Self-defense doesn’t require semi-automatic guns


Regarding Dan Drumheller’s recent letter on beating the Second Amendment into the ground. Let me beat it further.

I admire Dan. He plays piano. I don’t, and it makes me jealous. I worked at the same grain elevator during the 1970s.

One thing I have never had to worry about living in Walla Walla is escaped inmates. The last place they want to hang around is the Walla Walla Valley. And Harvey Shaw Road is off the beaten tracks.

Then Dan mentions the Koreans defending themselves during the Los Angeles riot after the Rodney King verdict.

Did you know guns are outlawed in South Korea? The most powerful weapon you can get there is a pellet gun with plastic pellets. No one in South Korea worries about guns because no one has any.

Why did the South Koreans have guns in LA? Because we have a proliferation of guns here.

I have no problem with hunting rifles, handguns (as long as the owner knows how to use them and has practiced at a firing range) and shotguns. Do we really need semi-automatic guns with 20-round magazines? Isn’t that overkill in self-defense?

Jeff Honeycutt

Walla Walla



ImJustSayin says...

Many rifles are "semi-automatic". Many handguns are "semi-automatic". Many shotguns are "semi-automatic". Care to clarify which guns you are talking about?

Posted 11 May 2013, 11:50 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

Handguns are OK but semi-automatic handguns are not? So only revolvers are acceptable for self-defense? Why? A revolver fires just as quickly as a semi-auto pistol.

You clearly know nothing about guns. Yet you believe you know enough to tell far more knowledgeable and experienced people what they need and don't need for self-defense.

Where does such arrogance come from, I wonder? When I know absolutely nothing about a subject, I either keep my mouth shut, study up on it, or express tentative opinions and invite correction. As an educator, you should know to do the same.

And not having a gun didn't stop a South Korean mass-murderer in 2003 who killed 198 people and injured another 180 or so. All that murderer needed was a couple of milk-cartons of gasoline, a lighter and a crowded subway.

Posted 11 May 2013, 2:10 p.m. Suggest removal

sal says...

yea but a revolver only has 5 or 6 rounds not 20- 30 -50 so maybe you should do some research

Posted 11 May 2013, 9:46 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

Sal, I'd guess that 95% of semi-automatic handguns have between 7 and 17 rounds, and practically no semi-automatic handguns have 20 or more rounds. The three semi-auto handguns I have carry 7, 10 and 17 rounds. A magazine much bigger than 17 would make concealed carry difficult and handling awkward, so few people would want them.

But apparently you ARE saying that only revolvers should be allowed, because you can't be bothered to learn what "semi-automatic" means. You obviously have it confused with "automatic", so you propose to ban every non-revolver handgun in the country because you can't be bothered to go to Cabela's or some other gun shop and actually LOOK at what you're talking about. And, by the way, the Gatling gun is basically a revolver with an add-on reloading mechanism - a revolver that carries hundreds of rounds and can fire them at the rate of 200 per minute.

There are some rational grounds for arguing for greater gun control. I don't agree with them, but I respect their proponents.

But seemingly the vast majority of gun control advocates, including you, are proud of their ignorance about guns and refuse to be educated even about the basic definitions of what they propose to control.

All you need to know about whether a gun control proponent is either ignorant or deceptively hoping to mislead the ignorant, is whether they use the term "semi-automatic" like it was a dirty word.

Posted 12 May 2013, 7:51 a.m. Suggest removal

pdywgn says...

Not that it is anybody's business how many rounds my guns hold, but the greater question would be How does he know in advance the amount of rounds you are going to need for an evolving self-defense situation?

Posted 11 May 2013, 10:32 p.m. Suggest removal

barracuda says...

In the 60's when I was a kid, I was always around a friend who's Dad was a Police Officer. He carried/used a big polished chrome Smith and Wesson .357 revolver as his service weapon. Along with this weapon, on his belt were speed loaders containing more rounds of ammo. There were 2 sets of them all ready to go in a seperate leather case.
As part of his department qualification with this weapon, And along with markmanship, he had to be skilled in the art of "speed re-loading" his revolver, thus becoming extreamly fast and accurate in art of fireing rounds into a small target and then re-loading. Along with the 18 rounds on him, he carried more inside his car(s).
Look on You-tube to watch these type quick draw artist's, they are very entertaining to watch.

I have two points I want make....

1st) Revolvers in a skilled and practiced set of hands can carry out almost as much prolonged carnage as a magazine/clip style pistol, and can use unlimited amounts of rounds. Also, a revolver in another persons hands, who is also practiced can stop these thugs from dueing prolonged violence.

2nd) Anyone want to tell us how we are going to retrieve the many thousands of these purposed illegal style of guns all ready out there? The bad guys are not going to just hand these into the athorities jst because the laws mandate it when their gang rivals keep theirs...

Posted 12 May 2013, 10:21 a.m. Suggest removal

lgbfishing says...

All I have to say is why don't we chip away at the 1st amendment and see how people complain, I have an idea don't screw with my gun rights and I wont advocate messing with your 1st amendment right to complain about my guns. Sal.

Posted 14 May 2013, 7:46 p.m. Suggest removal

Cowboy01 says...

Jeff Honeycutt,

I want to thank you for sounding like a complete idiot!!!!

Posted 15 May 2013, 2:09 p.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment