Here we go again: a blatant front-page article regarding “panelists” discussing the
effects of “gun violence” (“Panelists discuss effects of gun violence,” Jan. 11).
Victim Bernie Frank admitted it was her ex-husband who shot her. I sympathize with her because it’s a terrible experience to be intentionally injured by anyone, but was the gun violent or the ex-husband? Did the gun decide to jump out of its box and target her because it disliked her? Put the blame where it belongs. It’s people who are violent, not inanimate objects.
Her ex could have used (as many violent people do) any number of items to injure or kill, such as a knife, club, car, poison, explosives, etc. But whenever a gun is used in a crime, the socialist press gives it the most publicity. In that article, the term “gun violence” was used 12 times. This overkill tactic is used constantly to drill into the hopelessly impressionable that an inanimate gun actually can somehow decide to be violent in and of its own accord. You never see that in any other crime-related news articles where other weapons were used. One would suspect that the socialists are trying to ban all guns.
Studies have shown that violence is alcohol-related, so why aren’t these vociferous, attention-seeking groups rallying against alcohol?
I can’t overemphasize: inanimate objects don’t have the propensity to be violent. If it weren’t for violent, evil people, we wouldn’t need guns or any other weapons.
Lan NowotnyCedar Rapids