Skip to content

Not a solution

Resident opposes the concept of increasing access to firearms

I would like to respond to John Alexander's letter of Jan 10.

I do not believe that more guns will solve the issue of criminal activity or domestic and international terrorism. Cities like Chicago, Detroit and Washington D.C., states such as Texas, Arizona and New Mexico, and the entire country of the U.S. would not have the death rate by handgun violence that they do.

I don't mean to pick on the U.S., Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Somalia, etc. These places abound with weapons. I understand Mr. Alexander's argument. But it would never pan out.

All adults could never carry guns. There are admittedly people in society who should not have guns. Assuming that not everyone gets a gun, what happens when that person still wants a weapon? And they will get one.

The fearful do not react from a place of confidence or strength. Regardless how much training they get, it is still fear that drives them. Random shootings will increase.

We would have the same problem the Americans are now dealing with. If everyone were to carry a gun, how would we tell each other apart? Perhaps an article of clothing will do.

We would be creating gangs opposed to one another. This whole idea creates more of a problem for policing, not less.

My other point is, criminals do not announce themselves. Their attacks come as a surprise. They will have guns drawn and cocked with the safety off. How does anyone counter that?

There is no quick-draw technique that will prevent the law-abiding citizen from being shot. I submit that I would be more likely to be shot were I to carry a gun. I would go to jail before carrying a gun. It would be safer behind bars.

Carrying a gun is a huge responsibility. Auxiliary policemen do not carry weapons. Leave the guns to the professionally trained. No one walks away from a shooting unscathed.

Erik Andersen

Coldstream