The title of the piece - “The Latest Gun Killings” - is a dead give-away to the person’s lack of intelligence concerning guns and crime, including killing. No doubt it was selected to give the impression that guns kill.

Regardless of what anti-gun idiots state, guns do not kill. Make that - GUNS DO NOT KILL! I defy any one of them to find one example of a gun going out on its own, finding a suitable victim or victims, and then fire itself one or more times.

Maybe this is a stupid example to most people but it actually isn't any more stupid than statements such as "Guns Kill". People carry the guns out and, those with criminal intent use them against other people creating victims of crimes. Those who do NOT have criminal intent carry them concealed (in 43 states, I believe) and do not use them against other people except when attack is imminent by one or more of those in the first category.

Then there are those in the states which do not have concealed carry permits, such as my state (regrettably), in which the populace can only keep our firearms loaded and ready in the home. However, situations demanding extreme preventative measures of self-protection often do not occur at home.

Read this first paragraph of the editorial:

“Two outbreaks of gun violence just before the Memorial Day weekend -- the brutal massacre that left five dead at a Wendy’s fast-food restaurant in Flushing, Queens, and the killing of a middle school teacher apparently by a 13-year-old student in a classroom in Lake Worth, Fla. -- showed once again the high price America pays for having too many guns that are too easily available.”

Darn, what a statement by a block head. If I recall correctly, two armed men entered the restaurant, tied up the five people, and then executed them. It is a terrible tragedy but it is not the availability of firearms that caused it. IT WAS THE TWO MEN! Odds are they were criminals (had previous criminal records) before the murderous assault.

Similar murders have occurred with knives at least in the sense of multiple murders on one locale. And rope. And axes. And thin wire. And hammers or other tools or objects that can be used to bludgeon people to death, including bricks tied into shirt sleeves and the like.

But, had it been that at least one of the victims had been armed, it is possible the two killers might have been killed instead. Or, if the two had known the employees were armed, the incident might not have occurred at all. Being armed is, and will always be, the best deterrent against aggression. ISN'T THAT WHY TRILLIONS HAVE BEEN SPENT ON PASSIVE DEFENSE BY THIS NATION?

In addition, it might have been similar to a case which occurred a few years ago in Anniston, Alabama, in which a customer who was a possible victim was armed and shot two would-be robbers. Not one customer or employee was hurt.

Or, it might have like shopkeeper Eugene Clifford who shot three thugs who threw his wife to the floor at gunpoint and then tried to rob his store. Clifford shot one of the intruders and wounded the other two. Neither he or his wife was injured.

Or, a couple of months ago, a would-be mugger was shot and wounded by the intended victim who had a legally concealed weapon. As a matter of fact, since Kentucky passed its concealed carry law three years ago, there is not one case of any permit carrier person having committed a crime with his firearm. Get that - NOT ONE CASE.

I know hundreds of people who own and keep loaded firearms. But, as in Kentucky, not one of them has used any of their firearms in a criminal manner. I fully expect that half the people in my town own firearms but those who are not criminals aren’t out using the weapons to create mayhem. Rather, I suspect it helps protect all from in-home invasions and other criminal activities.

As for the 13 year-old killing a teacher - If the teacher had been armed, as was Joel Myrick, assistant principle of the Pearl, Mississippi, school, it is quite possible he would not be dead. You see, Mr. Myrick used his weapon to stop a potential massacre by holding a student at gunpoint who had just shot two of his classmates.

The fact is that weapons in this nation are used five times more often to stop crimes than to commit crimes. In all 43 states in which concealed carry is permitted, crime did not rise.

Instead, it decreased. It has been estimated that every permit issued saves the people who pay taxes $5,000 per permit in the fight against crime. Remember the editorial stating the “high price America pays for having too many guns that are too easily available.”? What if every adult in every household were required to keep a loaded weapon? Do the math based on the potential permits in your state. (I.e., Kentucky had issued around 54,000 permits. 54,000 times $5,000 per permit indicates a savings of $270,000,000.)

Dozens of women have not prevented themselves from being raped and possibly killed by having loaded handguns at the ready. What better deterrent? What, is a rapist going to stop and wait patiently while his intended victim calls 911 and for the police to arrive? Get real.

Untold numbers of kids’ lives have been saved because of people carrying firearms and stopping mass murderers. In the case of every slaughter being pasted all over the front pages and editorial pages, the slaughters went on because no one was armed except those mentally deranged people doing the shooting.

Easily obtained firearms have nothing to do with it. The mental state of those who choose or are driven by mental instability to kill wantonly has everything to do with it. Funny the idiot writing the editorial forgot about the bombs that had been planted in the Littleton case(which luckily did not go off). The point is - remove the handguns and it increases the probability of the use of bombs which can be far more devastating than a firearm. Remember the Oklahoma bombing? The New York Trade Building?

A fact anti-gun people forget - or ignore - is the deterrent effect of an armed citizenry. In Switzerland, every adult male must serve duty in the armed forces and keep their automatic weapons and ammunition at home. In spite of all the weaponry in the hands of citizens (including kids who can get at them), Switzerland has one of the lowest armed crime levels in the world.

And then there is Australia where handguns were confiscated. In Victoria (State of Victoria figures), murders went up 300 percent in the first 12 months following the confiscation of over 640,000 weapons. Armed robbery went up 44 percent. Gun control was blamed.

In this country, “Guns are used defensively as often as 2.5 million times a year and, in 98 percent of those cases, merely brandishing the weapon stops the attack.” (Quote from NewsMax.com)

I want you to think for a minute (this is directed at pro-gun control people). If you were alone in your home and wakened by a masked (or unmasked) stranger, would you rather have a gun or a telephone?

If you were walking down a dark street or across a parking lot late at night and approached by a person/s carrying a knife or gun and brandishing the weapon at you, would you rather be able to attempt to defend yourself with a firearm or just allow them to do with you as they wanted? Ask the same of the many women who have now defended themselves against rape and possible death with a firearm.

If you were in a restaurant that was suddenly entered by a person/s with firearms who began indiscriminately shooting innocent people, would you rather be able to defend yourself or just let them shoot you to death?

What if you were the 68-year-old Darlington, Missouri, man who was beaten to death April 28, 2000? He and his companions were brutally beaten but he was the only one of the three who died. The attackers were two ‘animals’ that loomed over the rather large deputy escorting them to jail. Blood spilled from the victims over a large area which was still apparent the next day. The old man, Bill Kelso, died in a pool of his own blood.

If this had been you or one of yours, wouldn’t you really have rather they had been able to defend themselves? Speaking for Mr. Kelso, I am sure he wished he had a gun with him when the attack became imminent. But, regrettably, Missouri does not have a concealed weapon permit law. Many, as I used to, carry hidden weapons when traveling. Unlucky for Mr. Kelso, he was law-abiding.

When editorials are published devoid of facts, they are intended to deceive people. Facts are foreign to theae and they rely only on their misguided, inaccurate, misplaced emotional thinking. I am, of course, using the term “thinking” quite loosely.

Not only do such people ignore the millions of cases of individuals defending themselves, they also ignore the evidence of firearms as a crime deterrent here and elsewhere in the world. As a deterrent, just in case any reader thinks Switzerland’s low crime rate is a fluke or not related to the presence of firearms in homes, the best example in this country is Kennesaw, Georgia.

What makes Kennesaw unique is that it requires - that is, REQUIRES - the heads of nearly every household to keep at least one firearm in their homes. According to pro-gun-control activists, crime and weapon use in killing and everyday mayhem should abound.

Wrong again, just as they are in every statement made against law-abiding citizens carrying firearms and the relationship between crazed people using firearms to commit murders and the availability of weapons.

For you who want facts, Kennesaw’s ordinance took effect in 1982. Crime against persons plummeted by 74 percent the first year. Then, fell another 43 percent the next year. To date, its crime rate stays extremely low, so low it is hardly measurable.

Why didn’t the writer of the editorial use this and the thousands of other cases and the clear evidence firearms are the best deterrent against crime? The right to keep and bear arms, especially handguns, is better than the police forces (Kennesaw had a police force), outdoes the successes of 911 so far that 911 as a crime deterrent is almost insignificant in comparison, and serves to protect even those who have never owned a firearm. The evidence is quite clear on these points.

So why didn’t the writer use the facts? Well, one can only conclude he or she hasn’t any idea of what is really happening. He or she must be blind to logical reasoning and correct interpretation of data. Guess that makes the person a stranger to rational thinking.

And, to think, a major publication printed his or her garbage. Doesn’t say much for the New York Times either, does it?