Letters to the Editor

Liberals don't get it: Fewer guns would mean less safety

Re Sept. 1 letter by Terry Munson, “Let’s limit access to guns”

Munson’s letter misstates facts and uses faulty logic to back up his position. Terry Munson hero-worships Mao Tse Tung because of the despot’s successful program of confiscating Chinese citizen’s firearms. Yes, the same Chairman Mao who has the distinction of being listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the greatest murderer in human history. Normal people hero-worship professional athletes, astronauts, military heroes, Hollywood entertainers, etc. We have all heard of Mao’s Red Book of Sayings. The following quotation is indicative of Mao’s disdain for life: “When there is not enough to eat, people starve to death. It is better to let half the people die so that the other half can eat their fill.” One wonders what happened to Mr. Munson in the past that causes him to admire such an evil person.

If the United States passed major gun bans or regulations that limited the access to gun purchases for all law-abiding residents, it is uncertain that it would cut down on gun violence. Gun violence is committed mainly by mentally ill individuals or by criminals. However, given our Second Amendment the government will not be banning the access to guns outright. A more logical solution to the problem that would do more good for the nation (and have less political fallout) is to switch the discussion to the actual causes of gun violence, mental health and poverty (crimes of passion I doubt would be much affected either way, if not a gun they would surely use anything at hand). Mass murderers are mentally unbalanced and need professional treatment that is no longer offered until after the fact. Another factor to look at is that everyday gun violence usually originates in poverty-stricken areas in which individuals feel there is nothing to lose and results in violent activities as the only way to survive their miserable living conditions.

To liberals, guns are “bad,” “dangerous” and “violent” right? Wrong! Guns are merely a tool. They are inanimate and incapable of operating on their own. Restricting the access to guns outright is going to do nothing but imperil the general law-abiding public. Those advocating for limits on guns are either deliberately overlooking this fact or cannot understand that criminals do not follow laws! There are thousands upon thousands of unregistered handguns floating around the country. How do you possibly think that making it more difficult or impossible to legally purchase a gun will hinder members of street gangs or criminals? This fact should be terrifying, but liberals have a misguided attraction to the criminal class and a baseless contempt for the law-abiding citizen.

We should not be afraid to think about the number of guns out there that allow law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, hunt and target shoot. Will there be a few bad eggs? Of course. These bad eggs, however, will be a minuscule number compared to the exponentially larger number of law-abiding and responsible citizens who own/carry a gun.

It is no secret that in U.S. cities where local governments impose strict gun control on law-abiding citizens, we see higher violent crimes. Gun control laws will not make law-abiding citizens safer; gun controls endanger innocent people by increasing the odds that they will be victimized.

The writer lives in Pawleys Island.

  Comments