To the editor:

I want to thank Mr. Clyne for sharing his letter on firearms. 

As we discuss gun rights, it is essential to keep in mind that this is not just a national issue but a local one as well. People representing the citizens of our town continue to try to pass policies that will weaken our 2nd amendment rights. 

Regarding the Lewiston shooting, more focus should be on the state's failure to act under the yellow flag law. The law was created precisely for situations like this, so when a person declares, "I am going to shoot up my army base," the state can act, but it didn't, and people died. 

Now, let's do some thought experiments. We will rewind the clock to a point before the shooting and see what impact different policies would have made.   

Scenario A) Semi-automatic rifles (S.A.R.s) are banned, but Mr. Card (murderer) acquires an S.A.R. illegally. Result of ban: no lives saved. 

Scenario B) S.A.R.s are banned; surprisingly, the homicidal maniac, Mr. Card, abides by the ban and doesn't illegally acquire an S.A.R., but since he is still a lunatic bent on slaughtering people, he grabs his semi-automatic pistol (S.A.P.) instead and proceeds in his hellish attack. Result of ban: Since the lethality of an S.A.P. is roughly equal to that of an S.A.R., the overall number of deaths is about the same. Result: no lives saved.

Scenario C) Since S.A.R.s are illegal, Mr. Card decides to follow the law and does not get one. He also chooses not to use his deadly S.A.P.s, and shockingly, he abandons all of his plans to kill. It's a miracle! Result of ban: all lives saved! 

Scenario D) Do not ban S.A.R.'s, but instead, utilize the laws in place to confiscate firearms from crazies like Mr. Card. Result of no ban: all lives saved, AND freedoms preserved for law-abiding citizens. 

Now, onto some specifics. 

1. The type of gun does not matter; the type of person with the gun matters. About 15 times more people are killed each year by S.A.P.s than S.A.R.s. Given this, we should strive to keep ANY gun out of the hands of dangerous people instead of obsessing about banning only scary-looking guns and harming the rights of law-abiding citizens. 

2. Some people mistakenly believe that owning multiple guns is somehow more dangerous than owning just one. After all, one can only effectively shoot one at a time, even if they own 100. 

3. “Guns kill people" is an inaccurate, anti-gun slogan. The reality is people USE guns to kill, just like they use other inanimate objects such as knives, rocks, feet, etc. Mr. Card killed those people, and he used a gun to do so. He is to be blamed, not the gun. 

4. The founders wrote the 2nd amendment to protect the country from invasion AND a tyrannical government. Both can be true, and it doesn't detract from my argument. 

5. People frequently forget the conjunction "and" when they refer to the U.S. Supreme Court's (U.S.S.C.) test of "dangerous AND unusual." An S.A.R., owned by tens of millions of Americans, is NOT unusual by any stretch of the definition. 

In closing, people kill people. Banning certain types of firearms won't solve the problem and will only infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens. Killers will still attempt to get banned guns, and if they can't, they will simply use other types of equally deadly firearms. The solution is simple: protect the rights of law-abiding citizens and focus on getting guns away from those who want to kill. 

Matthew Fletcher

Barrington