To reply to the gun control mentality of those like Jim O’Leary in his May 24 letter, I have a simple question. To truly end gun violence, wouldn’t complete civilian disarmament have to be the only practical solution? Especially seeing that a president was lost to a lowly Derringer.
In fact, from 1936-81, a handgun was used some eight times in attacks on politicians. This statistic obviously shows that any firearm can bring the death angel.
But again, there’s that aspect of the gun control mentality. I’ve yet to hear even a hint of the possibility of any firearm being used constructively in civilian hands. As if it’s yet to occur in our history. Or simply a physical impossibility. And yet a lot of people emotionally buy into both ideas. It’s like thinking that fire can only be destructive, injurious and deadly, if those are the only ways you’ve been exposed to it. You could literally make someone frightened of living, if you only show it connected with needless sorrow, pain and death.
Doing exactly this with firearms seems to be gun control’s main strategy in making people averse to the idea of an average citizen possessing guns. Because there’s no better way to manipulate and subdue a populace than through fear.
There’s simply too much omission, tortured logic and channeled emotion involved in gun control for me to believe it isn’t as I have described it: Psychology-driven slow-motion civilian disarmament disguised as a purely humanitarian movement. That’s why I’d enjoy having any gun controller answer my opening question.
But as many seem quite blind to the consequences of granting Washington the gun monopoly, I have another question. Is government something you can unreservedly trust?