I always find it interesting how a person can read something and misinterpret what the writer was trying to say.
And, so, this is a rebuttal to Jason Gibbs’ editorial in regard to one of my articles on March 3, whereas he completely missed the point I was making.
I will endeavour to shine some light on the points I was making, and perhaps Gibbs will see the light side of my editorial, and not the dark side.
First, in regard of gun control, I am not contradicting anything I said about gun control.
What I said, and the point I was making, is that all citizens have the right to bear arms, but the type of arms is debatable.
Things change and times change to where we have come to the point where, yes, we still have the right to bear arms, but, at this point in time, gun control is a matter-at-hand issue.
Polls all across the country have shown overwhelming public support for gun control legislation.
Control, not eliminating.
Gibbs states, “Additionally, if you are claiming the AR-15 is a weapon of war (as Dean does) why does law enforcement have them? Are the police at war with the public? Or are you propagating the belief that law enforcement should be equipped like the military, but those who would be in a militia (citizenry) should not.”
This is a silly analysis, and it is not what I said.
Many years ago, I was driving south on Laurel Canyon Boulevard in North Hollywood when I noticed two guys all in black firing AR-15’s and the police firing back with hand guns.
At first, I thought this was a movie being shot. It didn’t take me long to realize, when a bullet hit my car, that this was the real thing.
My point, if the police officers had the weaponry (AR-15) they needed to balance off the assailants AR-15 weapons the dozens of officers stuck for dear life behind police cars, and the officers hit laying in the street would have had a better defense. The fact is that they were out gunned by the citizenry.
Gibbs writes, “The second amendment (as cemente in the Heller decision) secured the right of a individual to keep and bear arms for self-defense, while making no mention of a waiting period or age restriction.” As I said above, things change and times change.
Gibbs continues with another analogy. “What about this very common situation, a single mom whose abusive ex-husband threatens her life? She goes to buy a firearm for self-defense but has to wait ten days?”
My comment to this is, the single mom has probably, like in most cases, been going through an abusive husband, current or past, for some time, she would, one would think, have done this way before it got out of hand and the ten days would be a good think-it-over period.
Gibbs is again missing the point when he writes, “Dean believes 18-year-olds are mature enough to vote to strip all 18 to 20 year olds of their rights, but they are not mature enough to own firearms.” When I said 18-year-olds should vote, I never said they are not mature enough to own firearms.
We are in times of unprecedented tension with gun control.
Even our young students all across the country can see this and are making their voices heard with their school walkouts.
There will always be individuals who will create tragedies with the use of all types of guns, and they will continue to be undetected.
But there needs to be a starting point. Once again I say to Gibbs and others, listen to the voices of our youth because, like others with tunnel vision, they see the light.
In Saturday’s Our View by The Signal’s Editorial Board, they are saying the same thing I said in my article, perhaps written better, but the same point.
In conclusion to the young people I say this. Do not let anyone discourage you. Continue to have your voice heard loud and clear, because you can make a difference.
Ken Dean is a resident of Santa Clarita.