Letter to the Editor

In response to the article “The right to keep and bear…,” I can certainly see your point, but other problems will arise from equipping everyone with guns. You mentioned that police were at both scenes of the Virginia Tech shootings and implied they did nothing. It is well-known that police officers are not to use lethal force if innocent civilians could be harmed. So is the vigilante justice of shooting the killer yourself superior? Who is to blame when the normal citizen with bare minimum gun training attempts to stop the psychopath and accidentally kills other citizens in the crossfire? You could argue that they would have been shot by the killer anyways, but that is highly uncertain. Also, in such a high stress situation with many armed citizens, someone not paying attention could mistake the vigilante for the original killer and shoot. While this is also speculation, it’s no worse than any other theory. The entire gun control argument is based on “what if” scenarios.

I agree that other citizens having guns is a deterrent for a psychopath to go on a killing spree, and perhaps less people would have been killed if a student or teacher with a gun had stopped him. However, there are other ways to defend yourself, such as using a can of Mace or a Taser (which are less effective but much safer). Also, typically killers go through with their plans regardless of the risks. Madmen rob banks which have armed guards (certainly not as dangerous as an NRA convention, but more dangerous than a school with armed students.)

It’s true that everything can be a weapon. However, guns are currently the most dangerous. It is easy for tempers to flare and to punch someone; your fist is a weapon after all. If everyone is armed with guns, do you think that in the heat of the moment people will stick with just their fists? Arming everyone is a powder keg easily set off by irresponsible people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place. I agree that the person, not the weapon, is at fault for the killing. However, we can’t control the people and thus resort to controlling the guns. Removing that weapon minimizes the harm they can do (or at least makes it more difficult to obtain a gun.)

Finally, I found your article incredibly biased. You mention that “knee jerk emotions like this cannot overwhelm reason in debates like this” and yet you make a comparison between college students and victims in Soviet Union death camps. You might as well have thrown Nazis into the fray to keep the knee jerk outrage flowing. Regardless of the fact that most police brutality is via beatings, the article somehow associates it with police having guns. And then it expands to discredit politicians against what many feel is an unjust war. Furthermore, most desired gun control amendments are for restrictions of unnecessary weapons (you don’t need more than a pistol or rifle to defend yourself) and the documentation of who has which gun. If you are going to write an article, then state relevant facts without adding your own random politics through poor analogies.

In conclusion, you have a good point about allowing properly trained and responsible citizens with permits to carry guns. In those situations it could save lives. However, few cases are that perfect and the equipping of stronger weapons will result in accidents which do much more damage. Do we want to trade a few large shootings for several smaller ones?