To the Editor:The cover photo on the April 2 issue of Time magazine shows five of the “survivors” from the Parkland, Florida high school. Their facial expressions run from dour to angry. …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
|
To the Editor:
The cover photo on the April 2 issue of Time magazine shows five of the “survivors” from the Parkland, Florida high school. Their facial expressions run from dour to angry. The index page, however, shows them at a fast food joint yukking it up at lunchtime.
Only one of these “student activists” is old enough to vote yet their goal is to let “the adults know that we’re cleaning up their mess.” The media has fallen in love with these photogenic, articulate, well-coached – some would say indoctrinated – teenagers. And woe to any talking heads who criticize them. Fox News’ Laura Ingraham had the audacity to tell David Hogg to stop whining about not getting into some of the prestigious colleges to which he had applied
Fawning reporters and talk show hosts would have us believe their March for Our Lives and other demonstrations were youthful, spontaneous productions fueled by social media. Writing in The Washington Post, sociologist Dana Fisher observed that “only about 10 percent of the participants [in the Washington, D.C. event] were under 18.”
They are also well-funded by groups like billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety organization and celebrities like Oprah Winfrey and George Clooney. While anti-gunners berate the money the NRA spends defending the Second Amendment, Bloomberg is said to be the seventh richest man in the world and Winfrey is a billionaire. Their combined net worth probably exceeds that of all 5 million NRA members together.
Time lists six gun control measures it believes to be “commonsense” reforms. First is to “make owning a gun like driving a car.” The problem with this analogy is that getting a driver’s license is a permissive process. If you pass the tests you will be issued a license. Any system of licensing gun owners would be punitive. The law in Rhode Island says police chiefs shall issue a concealed carry permit to any suitable person upon showing of proper need. Yet some refuse to even accept an application.
Enacting “the right restrictions” is next on the list. The article claims “background checks for all private purchases and restriction on multiple purchases were associated with lower rates of crime.” However, economist David Lott, who studies firearms statistics extensively, found that states with expanded background checks experienced 49 percent higher murder rates and 75 percent more armed robberies.
Time thinks that gun manufacturers should be subject to civil suit by “victims of gun violence”. This flies in the face of the tort law concept of assumption of risk and would put the gun industry out of business in this county. Remington, manufacturer of the Bushmaster rifle used at Sandy Hook that is being sued, has declared bankruptcy. Winchester is long gone and its trademark owned by a European company. This suits the anti-gunners just fine.
Their other purported solutions to “gun violence” include involving doctors to “educate families about gun safety” and funding research particularly by the Centers for Disease Control because, you see, we have an “epidemic of gun crime.”
Finally, entrepreneurs have systems that use biometrics “to identify a weapon’s rightful owner while locking it out for anyone else.” Then Time acknowledges, “Such smart guns may not prevent mass shootings with firearms purchased legally.” So, what’s the point?
Richard August
North Kingstown
4 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Cat2222
I am confused by your first sentence. They are human, just like the rest of us. They can be upset, angry even and still get together and laugh. What are you trying to say? They should stay in sackcloth and mourning until an acceptable time you deem fit for it to end?
The important fact is that while only 1 may be eligible to vote, the rest of them will soon be as well and then, well, you better hold onto your hat because they are going to be a force to reckoned with. As they have proven they are right now.
Ingraham is just the first of many that learned that they have a voice and indeed, they have power! If you want to play it down or be a naysayer about it then you are simply burying your head in the sand.
They have done what no adults have been able to do. They have gone up against the Goliath NRA and made a dent in its armour. The NRA is too big for its own good. It shouldn't own politics like it currently does. No lobbyist should!
Your way have been done over and over for decades. The problem not only exists but continues to gain momentum. It is time for a change in how we do things that will help protect innocent victims from violence. If you don't think gun control to some extent is the solution, put something else out there and make it happen.
Until then, I am happy to see the stuck gears finally starting to move again. All thanks to some high school students who simply would not stand for the same ridiculous, useless platitudes from a group of adults that told them to sit down and shut up. David indeed is out to slay the giant!
Tuesday, April 17, 2018 Report this
Justanidiot
children should be seen and not heard.
Tuesday, April 17, 2018 Report this
Cat2222
Why?
Tuesday, April 17, 2018 Report this
Justanidiot
Why?
Because that is the way it was when America was GREAT!
We did what we were asked, no sass, no lip. We did what our country wanted. When the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, we did what we had to do and beat the foes back into the sea.
We didn't hold a press conference to discuss our feelings.
Wednesday, April 18, 2018 Report this