Will they print me?

In yesterday's AJC, the lead editorial was about the recent over-turning of a gun ban in Kennesaw city parks. Maureen Downey writes:

GeorgiaCarry.org is a pro-gun group with a dangerous agenda that would appall most Georgians: It wants gun owners to be able to strap on their pistols and bring them to church, to county commission meetings and to your child's Little League game. It wants bans lifted on guns at bars, political rallies or even at the annual Georgia-Georgia Tech showdown.

Its Web site does not mince words: "All we want is to be able to move freely about our society, welcomed by our community as armed men and women."

To that end, a GeorgiaCarry lawyer is threatening suit against communities that ban guns from parks for protection of the children who play there, including Kennesaw and Coweta County. GeorgiaCarry.org argues that only the state can regulate firearms and that any local ordinances outlawing guns in parks are illegal.

Kennesaw capitulated to the group's demand, rescinding this month its ordinance banning the carrying of firearms in parks. While the Cobb community vows to fight the issue in the Legislature, it would have been better off to have followed Coweta County's example and taken the dispute to court.

She goes on to cite two things in her pro-gun law piece - a 1999 FBI report on crimes involving guns and a case in South Atlanta (not quoted above, click on the link to read the full op-ed). I had already made my decision to submit some sort of rebuttal, but that AJC limits (or prefers that you limit) letters to the editor to less than 150 words. Therefore, I submitted the following (and have yet to see it printed - not holding my breath):

Concerning the recent editorial regarding Kennesaw's efforts to ban guns in their city parks, I offer these rebuttals.

The writer cites a case involving a gang shooting in a Clayton county park. Does the editorial board really think that gang members care whether or not they can have a gun at a park or anyplace else that firearms are prohibited? Only law abiding citizens will obey the law and thus disarm themselves.

The writer also cites a 1999 FBI report (killing in self-defense), but not all self-defense uses of a firearm end with the criminal dead. What about the case in Memphis in July of last year, when an armed citizen stopped a knife-wielding robber without ever firing a shot? Surely this case would count as a proper use of a firearm in self-defense, yet it would not be recorded or reported in the FBI's report because the perpetrator was not killed.

If something turns up in the weekend papers, I'll definitely add it.