My right to spend an evening with friends at a bowling alley supersedes Roy Mathew’s perceived right to bear arms based upon his own narrow interpretation of an 18th-century, poorly worded amendment that needs an update for the 21st century. (“Must Robert Card’s actions cost Mainers their right to bear arms?” March 9.)

Statistically, most gun deaths are not the result of self-defense but by acts of aggression. So his proposed scenario of his friends armed and ready to protect their homes with guns in hand is unlikely to turn out well. States that have strict gun laws have much less gun violence. Maine may have a good history of fewer mass shootings than other states, but that statistic does not predict the future. It is incumbent upon all Mainers to decide in which scenario they want to live: free from fear of sending our children to school, going shopping, to see a movie, a concert, or go bowling; or to require that everyone be heavily armed so when the next mass shooting kills 20 people in 20 seconds we can all take shots at the assailant.

The hunting business is important in Maine, but so are all the businesses and institutions that the public has a right to patronize without fearing for their lives. We can regulate guns without impacting the hunting industry since ultimately hunters do not need assault rifles and pistols to kill a moose.

Richard Hackel
Chebeague Island

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Letter: Like other public safety regulations, gun safety restrictions are warranted

Next »

Letter: Inflammatory language obscures gun safety debate