Cloudy
30°
Cloudy
Hi 37° | Lo 31°

Letter: Hoell is wrong; we need sensible gun laws

Re “Restrictions on gun rights are unconstitutional” (State Rep. JR Hoell, Monitor Forum, March 20):

Rep. JR Hoell is one of the most despicable characters I have encountered in print in a long time. He wants no rules on guns and says that if we restrict guns in any way it would harm gun sellers. Wouldn’t that be a disaster? Can you imagine a guy walking into a gun shop after a fight with his wife being restricted in any way? Why, a background check or a waiting period would damage that seller’s income. Who cares about lives when profit is on the line?

I’m a grandfather of four young children, and the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre made me sick. What do you think the parents and grandparents of those children think about everyone carrying guns without rules?

There have been about 1,280 gun deaths in the United States since Sandy Hook. Among the top 23 developed countries, the United States has 80 percent of all deaths by guns; 86 percent of all women killed with guns are in the United States and 87 percent of all children killed with guns are in the United States. A few years ago people got fed up with all the deaths by drunk drivers, and we now have sensible laws that have saved countless lives. And, I might add, bars have not gone out of business.

Sensible laws on guns are badly needed. What we don’t need are fools like Hoell (who I am sure is being pushed by the gun lobby) trying to turn us into a society where it’s every man for himself and the guy with the biggest and most guns makes all the rules.

GARY A. EVANS

Weare

Legacy Comments16

Mr. Evans, I am a Grandfather and yes the tragedy at Sandy Hook was heart breaking, that being said more laws would not have prevented what happened that day....Conn. allready had an Assault Weapons ban, so the mother broke the law. Her son had mental issues so she buys guns and teaches him how to shoot because the violent video games he was playing was not enough of a rush for him.....BRILLIANT !!.......If gun control worked Chicago would be the safest place to live.......We need to enforce the laws we have, give criminals longer priso sentences and give the people the help they need.............I bought another gun last week and I waited 2 hrs. for the check to go through, what more do you want.......and I don't mind waiting

The Koch's spend a fraction of their ongoing Reagan and Bush tax cuts funneling money to all sorts of groups, including the NRA, to push all the right winger's hot buttons. I don't think the Kochs really care about how many people are killed by previously banned weapons. And I don't think the Kochs really care that their tax cuts are bankrupting America. So what I do think the Kochs really care about is garnering votes for any GOP candidate who will fight for protecting or increasing huge ongoing tax cuts for billionaires.

The tragedies we not committed by NRA members. In addition, the NRA came up with the idea if the instant background check system.

So why is the NRA opposed to background checks on all gun sales? Who's paying Lappierre's $1.2 million salary? - mostly gun manufacturers?

I have to admit that the use of the word despicable was unfortunate in an otherwise sound argument. As for Mr. Hoell, unfortunately his only downside is an inability to look at both sides of an argument and make an informed descission. He denounces the trampling on constitutional rights when it comes to guns but when it comes to the unconstitutional use of taxpayer money for religious schools (HB370, I believe), that is different in some way. Explain that.. Why people feel the need for large magazines on their high powered 22's (AR-15's) is a mystery, either a lousy shot or ....... One problem that is prevalent is the misguided belief about the romantic Old West, those were movies folks. There is a reason they went the way of the dinosaur, civilization. We are not talking about shootings by criminals, they didn't become criminals until after the fact. We need to keep people safe from these unstable fringe elements. Short of an outright ban, a good background check is painless and doesn't trample anyone's rights. Along with all rights come responsibilities, it is a two way street. And Van, did I read that right - you criticizing personal attacks, hey that's a good one.

“Assault Weapons” and “Large” Magazines—Congress allowed the federal “assault weapon” and “large” magazine ban of 1994-2004 to expire because a study of the ban concluded that “the banned weapons and magazines were never used in more than a modest fraction of gun murders.” Studies by or for Congress, the Department of Justice, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found NO evidence that “gun control” reduces crime, suicides or accidents in the U.S. or abroad. More Guns, Less “Gun Control,” and Less Crime

Gary Evans refers to Representative Howell as despicable. I wonder how Mr. Evans would like to be referred to as, “despicable”? Even if you don’t agree with him Rep. Howell works very hard for virtually nothing, on behalf of his constituents and deserves respect for doing so. It’s no surprise that some people here disagree with me on Second Amendment issues. That said, my assumption is that even the folks who disagree with me are also well-meaning and well-intentioned people would like to see less violence in the world, just like me and just like representative Hoell. One of the techniques of advocacy, when there is no strength to their argument, to encourage his followers to de-humanize those who disagree. Sputter insults like disgruntled schoolyard children instead of taking apart a problem and offering logic, common sense, and evidence. This is referred to as an Ad Hom attack. To quote, “ ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument” and is considered the lowest form of debate. Is this how it starts? I once heard an anthropologist answer the question of how people, mostly good, can commit atrocities? She responded that ordinary citizens have to be convinced that some group are less than human, less worthy of safety, protection and civility that people all over the world, afford each other everyday. In short she said you have to dehumanize a group to get past the inborn inhibition and go to commit atrocities. The metaphor was once drawn that manners are to society as oil is to an engine. Oil keeps the engine running well and prevents overheating. Likewise, manners and civility prevent our society from burning up in its own heat. Manners and civility are not something that government passes down to us. It is something the citizens generate amongst themselves and pass on to their families, legislators and regulators. Let’s bring greater proportion of manners and civility to our discussions even when we passionately disag

A HUGE BRAVO! TCB. Nice to see some common sense, written with class and great thought. I have been dismayed by the name calling and using terms lightly. I just do not understand why folks do not address the topic. Instead they go after the person who disagrees with them with name calling and subject changing. When called on it, they deny. It started with this President unfortunately and to my surprise. I saw his election as one that would bring all people together, but he seems to be okay with dividing folks. Sad really.

Funny. Mr. Hoell Works for those who he thinks will agree with him. He told a educator who is a registered voter that he didn't want to hear their opinion on an education bill, because they were coming from the perspective of parent.

Lets be sensible. The world is going to hell in a hand basket. A poor economy is forcing otherwise good people to make bad decisions. People are getting desparate, and you want to limit my right and choice on how I want to protect myself and my family? If you want to choose not to own a firearm, fine. Don't tell me I can only carry a certain type of firearm, or that I can only carry, 3, 5, 7, or 8 rounds, or that they can only be of a certain metal composition, etc. It is this exact mentality that is causing our world to degenerate! What's next? Some Utopian view that requires everyone to remove emotion because it offends someone else? That everyone must take medications just in case they might have a mental illness? Hoell isn't despicable, he's being rational. Just as I am being rational in telling you to mind your own business. Keep the government out of our personal lives. We don't need our government restricting any further aspects of our lives! We don't need more taxes, we don't need less guns. if anything, given the volatile societal climate, guns will be needed more than ever! our society is in a state of decay- it is inevitable that we will need to fend for ourselves.

I guess Hoell thinks(?) guns have more value than the lives of children.

Unbelievable, how someone can callously use such a vicious word as despicable to describe someone who disagrees with them about the constitution. Representative Hoell is a good family man with a strong belief in God and Country. It is clearly political why a paper like the Monitor would publish such a personal attack.

Oh, the horror! Van, you should contemplate some of the things you've written about people with whom you disagree. Afterwards you have permission to climb back on your high horse.

Calling someone despicable? Calling an act despicable but not a person. Perhaps gracchus, you don't know the difference.

Despicable (Merriam Webster): "deserving to be despised." Or, courtesy of Oxford: "deserving hatred and contempt." It's not at all complimentary but hardly worth getting one's feathers ruffled. But when one's feathers point so emphatically in one direction (to the right) it apparently doesn't take very much to ruffle them. Seriously, Van, why don't you just admit the truth: you aren't bothered by "despicable" half as much as you are by its being directed at somebody you happen to agree with.

To Gracchus below: So Obama is despicable. You might ask why. Well, he is arrogant, "I, I, I" starts out every single speech. He made campaign promises and lied and now is pursuing a different path. But you don't see him as "despicable". What about his political use of just about every tragedy to receive gain for his legacy and ideology. 149 air traffic controllers are being cut and airfields closed down all while the Obama's take lavish vacations, promise $200,000,000 in aid to a Middle Eastern country and while a one night soriee in Paris for Joe Biden costs $600,000. You don't find all of that unprincipled. If you use the "diplomacy" argument, it seems to me that there are embassies and diplomats right here in Washington DC. A leader or leaders who fail to lead by example are "despicable", whether you agree with them or not.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.