Banning guns won't solve our problems

The emotional ranting of Kathleen Peterson in her MY TURN column probably served as a release for her. I am glad she was able to unload her deeply held feelings. Now she can pack up and head for California where she can vote for Senator Feinstein and support her gun denial efforts.

Last week, in my kitchen were five adults, all with concealed weapons permits. All were veterans. Three of the five were "gun nuts" - that is, they enjoyed target shooting and did so quite often. All were well aware of the responsibility of gun ownership and the special duties that come with carrying a weapon. Some of those concealed weapons permit owners choose not to carry because a gun is heavy and must always be secured.

I can identify with Kathleen's terror when she found herself staring down the business end of a weapon. I cannot identify with her belief that bad people will simply go away if we outlaw guns. I was in Washington, D.C., assigned to the Deep Sea School of Diving and Salvage, when a young man stood in front of my car and pointed a pistol that must have had a barrel six feet long and a foot wide. He smiled, put the gun away and walked away. I had just completed a year's combat tour on river patrol boats in the jungles of Vietnam.

My position then and my position now is that evil exists and that it must be fought. It can't be fought by the police alone. The police are more of a reporting agency than a criminal prevention force. They are overwhelmed with their duties.

The school shooting sickened every right thinking American. But, saying that gun ownership is the cause of that shooting is like saying my spoon made me fat. Take away guns and the evil forces will, one: still have guns, two: resort to other types of violence such as throwing acid in your face or using Molotov cocktails in crowded venues. What will we do then? Will we outlaw car batteries and gasoline?

When the facts are considered, school shootings are almost a non-happening and are at their lowest level ever. Considering that there are many schools in areas of tornados a thought occurs that schools might build safe rooms in each class that can be used for shelter and a place of refuge in a lock down situation. Or if a gunman knew that there could be armed adults in the school he would have second thoughts.

When you go to bed at night in Idaho, why do you think there are so few break-ins? Could it be that the number of locals with weapons causes the criminal element to re-think their behavior?

Unlike Kathleen, when evil rears its ugly head, my first thought is not to want to run away but to confront it. I would rather die fighting than die helpless.

Finally, consider this: There are millions upon millions of guns in private hands and yet only a tiny .000001 percent* are ever used in a criminal act. (*That's a literal number)

There is a method made available to the citizens of this country to remove the right to own firearms. It is the amendment process as outlined in the Constitution of the United States. This process has been used 17 times resulting in 27 amendments.

Opponents of firearms would be more honest to support a Constitutional Amendment which would result in a national discourse. It is my belief that such an action would result in a new amendment that would solidify gun ownership and that is why the liberals and gun opponents would rather try to make law through activist judges who believe the Constitution is a "dead" document.

Robert B. Hunt is a Post Falls resident.