News Summary

The basic premise in the Jan. 12 editorial "Gun control needs to be packaged well" is wrong. The problem with the anti-gun side isn't packaging; the problem is the product. You can put lipstick and a dress on a pig and, at the end of the day, you still have, well, just a pig.

Gun control is a political loser, and those opposed to individual rights know it is a losing battle if framed that way. Using horrific events like the Virginia Tech massacre to promote that agenda is morally repugnant. It truly is "dancing in the blood of innocents."

Virginia's Gov. Tim Kaine, no friend of gun rights, condemned this tactic, saying it was loathsome that anyone would "want to take this within 24 hours of the event and make this their political hobby horse ... to those that want to try to make (the Virginia Tech shooting) into some little crusade, I say take that elsewhere."

Likewise calling for the labeling of gun-control efforts as "law enforcement" measures instead of calling a pig a pig is advocating deliberate deception in order to advance one's own social agenda. Abusing statistics, deliberate deception and appealing to emotion rather than logic are all frequently used tactics of the anti-gun crowd.

The facts don't support their conclusions. An oft quoted "fact" is that "50 to 75 percent of vendors at gun shows are unlicensed." Which is true, but only because those 50 to 75 percent of vendors aren't selling guns — they are selling hot dogs, books and firearm-related items such as holsters.

Another abused "fact" is about closing the "gun show" loophole, which is really the "private sales" loophole. Imagine a law that criminally prohibits selling your car to your neighbor, instead requiring you to go to the nearest licensed car dealer to complete this transaction. Nevermind the fact that Ohio law already criminally punishes a private individual for providing a firearm to someone who is not eligible to buy a firearm from a dealer.

The gun show "loophole" is simply an incremental step on the way to slowing sales and production of firearms, setting the stage for banning private sales and, ultimately, outlawing the purchase, possession and use of firearms by any law-abiding citizen.

While it is amusing to make fun of Ted Nugent's statements, doesn't an editorial serve greater purpose by addressing the merits of his argument? Why do shootings keep happening in "gun free" zones? Why do we never hear about mass shootings perpetrated at police stations, gun shops and ranges or the annual National Rifle Association convention? All of these locations have higher concentrations of firearms lawfully carried by individuals than other public places.

Even criminals know it is better to be the only one with a gun. Sadly, even the common sense possessed by your average criminal is lacking in both the anti-gun position and the DDN editorial.

Jeff Riley of Cincinnati is a volunteer for the Buckeye Firearms Association.