In a letter to The Union, Randi Briggs expresses an emotionally appealing argument for many, but it is misled and inconsistent.
The purpose of a car or airplane is transportation, whereas the purpose of a gun is to kill. If an attacker is stopped in self-defense then the purpose of a gun has been successful.
Yet, to suggest that people-killing weapons are not being abused is absurd. Based on this, one might agree that Iran should have nuclear bombs, because it makes them feel safer and so they deserve the right to have them.
Common sense demonstrates that not everyone is equally responsible with weapons, thus the restriction of dangerous guns is essential, otherwise, they will continue to be abused.
The age-old argument between the so-called rights of the few versus the many does not give the minority the right to cry “fire” in a crowded theater.
I do appreciate the desire of law-abiding citizens for using guns in self-defense, but the instruments involved are now out of all proportion. The essential disagreement here is in the conflict between public safety versus public rights, and we now know that the public safety has suffered enormously.
Therefore, our laws must be changed for the benefit of the many.