Unfortunately, and I do mean that, my point about guns keeps being made.

We just lost a Seattle policeman, whose weapon did not “protect” him. At Fort Hood – an Army base, with of course, weapons – we lost several more people. In the Fort Hood situation, with so many personnel certified in weapons and a lot of available weapons, we still lost people. The gunnies will say, “but they didn’t have their weapons with them.”

My point exactly.

Of what use is a weapon to “protect” yourself if you don’t have it with you, pointed in all directions at once, locked and loaded? The point I’ve been making, over and over and over, is less guns equals less gun problems. I’ve even gotten into a flame war with a gunny who protested she lived in an area where lots of people own guns and there were bullet holes in her own home. She didn’t even recognize how stupid she sounded.

This is “protection?” (The flamer is a Democrat, as am I.)

My sincere condolences to the family of the Seattle policeman. I wish the “protection” argument had worked for their husband and father. I expect the gunnies will now step up and care for that family fiscally, until they no longer need that care, as the gunnies “protection” logic is at least partially responsible for that family’s loss. I realize some gunnies will come back, somewhat heated and excited, “my _____ had a situation where his gun protected him.” Yes, that will happen. Many times. But not even close to 40,000 gun deaths a year, as the figures I quoted some time ago noted. I know a few people who are gunnies and do know of two instances where a gun was helpful. I also had a classmate in high school who was killed by his uncle while hunting. I guess the figure for gun deaths this year will be 40,001.

Less guns equals less gun problems. Simple really.

Dan Scribner

Buckley