ORIGINALLY WRITTEN NAME WITHHELD BY REQUEST
This letter is in response to Dale Suderman’s article about urban gunfire (April 10).
First, regarding the 5-year-old kid murdered near his home. If the gun the shooter was using was outlawed -assuming it wasn’t already an illegal weapon-do you honestly think he would bring it in to the local police station and tell them, “This is unlawful to have, I don’t want it anymore”?
I am sure all of the criminal community would follow suit, and disarm themselves, right? No.
The fact is, the only people who would still have weapons are the criminals, because all of the law-abiding citizens would have turned theirs in.
Despite what some people would like you to believe, not all firearms get to the streets from stolen homes, either. It is usually overlooked that many of the illegal weapons out there were smuggled in through our boarders just like illegal drugs. But the fact that the guns are illegal certainly has not stopped the criminals from using them.
Second, comparing the Second Amendment to owning thermal nuclear devices is absurd. Nuclear devices are for offensive and retaliatory purposes designed for overseas operations, not for internal homeland defense.
It is sad to see any church misled to believe that having their congregation turn in its firearms will help lower firearms-related violence. If people really want to get tough on big-city violence, then tell your local county attorney in those cities to get tough on the criminals, and not just slap them on the hand.
Outlawing firearms may sound good on paper, but it isn’t the answer. Putting the individuals who violate the current laws in prison is. Something to think about is the fact that Communist China has strict gun control-owning guns there is totally nonexistent for its citizens. Is this what Mr. Suderman wants?
