@IJasonAlexander



Mr. Alexander,



While I do not agree with with you're opinion of gun control, I do respect the fact that you are taking the time to sit down and be part of the dialogue in a professional and informed manner. This is a controversial issue that will take time and effort to work out by educated people on both sides of the issue.



What happened in Aurora is awful and I truly feel for the families of the victims. This event is not something that should have been allowed to happen. At the same time, though, I do feel that that this tragedy could have been stopped had someone in attendance been armed.



As the law currently stands and as the owner of a Concealed Handgun License, I firmly believe that a well educated citizen with the proper skill set could have stopped this man and saved peoples' lives. That being said though, I don't think that the licensing process is strigent enough and doesn't prepare an individual when they are called upon to draw their weapon in defense of themselves or another person. I also believe that not everyone should be carrying a firearm. The decision to arm myself was a very thoughtful process for me and I had to do a lot of soul searching to come to the conclusion that, if the time came, I would be willing to take another person's life in the defense of myself or my family. This is an extremely heavy burden to carry requiring a significant amount of thought and not everyone is mature enough or willing to accept this responsibility.



But, the people that do choose to arm themselves prevent many crimes that go unreported and unnoticed. This, to me, is a tragedy as both sides of this argument aren't accurately represented. The media chooses to display all of the horrible crimes that are committed by people who wish to do harm with firearms, while at the same time neglecting to portray how a citizen can prevent that same person from committing a violent act. I invite you to look at the column "The Armed Citizen" in the journal "The American Rifleman" which contains numerous accounts of men and women defending themselves from violent acts with the use of firearms.



On the topic of the design of the AR-15 rifle, yes, it was designed by the military to kill people, but some of the information provide in the way that you described the rifle was false. I believe, but I may be mistaken, that a Ruger Mini-14, which fires the same round as an AR-15, and was allowed under the assault weapons ban of 1990's, has the same ammunition capacity of the assault rifle. It is commonly used as a ranch rifle to keep varmints at bay, such as coyotes and the like and wouldn't raise anymore eyebrows than any other sporting rifle. You also mentioned that the AR-15 will shoot farther and more accurately than common sporting rifles available to the sportsman. This to is also incorrect. A Savage Model 25, which is a bolt action rifle and shoots a .223 caliber cartridge will shoot more accurately and with a greater muzzle velocity than the AR-15. This is do to the mechanics of how the rifle operates and by it's inherit design.



As you mentioned in your piece, there are thousands of accidents and cases of domestic violence involving guns every year, which is tragic and terrible. But, in the cases of domestic violence, how many of the people using them are actually lawfully allowed to own a firearm? From my current understanding of the state of things, there are loopholes, whether legal or not, that make it very simple for convicted felons to purchase firearms through legal means, which is also something that needs to be addressed.



Accidents on the other hand, are prevented through education and not by stigmatizing firearms by saying that they're dangerous and nobody should own them. When a child burns their hand on a stove, a parent doesn't punish them and tell them never to look at the stove again. No, the parent treats the wound and educates the child that the stove is hot and can be dangerous and extra care must be taken while using it. Although the stakes are higher and firearms can be more dangerous than a stove, the logic is the same. Proper education is the key to preventing the vast majority of accidental deaths caused by firearms. I am not, of course, trying to justify the personal ownership of bombs and tanks as you mentioned, there is no situation in which an ordinary citizen can justify the ownership of these ordinances.



Again, I respect your opinion and that it was conveyed it in a mature fashion, as I have tried to do in my argument above. There needs to be a more adult like conversation on the subject because there are real problems that need to be addressed and corrected. The answer, however, is not banning firearms.



Sincerely,

Justin Felderhoff

Reply · Report Post