From Peter Gardner, Blawith, Cumbria, UK
“Carrie Arnold describes the scale of gun-related deaths in the US (6 May, p 22). Not only is it horrific, it is ridiculous and unnecessary. The finger of blame usually points at the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which, according to gun defenders, enshrines the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. But this is at best a misunderstanding, at worst a deliberate misrepresentation that ignores the full wording of that amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
That right is clearly not absolute; it is conditional. Indeed, John Paul Stevens, an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010, suggested the addition of five words to the amendment: “when serving in the militia”. Until a sufficient body of concerned US citizens and politicians come to accept this conditional interpretation, the senseless slaughter will continue.”
Meanwhile, police are frightened and, as a result, are trigger happy. Some are maybe racist, but mostly the shooting is sign of fear and nervousness It takes the slightest suspicion to elicit gunfire from them. One has to admire one thing – their aim. They can sure fire straight – at teenagers, young black men, anyone who looks Hispanic or Moslem, or just isn’t old and white – who knows. If you are in America and encounter a firearms incident, throw yourself on the ground, arms straight down and still by your side, don’t make the slightest move. The fact that you are a free citizen will not make any difference if a police officer sees as much as a sudden movement.
This is what the. twisted reading of the Constitution has wrought – mayhem on the streets, and elderly ladies carrying loaded pistols in their pocket books. I don’t know whether the people who advocate for all these guns, including lawyers and politicians, personally make money out of the sordid trade, but the effect is the same whether they do or not – mostly innocent people gunned down in the street, either by drug lords or police. It is not only stupid to allow people to have military weapons and ammunition, it is, in my opinion, immoral. The death rate is equivalent to a full scale international war, with civilians the only casualties. Epicurus would put us all down as totally bonkers.
Many advocates of mass gun ownership argue that if law abiding citizens are armed, defending against criminals becomes easier and more successful, They believe that criminals will always have access to guns regardless of the law, so gun control only prevents victims from owning guns.
I’ve always found this argument to be highly flawed. Partly because tightening gun laws does reduce criminals’ access to guns. In countries where guns are highly regulated, criminals are far less likely to be armed. There’s also no evidence that mass gun ownership reduces the frequency of crime occurring. The difference in an armed society is that when crime occurs, it is more likely to be deadly. It’s also worth noting that you are statistically more likely to be shot if you are armed.
I entirely agree – there is no evidence that mass gun ownership reduces crime. This misleading idea is based on the old Westerns, where the “goodie” is quicker on the draw than the “baddie” and drops him dead with unerring accuracy. in real life it isn’t like that at all. Faced with a “baddie” the ordinary armed citizen would be so scared stiff and rooted to the spot that he could never draw a gun and shoot back with any accuracy. The great Hollywoid myth is just that, and anyone who thinks he or she can realistically defend himself from sudden attack or threat, has no imagination and is probably an idiot.