I’m writing this in re- sponse to a Feb. 15 Our view titled “Killings example of gun control issues” published in the Daily Forty-Niner. You are absolutely right, in a sense. Killing innocent people is wrong. You say you are not suggesting we change the Second Amendment by “allowing police and military” to own weapons. If you will read the U.S. Code, the militia is defined as all able-bodied citizens (I believe it said men at one point) ages 17 to 43. Denying them the right to bear arms is changing the Second Amendment. Your views are too idealistic.
Guns do fall into the wrong hands, but that will happen no matter what the weapon is. The real issue is how to reduce the crime itself. By suggesting a weapons ban you are only helping the criminal succeed at his crime intended, with no fatal repercussions.
I have guns myself. If there were a sign on a mall that said weapons were prohibited, I would not carry them in the mall. But a man like Sulejmen Talovic has no regard for those rules. He shot many people in that mall. This could have all been prevented if good, law-abiding citizens were allowed more of their freedoms. Any upstanding citizen in that position, including myself, would act accordingly, and possibly save lives.
This editorial would essentially deny innocent victims the freedom to live, whether by self-defense or by the intervention of another upstanding citizen.
Normal people do not become killers by obtaining guns. In fact, I will even go as far as to say that everyone I know who owns guns is a very upstanding person. Guns do not make people violent or murderers. Guns afford people the means to protect themselves in an ever-evolving world of crime. Liberal or conservative, don’t get sucked into the notion that law-abiding citizens murder. If someone handed you a gun, would you become a murderer? I sure hope not, because if you would, you have far deeper issues than gun control. There is no cure or treatment for psychosis.
– Joseph Dunbar, Daytona Beach, Fla.
