ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT


FEATURED JOBS



Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Delicious
E-mail this article
Print this Article
advertisement

I would like to start by saying thank you to Egon Frech for reinforcing some of the points in his Feb. 27 letter to the editor, “Not the same,” that I was trying to make in my Feb. 13 letter, “Get off the ‘ban’ wagon.”

First, your rebuttal shows that some people accept some senseless deaths, for example those caused by drunk drivers. You however allude to all automobile deaths. You mention that the instances of people “deliberately” using motor vehicles to kill a large number of innocents are quite rare. So it is only people that are deliberately killed that you are concerned with. Would a driver who chooses to get behind the wheel, knowing that he or she is impaired, fall into your” definition of “deliberate?” More than 10,000 people are killed each year by drunk drivers, 32 people of all auto fatalities.

Second, you mention that many measures are being implemented that are producing a steady decrease in the number of automobile deaths. Again thank you for seeing my point. These strides to decrease automobile deaths are being accomplished without banning a single make or model of cars. However, before you start quoting automobile death statistics, I would like to point out that as of the first half of 2012 automobile deaths were up 9 percent. To my knowledge the end-of-year statistics have not been released yet.

In reference to your claim that firearms have no utilitarian use, without providing a history lesson, starting with the American Revolution, I would submit that if someone were to invade my home, and I used my firearm to, as you put it, “kill, maim or threaten to do so” and that action prevented the assailant from killing or maiming my family, I would have to say that it served the most utilitarian purpose of all, protection.

It is much like a fire extinguisher; it has no utility, until you have a fire. Perhaps you would just retreat if you had a fire in your home. Would you fight the fire if it meant the possibility of saving your family? You see, you view an inanimate object as a utility; I view my life and the lives of my loved ones just as useful.

The final point that you have so eloquently, albeit unknowingly, confirmed is that gun ban advocates are not really concerned with senseless deaths that occur each year, whether at the hands of a deranged gunman or a drunk driver. They only wish to use that as a soap box. You have served to prove the point of my entire letter, that gun ban advocates have some other agenda for wanting to restrict law-abiding citizens from their right to bear arms. I would like to know what the real agenda is.

Perhaps it is part of this administration’s plan of wealth redistribution. It is already evident that gun laws will not keep guns out of criminals hands and that the fact that current gun laws are not enforced. So if a criminal with a gun knows that a law-abiding citizen does not have a gun, they are free to redistribute that citizen’s wealth. Of course I am being facetious when I say this ... or am I?



Kerry Nelson, Lexington Park