Geary Foertsch told us in his May 1 column that gun laws will not control guns. He says he "...remain[ed] mystified by the faith in passing more gun control laws." And he then proceeded to cite a variety of examples where a gun control law, or strategy, or precaution did not work. Using his line of thinking we can also thus "prove" that speed limit signs on our roads don't work because those speed limit signs are violated all the time. Take down all those speed limit signs.
Foertsch cites some study by John R. Lott that "...documents...98 percent of mass shootings...occurred in gun-free zones." This "proves" that gun-free zones don't work, either. I will bet that "98 percent" of all automobile collisions at road intersections take place where stop lights and stop signs are present. Let's tear out all the stop lights and stop signs.
Two of Foertsch's sentences are untrue. "Why no demands for correcting...failures of existing gun laws." I recall reading many articles where investigation showed that somebody slipped up. Maybe the responsible office was lazy? Overloaded? "Why no discussion of the life-saving benefits of self-defense?" I recall many references in the media to the NRA push to have all citizens armed. I can remember many articles describing an armed citizen fighting off burglars, shooters, etc. A search on the internet will find extensive discussion on this.
Although Foertsch said a few things that I agree with, the bulk of the rest of what he said was unhelpful rhetorical grandstanding. I don't have any problem with people who want the right to own guns but who are also responsible gun owners who respect their weapons.
However, I also respect the people who want their right to fear guns and fear shooters of innocent people. I think most gun owners are responsible.
A minority are either irresponsible or criminal. But "a good guy with a gun" is not going to go out and round up the bad guys with their guns. Kids should not have access to guns, period. And since many narratives in reports on mass shooters include that the shooter had a history of antisocial mental problems, more effort should be focused on that. I have also heard many stories - told very casually - of accidental discharges, when they pulled the trigger, because they didn't know the gun was loaded. Holes in some parts of their houses might be worth a private giggle, but when an innocent person, family member or not, is killed then what purpose is there to this "self-defense"?
And I have heard many personal stories as well as media stories about this. Then I have heard the stories of people leaving many firearms and stacks of ammo laying out in the open all around in their houses and even with their front and back doors unlocked! I don't call that being responsible.
There will be no progress in this debate until there is recognition from both sides that the other side has a right to the opposite opinion, and both sides should move toward some middle ground. As for the big population of illegal guns, they will be out there forever. I don't have much problem with "Guns don't kill people, just people kill people," but will people who like that phrase also recognize this: "How many innocent people would be alive today if the gun were not there?"
Arthur E. Sowers
Harbeson
-
A letter to the editor expresses a reader's opinion and, as such, is not reflective of the editorial opinions of this newspaper.
To submit a letter to the editor for publishing, send an email to newsroom@capegazette.com. Letters must be signed and include a telephone number and address for verification. Please keep letters to 500 words or fewer. We reserve the right to edit for content and length. Letters should be responsive to issues addressed in the Cape Gazette rather than content from other publications or media. Only one letter per author will be published every 30 days. Letters restating information and opinions already offered by the same author will not be used. Letters must focus on issues of general, local concern, not personalities or specific businesses.
