has some very strong opinions about a subject he apparently knows nothing about. It is obvious from his comment on “automatic clips” that Crooks has absolutely no concept of how firearms function and no idea of what he’s talking about.

The Crookses and Milt Priggees of the world are quick to demean responsible gun owners, and National Rifle Association members in particular, but evidently, they are too busy fanning anti-gun hysteria and hurling insults at those with whom they disagree to bother gaining even a basic understanding of the subject they are so anxious to comment on.

Crooks’ comments remind me of the story of the farmer who was opposed to daylight savings time because he was afraid the extra hour of daylight would burn his crops. It’s OK to have an opinion on something but before one expresses it in a newspaper editorial, he should learn at least enough about the subject to keep from sounding like a complete idiot. Gene Greeson Nine Mile Falls

Second Amendment: Here are the facts

For individuals willing to learn a little history, the Second Amendment is based on Article VI of the Articles of Confederation, which were written between 1777 and 1789. Article VI provided that “every state shall keep a well-regulated and disciplined militia.” No provision was made for a standing federal army. Instead, Congress adopted, and the states ratified, the Second Amendment in 1791.

In 1792, Congress passed the Uniform Militia Act, which required “every free, able-bodied, white male citizen of the respective states” - between the ages of 18 and 45 - to enroll in his state’s militia.

Within two years, all 15 states had organized militias that met the congressional standards. These militias had limited success. They were somewhat useful putting down the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 and killing Indians. However, they were completely ineffective during the War of 1812.

Within 30 years of their creation, most militias had been eliminated by their states. Throughout the 1800s, militias were gradually replaced by National Guard formations. Completing the century-long transition, Congress in 1916 passed the National Defense Act, which brought the National Guard under the control of the federal government.

And incidentally, from the middle of the 19th century to the present, contrary to the emotionally laden National Rifle Association propaganda, a consistent line of Supreme Court and federal appellate court decisions holds that the amendment does not concern private citizens. Pamela C. Behring Spokane

Provisions spelled out in history, law

John D. McCallum’s revisionist rendition of our Constitution’s 2nd Amendment (Letters, June 24) dramatically displays the folly of attempting legal analysis by the use of laymen discussion groups and a contemporary dictionary.

A simple study of the relevant Federalist Papers and subsequent court rulings reveal the precise intent and meaning of the Second Amendment to anyone with sincere interest.

In 1916, President Wilson signed into law changes in the militia statutes. Title 10, United States Code, Section 311, now reads, “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age, and, except as provided in Section 313 of Title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration to be, citizens of the United States, and female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.” Federal District Court ruled this year in U.S. v. Emerson that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual, not collective, “right” to keep and bear arms. The court specifically ruled that, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” was meant not to qualify the right but to show why “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Furthermore, in 1990 the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez that the “people” in the Second Amendment has the same meaning in both the Preamble to the Constitution and in the first, fourth, fifth and ninth amendments. Kenneth L. Alexander Lewiston

Arms specifics, please

If Mark K. Woodrow (Letters, June 29) is correct in his interpretation of the Constitution, then I ask that he answer the following questions.

What type of arms should a well-trained general population have and where should these arms be kept? Glen D. Jones Liberty Lake

Reformation must come from true God

Stopping the use of guns in crime has become a spirited battle between different gods. To most liberals, the state is another god being offered to the 20th century’s insecure man.

This modern religion is called statism. It bombards us with the propaganda that the state must play the role of God, providing for every need from the cradle to the grave. It promises a new age where human ills that have blighted man will be eliminated by the state.

But every god always demands a price for providential care and their price is always less of human freedom. Man is ultimately asked to surrender freedom in exchange for false security. A catastrophic agreement; too late they discover that security without freedom is man’s greatest insecurity.

Statism suggests that our government must solve all national and international problems. We who serve our living spirited God know that only He can change man if they submit themselves to Him. Here no freedom is lost and eternal life is gained. We need a few sharp laws that everyone can understand:

1, Thou shall not kill.

2, Use a gun in any crime and you will serve a minimum of 10 years in a tough prison.

3, No gun sales to convicts or children.

We now have 20,000 gun laws. Enforcement and simplification are needed, plus swift prosecution. Even more important, we need a spirited reformation guided by the true God, not by a new god of statism. Donald B. Reed Spokane

Gun zealots’ Hitler contention wrong

The Spokesman-Review has seen fit to publish at least two letters daily in the past weeks from National Rifle Association members. One particular piece of NRA propaganda sticks out above all the rest for its untruth and nastiness: that in 1933 Germany, Hitler rose to power by taking guns away from the people.

Please allow me to inform those who won’t study history and are therefore bound to repeat it. Hitler was elected - by popular majority - because he presented racial minorities and immigrants as lazy and shiftless, leeches on the system; because he said German family values were under attack by socialists and liberals and it was high time right-thinking upstanding Germans got back in control. He was virulently anti-abortion and antihomosexual, gays being among the first inmates of concentration camps.

He was part of a private militia, the SA. Once elected, he made it the SS, answerable only to him and useful to beat up any German citizen who thought he had the right to belong to a labor union or speak up against the brutal treatment of fellow citizens. I have a book written in 1933 that details the abduction and torture of union leaders, council members and anyone who dared to resist: “The Brownbook of the Hitler Terror.”

Given these facts, it is precisely private gun ownership that allowed Hitler’s to be the terror regime to dwarf all dictatorships, and it would be gullible people subject to propaganda tactics - like NRA members - who turned out to vote for him in record numbers, saying they were doing the patriotic thing. J.R. Hart Spokane