To the editor:
It is true that people who carryout mass murders are, at least momentarily, not normal. Many citizens cite factors that may contribute to these violent actions, and think addressing the mass murderers themselves and the causes that lead to their behavior is a way to prevent future massacres.
However, there will always be some people, for whatever reason, who want to do harm to others or themselves, and it is in society’s best interest to prevent them from doing so.
Unfortunately, the weapons and munitions used in most mass murders are chosen for maximum kill count. Two ways of minimizing the lethality of attempted mass murders is to arrest the shooter’s action as soon as possible, and to make sure the weapon used has minimal destructive power.
Guns are tools meant for a particular use much like a screwdriver is meant to drive screws, or a hammer to pound nails. By design and purpose, guns are meant to send metal projectiles at high velocity to targets, which in most cases are living beings.
To ban guns would seem a reasonable way to avoid the public tragedies due to gun violence, as has been done in other civilized societies. But then many would have to reject the feeling of being enamored by a gun, how it feels, dense, heavy, yet balanced, as well as, the feeling of protection and freedom it falsely promises. More importantly, one would have to deal with the NRA and the money it provides to promote gun ownership.
Since suicides account for the greatest number of gun deaths, eliminating guns for most people would make weapons generally less accessible, thus reducing deaths by suicide as well as mass murders.
What’s controllable is the weapon, not the person.
Frank Meneghini
Peterborough