Paul T. Underiner – 1/6/13

This page was last updated on January 8, 2012.

NRA did itself disservice; Paul T. Underiner; Beaver County Times; January 6, 2012.

Previous Underiner letters I critiqued were “Knight comments unwelcome” and “Specter is a poster child for term limits.” A letter from Mr. Underiner I didn’t critique was “Health care bills do not address issues” (12/6/09).

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“Given the chance to lead a meaningful national dialogue on the pros and cons of legislating new gun control law, the NRA really blew it when the executive vice president blamed the recent gun attacks on the media and violent video games.

“Arming all schools with guns to provide an increased security presence is apparently their solution. While there may be some element of truth in the negative effect these video games have on youthful actions, there can be no doubt as to the effect a gun capable of shooting upward of 30 rounds in a second or two has in promoting violence.”

[RWC] Mr. Underiner appears to downplay the idea guns in “the media and violent video games” is an issue. If that position is correct (I don’t know if it is or not.), why is it illegal to advertise tobacco products on radio/TV and why can’t tobacco companies sponsor NASCAR teams? Why are there rules about tobacco product placement in movies and TV shows? Why did the hard-liquor industry and broadcasters have a voluntary ban on liquor ads for more than 50 years?

How does the mere existence of “a gun capable of shooting upward of 30 rounds in a second or two … promot[e] violence?” Does the existence of alcoholic beverages promote drunkenness and drunk-driving?

“I do not own a gun and have no problem with others who own small handguns or hunting weapons. But no one can convince me that assault rifles and other weapons capable of such mass destruction have any place in an ordinary citizen’s household.”

[RWC] Congrats, Mr. Underiner. You just told would-be thieves they don’t need to be worried about armed resistance should they decide to rob your family. If someone doesn’t want to own a firearm, that’s fine. Broadcasting your firearm-ownership status is not smart.

This is a good place to point out the idiocy of anti-gun media outlets who think it’s a good idea to publish the names and addresses of legal gun owners. The latest example is The Journal News, which published a list of LEGAL pistol owners in Rockland and Westchester counties just north of New York City. It’s a good example of not thinking, or not caring. First, such a list gives criminals potential targets for gun theft, meaning a legal, registered firearm becomes an unregistered, illegal firearm in the possession of a criminal. Second, I suspect law enforcement officers try to keep their addresses private to make it harder for criminals to learn where they live. Third, publishing the list provides criminals with a list of unarmed households. Fourth, will potential legal gun owners now consider buying illegal firearms to avoid having their addresses made public?

“Ownership of these weapons should be for military and law enforcement personnel only. The NRA did a real disservice to all Americans who believe revision to the present gun control laws is a high priority.”

[RWC] I’m sure dictators would agree with Mr. Underiner. As a reminder, the Second Amendment is NOT primarily about hunting, personal self-defense, et cetera. The Second Amendment is about “We the People” being able to defend ourselves from our government should the need arise. You can find more about this in the aforementioned critique of “Time for talking is over, gun control now.”