I have recently moved to Portland from Colorado and was saddened by the news of the shooting in the King Soopers market in Boulder. This incident reignites the issue of gun rights versus public safety.

The arguments are always framed by the contest between rights assumed protected by the Second Amendment and those who wish to take these rights away.

I would like to reframe the argument to one between individual rights and the rights of the society at large. Assuming that there is and always will be a percentage of the population who will be unstable and even dangerous to others, to allow the possibility of this small number of people possessing weapons of increasing lethality is to place the remainder of the society at risk and to eliminate their right to a life free from fear. Why should the right to own a military-style weapon useful only for killing people override the right to live free from the dangers inherent in having people who cannot be trusted in possession of these weapons?

We have speed limits to protect drivers, we have restrictions on a person’s actions in order to protect others and we already restrict dangerous objects such as explosives coming into the public arena.

Why are guns so sacrosanct? Why would anyone need a semi-automatic weapon that can hold enough ammunition to kill several dozen people? There has to be some sense in all this.

Theodore Stainman
Portland

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Letter to the editor: Keeping up COVID precautions will prevent flu deaths

Next »

Letter to the editor: Maine moratorium on offshore wind projects a mistake