By Chad D. Baus

If ever there was a headline that made me do a double-take, it was a recent Associated Press article entitled "Mass shootings more common since 1960s".

The thesis of the article, written in the days following Seung-Hui Cho's sick massacre of his fellow college students, is to ask "What is it about modern-day America that provokes such random violence?" AP reporter Matt Crenson gets quickly to the point, inciting more than a few tragic memories by invoking the words "Luby's. Jonesboro. Columbine. And now, Virginia Tech."

From the story:

Since Aug. 1, 1966, when Charles Whitman climbed a 27-story tower on the University of Texas campus and started picking people off, at least 100 Americans have gone on shooting sprees.

And all through those years, the same questions have been asked: What is it about modern-day America that provokes such random violence? Is it the decline of traditional morals? The depiction of violence in entertainment? The ready availability of lethal firepower?

While it is certainly true that those who would prefer we have no firearms have attempted to (and in some cases succeeded in) exploit these mass murders to question the "ready availability" of firearms, one of the first things that comes to my mind when someone mentions the Sixties is the Gun Control Act of 1968. As Crenson looks back to that decade and compares it to modern America, it becomes clear there is another potential explanation for such instances of random violence - the drastic increase in gun control laws.

It wasn't quite at the level of Toledo Blade editorial board member Dan Simpson's tirade against the Constitution, but an April 30 editorial by Springfield (OH) News Sun editorial page editor Tom Hawkins entitled "More guns not the answer to violence" got pretty close.

I don't want to take away your deer rifle, your shotgun or even your .357, but I do want to take away a silly argument the far-right gun lobby has begun broadcasting after every nasty episode of firearm mayhem that comes along.

Their argument: If only someone in the crowd had been packing heat, they could have stopped the mad gunman. Or, because such gunmen often have a deeply logical streak, even deterred him from attempting a deadly rampage knowing a brave, armed citizen might be in the crowd.

Shooting a gun at a target or hunting game are legal activities. Have a good time. But when gun ownership slides into the fantasy world of saving the day in a heroic eruption of gunplay, stay away from me. I don't want your help.

Sounds strikingly familiar to the attitude we might have heard from State Rep. Michael DeBose before his self-defense conversion experience (brought about by being attacked by an armed criminal).

We typically enjoy responding to these types of editorials, but in this case, a Springfield News Sun reader beat us to the punch. No use reinventing the wheel, especially not when James R. Stouffer, an NRA-certified training counselor, pistol instructor, personal protection instructor, chief range safety officer and Refuse To Be A Victim instructor has done such a magnificent job!

Click 'Read More' for Mr. Stouffer's letter to the editor.

Buckeye Firearm Association's web site is seeing an amazing growth in visitors and new articles are being posted several times a week.

This week's "Friday Flashback" is....

The gun vote still matters

By Jim Irvine

In the 2000 Presidential race, a pro-gun George Bush defeated an anti-gun Al Gore. President Bill Clinton commented that the NRA cost Gore the Presidency. Gore’s insistence that law abiding citizens should be denied their God-given right to self-defense or to own good firearms for hunting, collecting or competition did not make sense to millions of Americans that understand that guns are tools used for good far more often that evil.

A few Ohio candidates seemed to have missed that important lesson. It is clear that the gun vote turned several key races, including two prominent statewide races.