To the editor:

Arguments between Second Amendment defenders and detractors can only be relevant if accurate facts are discussed. Chris Clynes’ Nov. 28 letter misuses and misunderstands facts. 

Why would anyone question a law that reduced mass shootings by 70%? The 1994 assault weapons ban did no such thing. Research, used by the NIH and the Senate Judiciary, said the ban reduced the chances of mass shootings, during the ban, by 70%. This is a statistical prediction and not a reflection of what actually happened.  Mass shooting deaths during the 10-year ban roughly equaled those of the 10 years preceding the ban. 

Mass shootings have increased since the end of the assault weapons ban, but so has the population, the number of guns and the deterioration of societal mores.

The general consensus is that the ban had a minor effect, if any, on mass shootings. Contributing to this result is the fact that 75% of all mass shootings are done with handguns and 25% with assault rifles.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is in fact to protect against the tyranny of government. When the Catholic King James II ascended the British throne in 1685, he feared the Protestant majority of his subjects.  He passed a law forbidding firearm ownership by Protestants, the first such firearm restriction in English history.  The English Bill of Rights of 1689 codified the right of all Englishmen, irrespective of religion, to bear arms and served as a model for our Bill of Rights.

It is enlightening to find out that metal detectors placed at the Capitol on Jan. 6 prevented the protestors from arriving armed. Maybe we should place them at all ports of entry so no armed enemy could ever invade our country.

The relation of mental illness to gun violence is not a trope. The U.S. Dept of Justice reports that psychosis played a minor role in 33% and a primary role in 10% of mass shootings. Thirty percent of shooters were suicidal prior to the shooting and an additional 39% suicidal during the shooting. Also, 31% of mass shooters had experienced severe childhood trauma and 80% were in crisis at the end. 

No one claims mental health problems are the only way to reduce gun violence. We do not need new gun laws, we need to enforce the gun laws we already have, as many repeat perpetrators have gun charges plea-bargained away. We also need to strengthen data-sharing by law enforcement and other government agencies. The perpetrator of a recent mass shooting in Maine had psychological issues recognized by his military reserve peers, but not communicated to any law enforcement agency.  This info “slipping through the cracks” problem has been noted in many other shootings.

If inanimate guns kill people, then so do inanimate cars. Firearms and automobiles each accounted for about 45,000 deaths last year. About 60% of firearm deaths were suicides, so automobiles “killed” about 25,000 more people than guns. Ban automobiles and we will save 45,000 lives annually.

Justice Scalia said, in the Heller decision, “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. ... But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.” 

Dennis Slonka

Barrington