Another anti who doesn't know what he's talking about
This was posted in the Fayetteville Observer this morning.
I love how he has no facts, just his "knowledge".
Would like to know what he'd say if he was ever to become a victim. Wonder if any BG's in the area know him and now look forward to meeting up with him (I am not condoning anything happening him, just wondering).
Guns have a single purpose
Increase the tools of violence to decrease violence. Does that make any logical sense?
Rebekah Sanderlin's proposal that more people carrying concealed weapons would lead to less gun violence is absolutely absurd ("Respect best deterrent," July 27). Some may argue that someone with a concealed carry permit might have ended Columbine or the Virginia Tech massacres earlier. I argue that if guns were not readily available to the perpetrators, they never would have happened.
This is the same failed reasoning of Mutually Assured Destruction that occurred during the Cold War. Some might say that our stockpiling of nuclear weapons to keep pace with the Soviets (and vice versa) prevented a nuclear war. Maybe. But it also created a world with thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of nuclear weapons and now we worry that they will fall into the wrong hands. When it comes to bombs with the power to destroy our entire planet, any hands are the wrong hands.
Sanderlin is right about one thing: Gun control will not stop someone hell-bent to murder. But it will make it more difficult. And it will reduce the number of gun accidents. I have a hunch that for every time a handgun was successfully used "for defense," there are many more accidental deaths as a result of a weapon intended for defense. Guns are destructive tools. Their purpose is to destroy, to hurt, to kill. It seems absolutely ludicrous not to limit their availability.