Mr. Plate: I am writing this in response to your commentary "Let's lay down our right to bear arms" as published on the CNN website at the following URL: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/commentary.plate/index.html I would first like to address this section of your article, which engendered the strongest emotional response in me: "...the newspaper had received more angry letters and fiery faxes from the well-armed U.S. gun lobby ... But the paper, by the way, also received more supportive letters ... The common sense of ordinary citizens ..." It is very offensive of you and others to lump all of the commentary in support of firearms rights under the banner of coming from "the Gun Lobby", as if those words should be simply dismissed without consideration because of their imagined source. All of my opinions and writings about firearms rights, whether sent to newspapers, blogs, my elected representatives or in personal correspondence, are my own views expressed in my own words, arrived at as the inescapable conclusions of my moral and ethical values after logical and rational reasoning. I don't need someone else to tell me what to think and say on this issue, and your dismissal of my words and the similar words of other individuals as being directed by "the Gun Lobby" is disrespectful and dishonest. Are *your* views and commentary the product of the Anti-Gun Lobby, the Brady Bunch, or any other derogatory boogey-man name I can come up with? Supporters of firearms rights are just as much "ordinary citizens" as those who oppose firearms rights, and we have just as much "common sense". In fact, I would argue supporters of firearms rights possess a greater degree of common sense than many if not most of the opponents of firearms rights, as we don't believe that utopia will magically be achieved if we can just ban all those evil guns, and we don't believe we are somehow immune from becoming victims of violent crime because we're nice, cheerful, responsible people. As a professor of communications, I expect you know exactly the rhetorical tactic you are using here, and it's being used intentionally. Please, show a little more respect. On to the rest of your article... I wonder why you expend so much column space dismissing the the ethnicity of the killer, a truly irrelevant factor in this tragedy. The author doth protest too much, methinks. You say: "'Guns don't kill people,' goes the gun lobby's absurd mantra." In what way is it absurd? When, outside of a tragic accident, has a firearm killed someone *without* a human being pointing it and pulling the trigger? And the basic truth behind this saying was recognized a thousand years before the first guns were invented: "...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.] -- (Lucius Annaeus) Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BC-65 AD) You say: "Foreigners sometimes believe that celebrities in America are more often the targets of gun violence than the rest of us. Not true. Celebrity shootings just make better news stories, so perhaps they seem common." This is an unfortunate truth. The mainstream media focuses on and incessantly rehashes big, splashy acts of violence by criminals and the insane while resolutely ignoring the hundreds of thousands of times every year that an armed citizen successfully defends themselves, their family or their business against a criminal act. Sadly, the latter just isn't sexy enough to sell air time. Thus many people, both here and abroad, get an unbalanced and inaccurate view of the value of firearms rights. And many internalize that view. What do you as a professor of communications have to say about this disparity and obvious bias in reporting? You said: "Last month, I was robbed at 10 in the evening in the alley behind my home. As I was carrying groceries inside, a man with a gun approached me where my car was parked. The gun he carried featured one of those red-dot laser beams, which he pointed right at my head. Because I'm anything but a James Bond type, I quickly complied with all of his requests. Perhaps because of my rapid response (it is called surrender), he chose not to shoot me; but he just as easily could have. What was to stop him?" I could make a snarky comment like "Certainly not you - you've chosen to be a helpless victim!" but I won't. Surprise is a powerful tactic, and even someone who is armed and willing to defend themselves can be trapped in an untenable position if taken by surprise. One of the first things that anyone who wishes to be other than a helpless victim must learn is to be aware of their surroundings at all times. It is far preferable to be aware of *and avoid* a risky situation than to find yourself trapped through inattentiveness. You continue: "This occurred in Beverly Hills, a low-crime area dotted with upscale boutiques, restaurants and businesses -- a city best known perhaps for its glamour and celebrity sightings." This just goes to show you that no neighborhood, no person, is immune to violent crime, and that "it won't happen here" is an utterly irresponsible worldview. Did you think you were somehow immune from being mugged because you live in an upscale neighborhood? Did you let your guard down because you were in a "safe place"? "A near-death experience does focus the mind. We need to get rid of our guns." "Our guns"? You have already made it clear you don't and won't arm yourself in your own defense. Please do not think you have any right to make that decision on my behalf for me. I choose not to be a helpless victim, and I have accepted the responsibility for the consequences of that decision. Have the honesty and maturity to accept the consequences of *your* decision to be a helpless victim, rather then trying to blame someone else or, yet worse, to blame an inanimate object. -- John Hardin Snohomish, Washington 04/21/2007