By publishing the letter from Paul J. Josenhaus in last Saturday's paper, The Dispatch demonstrated why the two sides of the gun-control debate will not reach agreement how to prevent senseless murders by people who are mentally ill.

By publishing the letter from Paul J. Josenhaus in last Saturday�s paper, The Dispatch demonstrated why the two sides of the gun-control debate will not reach agreement how to prevent senseless murders by people who are mentally ill.

If Josenhaus� point of view represents the anti-gun movement, the divide between the two sides is as vast as the Grand Canyon. Josenhaus started by saying a previous letter from Alan Gottleib � which showed the anti-gun movement has used inflated statistics to promote its agenda � was wrong and that Gottlieb was disingenuous.

However, Josenhaus failed to refute Gottlieb�s data. In fact, Josenhaus did not even try to dispute the anti-gun movement's inflated numbers.

What Josenhaus views as �reasonable� gun-control measures � no �rapid-fire weapons� or � multi-bullet magazines,� and a license and registration requirement � are not viable options to gun-rights advocates.

Neither is Josenhaus� final idea: a repeal of the Second Amendment.

Does he actually believe he, a local attorney, can interpret the Second Amendment better than the esteemed justices of the U.S. Supreme Court? That�s not reasonable. That�s laughable, arrogant and extreme.

If he had a genuine interest in helping prevent murders, he would educate himself about guns and what is and is not acceptable to his pro-gun counterparts. He would not spout off like an out-of-touch elitist, propagating ignorance by suggesting laws that sound nice but will do nothing except limit freedoms, infringe upon rights and endanger other protected rights we value in this country.

To counter his ideas, here are a few facts from the pro-gun side:

� One of the fastest shooters actually broke world records using a six-shot revolver, not a semi-automatic fed by a magazine. Should the pro-gun side give in on a so-called reasonable restriction such as magazine capacity, what will be next? Revolvers, because they can be fired and reloaded as quickly as semi-automatic pistols?

� Pro-gunners also fear that history can repeat itself and that licensing and registration will lead to confiscation.

� When the Second Amendment was written, everyone was expected to be part of the militia and the militia was supposed to be free of any central-government influence. The current National Guard does not meet that last criterion.

But herein lies the problem. Josenhaus is so vehemently anti-gun, and has so little desire to understand the pro-gun side or learn about guns, that he probably believes what he proposes is reasonable. It has been suggested by the anti-gun movement for decades. These ideas originated from people who, like Josenhaus, are ignorant about guns. Therefore, they�re inherently flawed and completely unreasonable to the pro-gun side of the debate.

ROGER MAR

Dublin