To the editor:

Like clockwork, another preventable shooting happens, and the usual anti-2nd Amendment crowd comes out with their misleading, out-of-context "facts" and other rubbish. Ms. Violet's recent article in the Barrington Times is a perfect example. 

The shooter in Lewiston, Robert Card, allegedly spent two weeks in a mental health facility because he was hearing voices and had made threats to shoot up his army base. His family had reported to police similar concerns about him acting "paranoid" and "angry." The sheriff's department's report stated, "Card is having psychotic episodes..." His staff sergeant expressed concern that "Card is going to snap and commit a mass shooting." I will repeat: he was concerned Card would "COMMIT A MASS SHOOTING." They KNEW he was dangerous and KNEW he had firearms. Are you kidding me? He was not just some random dude who snapped; people knew he was a ticking time bomb; yet again, the system, the state, failed to keep people safe. 

So, let's examine this: the state fails, and the solution is to infringe on our rights. Yeah, that makes about as much sense as the absurd gun-free zone at the bowling alley, where the poor, defenseless people were mowed down by a crazed lunatic who chose not to abide by the all-powerful "gun-free zone" sign. For goodness sake, folks, let's think. 

Here are some other things to consider:

1-Regarding Ms. Violet's "more than 500 mass shootings". This statistic is misleading because such numbers include any shooting resulting in 4 or more people shot. The vast majority of such incidents (more than 80 percent) involve gang/criminal activity or family/domestic violence. They are not the typical "mass shooting," like in Lewiston, that most people think about. Therefore, the statistic is misleading. A better measurement is "Active Shooter Incidents." The FBI defines this as "one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area." In 2022, the number of such incidents was 1/10th the number that Ms. Violet reported. 

2-The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting; it is a "doomsday provision" meant to protect the People against a tyrannical government. It is worth mentioning to those who scoff at the idea that this should ever be a concern. In the last century alone, well over 100 million people lost their lives at the hands of their government. Also, more recently, the actions in Ukraine and Israel further highlight the importance of an armed citizenry. Flashback to the COVID madness, lockdowns, mandates, etc., and it becomes abundantly clear how quickly freedoms can disappear and tyranny begin to take hold. 

3-The 1994 "Assault Weapon" ban did not reduce gun violence. Criminals simply used different kinds of guns, which should not surprise anyone, yet for some reason, I think it does. 

4-If/when it reaches the Supreme Court, any ban on "assault weapons" will almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has ruled that any firearm "in common use" is protected under the 2nd Amendment. There is little ambiguity about this.  

In closing, attempting to ban certain kinds of semi-automatic guns while allowing others is an illogical, emotional argument that exposes one's lack of understanding of the issue. If we can't trust someone with an AR-15, then why on earth are we going to let them have ANY gun? Conversely, if we trust someone with one type of semi-automatic gun, then they should be able to get any other type of semi-automatic gun. After all, we must keep in mind - it is not the type of gun that matters but the type of person with a gun. 

Matthew Fletcher

Barrington