In response to Kent Bush's comments on gun control

To Kent Bush,

 I want to thank you again for your ability and willingness to print view contrary to your own.

The Wichita Eagle bangs the NRA at every opportunity: I sent them an article explaining the NRA through its history, much like the one you printed. They did not print it, and did not even afford the courtesy of written or telephonic communication, which was not surprise to me.

I expect this will come as a surprise. I agree with the third from last paragraph in which you posit, “Common sense says we can regulate gun ownership without infringing on a person’s right to own a gun to protect their family or hunt ducks and deer.”

I am convinced reasonable persons on both sides of this issue could sit down together in reasonable conference and work out a reasonable compromise solution to the problem of gun ownership in America. Though few, if any, have ever considered me reasonable, I would offer my services.

Many years ago, the NRA (the same organization responsible for our violent crime rate) went to the trouble to query numerous available resources, arriving at the conclusion there were at that time, an estimated (educated guess) 20,000 gun control laws in the United States. Since these laws were supposed to control and repress criminal activity, and we still have crime, these obviously failed.

First order of business for this discussion would be to read each of these laws and determine why they did not succeed in their intended purpose. With this knowledge at hand, it should then be a simple task to discard these and formulate a new gun control law that would work, right? Not likely! Laws directed at inanimate objects have no effect because these objects have no conscience, free will or mobility.

We will then be faced with a monumental task; determination of the cause of our escalating crime rate. Once determined, we should then be able to formulate an antidote with ease. I wouldn’t plan on that. Human nature always remains human nature. It can change, but it is spiritual in nature, and begins with a desire within the individual.

I don’t expect many will appreciate the discussion emanating from the realization control of inanimate objects is a failure; it will force us to look at ourselves and everybody’s ox will be gored.

A partial list of subjects will include Biblical law and history, for without this there is no conscience; organized religion; government, at all levels, that refuses to be bound by law; the U.S. Constitution; the Kansas Constitution; the public school systems; the institutions of “higher” (?) learning; lawyers and their ethics, or lack thereof; the judicial system; the penal system; law enforcement; capital punishment; the news media; our mental health system; U.S. history; world history; parenting; etc., etc., ad infinitum!

We have escalating criminal problems, at least in part, because we furnish a tolerant environment in which it can flourish. Virtually every tool we build can be used to kill or maim others. We create tools because they provide us power we don’t possess physically. Our criminal nature, for the Christian, begins with disobedience in the Garden of Eden. There is no record Adam and Eve had any tool - they did have a free will.

To continue to pound away at tools is to accept an inversion of the typical criminal mindset: “We didn’t intend for anyone to get hurt. All we wanted to do was rob those two banks, and if those people hadn’t interfered, nobody would have been hurt.” Read Emmett Dalton’s interview by a Coffeyville reporter. Emmett lived out his life as a lawful businessman after the penitentiary stay not because we changed his mindset, but because we extracted a price he wasn’t willing to pay again. He was still Emmett.

Charles Hanna