Letters to the editor – Sunday (3-8-09)
Firearms editorial missed
the mark by a long shot
Before a newspaper reprints an article on firearms issues, it would be a good idea to check the facts before regurgitating the liberal viewpoint of another paper. The March 4 editorial “Aiming for Trouble” was obviously written by someone who believes that firearms are bad and their elimination would make us all safer. The changed policy would now allow someone who holds a “concealed weapons permit” to also carry a concealed weapon in national parks. The assertion that these people will shoot wildlife, ancient rock drawings, their fellow campers and park rangers is ridiculous. The ruling only applies to those people who have taken the firearms training, paid the fees and had their backgrounds checked by local law enforcement and medical personnel. I would urge the editorial staff of the Salisbury Post to do some research on the number and percentage of concealed weapons holders who have used their weapons to commit a crime. Our local paper predicted a return to the gunfight days of the old west if the concealed weapons law was adopted in our state. This did not happen, but the viewpoint has not changed.
We know from the tragedy at Virginia Tech that firearms laws do not keep criminals from using a firearm.
If you want to know the truth about this issue, see Sheriff George Wilhelm to sign up for one of his classes on concealed-weapons training. Take the class and find out who is obtaining these permits so that you may live up to your motto of “The truth shall make you free.”
ó Joe D. Teeter
Remote areas can hold risks
Why does the Salisbury Post print an opinion article written by the Los Angeles Times regarding concealed weapons in national parks? People who live in large cities are hardly the ones we should turn to for expert opinions on firearm use in remote wilderness areas.
Though not an expert, I have spent time hiking in remote areas. You are alone. There are no police to protect you from the predators in the woods, so who will protect you?A small, rabid raccoon can create a huge problem for a hiker in a remote area; just imagine what a bear or mountain lion can do. Our national parks have some of the most beautiful scenery in America, and some of the most dangerous animals. Choosing to hike in a national park should not mean I have to be willing to be a snack for a wild animal.
Legally a person with a concealed-carry permit can carry a firearm in public as long as they follow the rules. I can carry a concealed pistol while walking down the street in Salisbury, but I can’t carry one while walking in a national park. Am I more dangerous in a park than in town? The truth is that the Times does not trust those who are willing to protect themselves and their neighbors. States allowing concealed-carry permits have a documented decrease in violent crime. Apparently, criminals prefer to prey on the helpless rather than taking the risk of being shot if they prey on those who are self-reliant.
The Salisbury Post either needs to move to a big city to fit in with the uninformed folks afraid of firearms, or it needs to stop printing their ignorant opinions. Most of Rowan County understands the value of firearm ownership. Why don’t you? ó Kirk Fessler