Voices

Early on in the Zumbo incident, Tam typed these tremendously insightful words:

Ten years ago, had his statement survived the editorial process and made it into print, we would have seen a handful of cherry-picked letters on the "Letters to the Editor" page of Outdoor life, and things would have pretty much proceeded along at status quo ante. Not now. Not today.

Another case in point, a recent (unsigned, natch) op-ed in the Winston-Salem Journal attempting to rally anti-gunrights forces in the wake of the death of an officer by gunshot. I'll post the op-ed here in its entirety, and restrain myself from fisking it as it so richly deserves, because I have another point to make in this post:

Gun Glut

The Feb. 23 shooting death of Sgt. Howard Plouff of the Winston-Salem Police Department should make two things clear: There are too many handguns in circulation, and these weapons must be more tightly regulated.

We say "should" instead of "will," because many gun advocates will continue to trot out the same old argument - that handguns aren't the problem, people are.

That rings especially hollow after a good police officer and family man has just been shot to death.

No doubt, people would keep on killing under tighter handgun regulations, but the number of killings would almost certainly drop.

All indications are that Plouff's killer used a handgun, just as so many other killers have.

The guns are as readily available as they are easily concealable. The man police charged Tuesday with killing Plouff, Winston-Salem State University student Keith Antoine Carter, got five permits to own a handgun in the last year, and he got four of those permits in a single month, the Journal reported Thursday. Carter is, of course, presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty, but does any one person need that many handguns?

There were way too many handguns in civilian hands when Plouff was shot in the face trying to help control a large and panicked crowd outside the Red Rooster nightclub. He and other officers had responded to the club to help Forsyth County deputies who were working there off-duty.

The people who started fighting in the bar were definitely in the wrong, but the bouncer who fired a shot into the air in an apparent attempt to end the fighting may well have played a major role in aggravating the violence.

After police arrived, more shots were fired from the crowd.

Carter wasn't charged until a few days after the crime, but shortly after the shooting police seized eight handguns from the area - that's just the ones they were able to find - and charged three men with carrying a concealed weapon.

Those are misdemeanor charges. They should be felonies.

There should be tighter regulations limiting the number of handguns a person can buy in a single month. And there should be stricter law enforcement of existing regulations, especially to crack down on those ignorant enough to carry handguns into packed bars.

We're all for the Second Amendment, especially as it pertains to sporting arms, whether for uses such as target practice or hunting.

OK, I can't resist fisking this, the obligatory "sporting use" bone thrown to the generic gun owner to prove to them that they don't really intend to confiscate anything.

Go ahead. Pull my other leg.

But that does not mean that there should be no restrictions; most people, for example, have no good reason to own an assault rifle that is designed to kill a number of people quickly.

And this state, and this country, must face the fact that tighter regulations are needed on handguns - for Howard Plouff and all the other victims.

So, we have a cop killed by a guy who owns not one, not two, but at least five handguns that he's had for up to a year, that (in North Carolina) he's got to get a permit to purchase. He takes one of these guns someplace they're not allowed by law, and he shoots a cop. But somehow we're to believe that more laws would have prevented this heinous crime when the (anonymous) author proclaims that the cause of the problem is "too many handguns in circulation." Oh, and "assault rifles."

Where have I heard that before?

But, as Tam pointed out, ten years ago at most we'd have seen a few cherry-picked letters to the editor - in a week or six.

Not anymore! The Winston-Salem Journal has an online feedback function. There are four pages of (apparently unedited) responses. At my count the tally is 28 in support of the right to arms, three (weakly) in support of the editorial or in opposition to one of the other 28 comments. Samples:

It's truly sad that you are using the death of a valiant officer to advance an anti constitutional stance. If you read the Federalist Papers, you will see the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or target shooting and everything to do defending liberty from tyranny. If you nibble away the rights of self defense who will guard you rights to print your opinion. - Smith357

Ban this, ban that. Do you know there is almost a total ban on civilian ownership of all guns in the UK? Have you read the latest from them? There is a gun crisis in the UK right now. Seems the criminals don't pay attention the the laws over there. They keep getting guns. Guess what, if you obey the law, you have no defense against them. If you did defend yourself, even with fists, you can be arrested and prosecuted for assaulting the criminal. That's what you want here obviously.... - Use your head

I am sick and tired of the news media jumping on every tragedy to try to take away more of the citizens rights. No amount of laws would have saved this fine officer.I knew him personally and at one time I was his supervisor at the PD. I feel you are doing him a disservice by trying to take away one of the the rights that he so proudly upheld in enforcing the constitution of the U.S. Your rights to a free press maybe next if you don't take care. - sick and tired

I noticed that there is no name associated with this article, so we must assume that this is the official stance of the Journal? As a local deputy, I would like to point out that it is already illegal to carry a firearm into a place that serves alcohol. More gun control laws do nothing but make more people criminals, and by definition, criminals break the law. Sorry, gun control laws do not control guns, they only serve to make more people criminals. - Disappointed Deputy

"We're all for the Second Amendment, especially as it pertains to sporting arms, whether for uses such as target practice or hunting." And I'm all for the 1st Ammendment, especially where it pertains to writing about sports and entertainment. Now, writing unapproved articles about politics or editorials, I think there should be some restrictions on what you can say to the masses, or at least some government oversight. - sss

Ahhhh, I feel so much better now. We're finding our voices, and using them.

I can't help but wonder what the Journal's editorial board is thinking about the feedback policy.

(There's also a link on the page directly to Technorati so you can see who else is commenting on it. Nobody's shown at this time, but I wonder if Technorati will pick up this piece?)