In her letter of March 29, Barbara J. Perry says that she hates guns. When we hear about something like the shootings at Newtown, our hearts break and her statement is understandable. But, I think the more rational reaction is to hate the evil that people (individually, in a group, or as government) do with, or without, guns.
Does anyone hate guns in the hands of the police, our military, or someone else who protects innocent people from aggressors? In the hands of a woman wanting to stop men intent on rape or murder? In the hands of a mother trying to protect herself and her children from a home intruder?
Guns are tools, like most tools, that can be used for good or evil. Blunt instruments like hammers are used to commit at least 50 percent more murders than the weapons being (incorrectly) called "assault weapons". Would it be rational to hate hammers or pass hammer control laws?
It would be great if we all lived in a utopian paradise where everything was peaceful and wonderful. And each of us should do our part to create such a place by treating others the way we would like to be treated.
But we live in the real world where some people willingly harm others for their own purposes. Criminals ignore laws except when they can use them to their own benefit. They claim their Miranda and their Fifth Amendment rights, they demand an attorney, and they support gun control laws, which they will ignore, because they prefer defenseless victims.
Annually about a million people and many thousands of tons of drugs cross our borders illegally. It is just as easy for guns to illegally cross the border.
Despite all the talk about saving lives, the proposed gun controls won't stop criminals from getting guns. The only real question about the proposed gun control laws, is how many more innocent victims will they create?
The ultimate goal of gun control is gun confiscation, Senator Feinstein, Vice President Biden, and others admit this. The experience in other nations which confiscated guns is that there is not a reduction in murders but there is a significant increase in other crimes.
Obviously when the Constitution was written, no one had so-called "assault weapons". But, private citizens could own pistols, rifles, shotguns, a wide variety of sharp edged weapons such as knives and swords, cannons, and even heavily armed ships, the equivalent of today's aircraft carriers or battleships. So, there is no evidence that the Founding Fathers intended to limit the arms available to citizens.
Law abiding citizens use guns, usually without firing a shot, to protect themselves from crimes much more often than criminals use guns to commit murder. Thus, it would be a very bad mistake to pass any law which restricts the ability of law abiding citizens to be armed with the weapons that they can best use for defense.