To the editor:

I want to thank Mr. Griffin for his reply to my article. I will do my best to address his points and answer the questions he raised. 

Mr. Griffin states that I use "faulty reasoning" to bolster my argument, yet he provides us with nothing to back up his assertion. In my letters to the Times, I have provided accurate information with sound reasoning; however, if I have erred, I ask Mr. Griffin, or anyone for that matter, to please give us an example.

Mr. Griffin states that since 2003 many people have been killed by "assault weapons" while, to his knowledge, "...no lives have been saved because someone with such a weapon stepped in to save the day." First, this is faulty logic. To suggest that to justify an individual right, one needs to show how that right has saved a life is wrong, and such a standard is not applied to any of our other rights. Second, if we do use this logic, then should we ban knives? When 1,500 people are killed each year with knives, to keep knives legal, should we be burdened with the task of having to show that a greater number of people have been "saved" by knives? Should this be the test for any item? Clubs? Bats?...Vehicles? I think not. Third, given our demonstrably biased, anti-gun media, I do not blame Mr. Griffin or anyone else for being unaware of the many cases of defensive gun use (DGU), defined as using a firearm to protect a person or property.

Mr. Griffin asked for an example; here it is, Hillsborough County, Florida. During a home invasion, two armed men broke into the home of a husband, a pregnant wife (8 months), and a child. While pistol-whipping the husband and demanding money, the pregnant wife peered out of their bedroom; the armed intruders fired at her. She took cover and retrieved their AR-15. She then fired at the assailants, killing one of them. This is but one example of how a law-abiding citizen with a firearm, specifically in this case an "assault weapon," was able to save lives. Several studies show that the frequency of DGU in the U.S. ranges from 500,000 to 3 million annually. Even the flawed National Crime Victimization Survey puts the number at approximately 70,000 per year. 

We should remember that whenever we promote a given policy, we should first be responsible enough to examine it in a much broader context; we should look at the whole picture and not just one narrow sliver. We should be honest and analyze all of the "pros" as well as the "cons." All too often, in pursuit of achieving "victory," over-zealous promoters on the "left" and "right" become blind to the additional effects that a particular policy will have on society. The many foolish and irresponsible COVID policies are just one recent example. 

In closing, I will repeat what I have stated in the past; we need to change our mindset and accept that guns are not the problem. Certain kinds of guns are not the problem. Guns in the hands of dangerous people are the problem. The problem is a decaying and increasingly divisive culture that is often ignorant and intolerant of anyone who does not share the same ideology. Fatherless homes, broken families, and an epidemic of mental health issues are the problem. AR-15s, "assault weapons," large capacity magazines, etc., are not the problem. Look at the data and the evidence; do your research. I did, and as a result, I changed my mind on this issue years ago. 

Matthew Fletcher

Barrington