To the Editor:
I couldn't help but roll my eyes at The Spectrum editorial regarding gun control (Aug. 3).
Here we go again, another bully pulpit dragging out the same tired arguments after a horrific tragedy. This is a time for mourning and for our best efforts to provide what little comfort we can to the victims.
Attempting to exploit the tragedy with calls for "gun control" is callous, at best. In fact, "gun control" might have caused this tragedy: you failed to mention Aurora banned the carrying of concealed weapons.
That didn't stop James Holmes, only the other people in the theater. Aurora was a "gun free" zone where, sadly, most mass shootings take place.
Like places of worship: Wade Page probably chose his target knowing Sikhism is a non-violent religion and the odds of someone being armed in that Milwaukee temple were essentially zero.
"Gun control" laws and "gun free" zones created victims by disarming law-abiding citizens and prohibiting them the tools to "provide for the common defense."
Can anyone argue with a straight face that a law-abiding citizen in Aurora or Milwaukee, with a concealed handgun and proper training, couldn't possibly have made a difference?
Examples occur daily, but never seem to be mentioned in the media. The answer to violent crime is not legislating away the natural right of citizens to defend themselves but, for citizens to understand their rights and be willing to exercise them in defense of themselves, their families, and the innocent around them.
I encourage the authors to educate themselves.
John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime," a 29-year statistical analysis, shows "gun control" laws actually increase violent crime rates. The U.S. Department of Justice found the 1994 "assault weapon" ban had no measurable impact on crime rates.
A University of Pennsylvania study found similar lack of evidence for magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
I also encourage the author to read the 2nd Amendment and study the probable mindset of our Founders (Stephen Halbrook's "The Founders' Second Amendment").
I'd argue the authors of the 2nd Amendment would have salivated at the opportunity to own "rapid-fire ammunition clips" (whatever those are), as they wrote it to affirm the citizen's inalienable natural right to protect themselves from the tyranny of the state.
Maybe if the author had lived in Lexington or Concord in April 1775, they would pen an editorial calling for the ban of cartridge boxes, which allowed citizens to carry more rounds and reload their muskets faster.
After the senseless slaughter on the North Bridge, can anyone argue with a straight face cartridge boxes have a legitimate hunting purpose?
In fact, owning a cartridge box might make the musket an "assault weapon."
Let's ban both -- isn't that just "common sense?"