Editor, The Herald:

Your newspaper doesn't print funnies, but some amusing items still appear from time to time. Specifically, I enjoy reading comments from some of the fringe political left that the county seems to be over-supplied with. Whether they choose to bloviate about the political process or preach about “gun control”, it's still a delight to get a peek into such a mind. It does make one wonder, though, in their world, is the grass green and the sky blue?

It was entirely predictable, in the wake of the latest mass killings, that the gun-control groups would demand once again that the government ban “assault weapons”. The first problem is that no one can agree on exactly what an “assault weapon” is. The last time such a ban was enacted, it covered most semi-automatic firearms, including rifles used for hunting that held 5 or 6 rounds in a magazine. That was clearly overreaching, and the ban was sensibly allowed to expire.

Your overexcited correspondent might be surprised to learn that many lawful gun owners, including yours truly, agree with him on some points. For example, I agree that nobody needs a 20 or 30-round magazine, either for hunting or target shooting. I also agree that military weapons such as the ubiquitous AK-47 are neither hunting or target weapons, and should not be allowed in anybody's personal collection in a functional state. However, due to his apparent lack of knowledge about firearms, he wants to heavily tax ammunition for the hated semi-automatic rifles. He needs to understand that ammunition for a specific caliber will fit all weapons of that caliber, from semi-automatic to single shot.

Whether your correspondent likes it or not, our nation was founded by men with guns, and guns have been a part of our culture since that time. Boys and girls of my generation who grew up in rural areas and small towns were taught safe use of guns by their parents, and over 80 million people own guns today. As my friends at the National Rifle Association are fond of saying, “80 million legal gun owners didn't kill anybody yesterday.” Since 1941, more than 30 million men and women have served in our military services, using guns to defend the cause of freedom around the world. After World War II, a Japanese admiral was heard to say that he would never have advocated for an invasion of America, because “there would be a gun behind every tree.” Your correspondent might find this troubling. I find it reassuring. In England and Australia, where private ownership of guns is illegal, violent crime statistics have gone up dramatically every year since the ban was enacted.

A hammer is a tool. It will drive nails into wood very effectively, but not until it is in the hands of a person. A gun is a tool too, and only kills when it is the hands of a person-too often of late a mentally disturbed person. The killer in Newtown was clearly disturbed, and everybody around him knew that. The killer in Aurora exhibited irrational behavior, and everybody around him knew that. The Virginia Tech killer was so irrational that some teachers would not allow him in their classroom. Why were these clearly dangerous people not compelled to receive therapy, and possibly confinement? The answer is simple, the solution is not. Over the past several decades, liberal organizations such as the ACLU have lobbied and litigated against involuntary institutionalizing of persons diagnosed with mental disorders, claiming that their “civil rights” or “human rights” would be violated. As a result, many psychiatric hospitals across the nation have closed their doors. Judges are too often reluctant to sentence a seriously disturbed person to confinement until after they have committed a serious offense.

So, there will now be a commission impaneled to study the problem of mass killings, and to recommend solutions. They may actually find that we need to recognize and treat mentally ill persons before they act out, and they may offer criticisms of the incredibly violent video games that most of our recent mass murderers were devoted to. They may, but I doubt it. Like my correspondent, they will probably focus not on the person, but the tool.

As for re-writing the second amendment; your correspondent might want to think that through a bit longer. “Gun Control” is not about guns; it's about control. A look at recent history of government disarming the populace tells us that it may be a bad idea. In 1911, Turkey passed laws effectively disarming all its' citizens. By 1917, the Turkish government had rounded up and murdered one to one and one-half million of the minority Armenian population. In 1929, the Soviets began the confiscation of all privately-owned firearms. In the succeeding three decades, they murdered up to 20 million civilians. Nazi Germany began disarming its' citizens in 1933, and by 1945 they had killed more than 13 million Jews, Gypsies, Catholics and anybody else who would not subscribe to their socialist philosophy. The same scenario has played out in China, Guatemala, Uganda and Cambodia. Most of our founding fathers favored arming the citizenry, and Jefferson got it right in just one sentence. He said, “an armed man is a citizen; a disarmed man is a subject.”

John Jamieson

Prince Edward