Why U.S. needs Second Amendment rights
To the editor:
Mr. George Fisher gave his British perspective on gun ownership in a recent letter, stating that firearm crime is considerably less in the U.K. than the U.S. True, Mr. Fisher. Here are some more amazing statistics: Fewer people are gored by buffalo today then 200 years ago; fewer people are killed by horse and buggy accidents today then 100 years ago and now the shocker – more people are killed in head-on automobile accidents today then 80 years ago. I don’t believe the U.K. banned buffalo or horses and buggies, however, there are still the mentally challenged who at one time stood in front of buffalo and when the buffalo census went down, ran in front of horse and buggies and when the horse and buggy count went down, ran in front of automobiles.
So, let’s consider altering the automobile. An engineering professor of mine, in trying to emphasize the importance of making rational decisions instead of knee jerk reactions, posed the following question. “If I knew a way to eliminate all head-on collisions, would the class sign on to the plan?” There was an emphatic “yes, what was the plan?” He said he would mandate that the front of all automobiles come to a point. Now, he said we would have a worse problem – impaled pedestrians. The point he was trying to make was that when you hear hoof-beats, don’t look for zebras. The firearm analogy is pointy autos and zebra hunting. It’s an operator incompetence and mental deficiency problem.
While the U.K., taken as a whole, is less dangerous murder wise than the U.S. taken as a whole, this was always the case even when guns were freely available and unrestricted and punishment with or without a gun was always more severe. Many of our least dangerous states are those with the least amount of gun control. And Mr. Fisher, murder in England and Wales has risen 5 percent since last year along with a 10 percent rise in crimes committed at knife point.
The Second Amendment does not make mention of gun ownership for purposes of hunting but for protection against a tyrannical government. No, people who own semi-automatic weapons, for the most part, intend to use them only for protection against a “Brown Shirt” eventuality. Judging from the amount of ammunition the civil defense agencies have purchased or contracted to buy in the past four years should some thought be given to the Brown Shirt Syndrome? There must be methods used to quell the CNN-type holy crusade to disarm America. It must be stopped! This gun control movement should make every thinking American very careful about scrapping his hard earned, Second Amendment birth right.
I leave you with one more thought Mr. Fisher: If it was not for gun ownership we would most likely be under British rule.
Charles E. Deibert