Re: ‘No longer a privilege’

In these pages, Claire McElwain made a number of assertions about gun ownership and gun owners that are rather superficial, leading me to write this letter to clear up some of these misconceptions.

The first of the problems that I have in the article is Ms. McElwain’s overstatement on the strength of the current push for gun control.

She asks the rhetorical question, “Who wouldn’t be for gun control?” to argue that there is widespread agreement for new gun restrictions.

Yet in a poll conducted by Gallup that asked the question, “In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?” in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy, a combined 40% of the respondents said they would want gun laws to be “kept as they are now” (34%) or “less strict” (6%).

While a majority does agree with introducing stricter gun laws, a significant minority of Americans are against the idea of introducing further gun control, thus their senators will vote the ways their constituents want them to vote.

Consequently, implying that gun control is only being opposed by a few reactionary backwoodsmen who wear camouflage on a daily basis and drive pickup trucks is misleading.  

On top of that, Ms. McElwain’s call to take up knitting doesn’t play out well.

No one appreciates his or her favorite hobby being put down and decried as the worst thing since cancer. Just look at how vigorously video game communities defend themselves against charges that their games are “murder simulators.” It’s the same principle.

From the way Ms. McElwain phrases it, the right to own guns is like an angry pagan god — only satiated with the ritual killing of children and innocents.

I believe I am safe in stating that the vast majority of people were shocked and stunned by what happened at Sandy Hook last December. But the same people who express sympathy may not see it as a simple “guns caused this, ergo, we should introduce new gun restrictions” issue.

Ms. McElwain’s mistake here is to assume that everyone drew the same conclusions from Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora and Sandy Hook that she did.

But perhaps the most stupefying of all is Ms. McElwain’s argument that if one person abuses a privilege, it ruins it for everyone.

By this reasoning, the government should take away our privileges because of a select few who have abused them. Therefore, because Enron turned out to be a fraud, the government should ban all energy companies.

The United States does not have a benevolent Council of Guardians that we all owe our fealty to and who can take away our rights and privileges on a whim, but rather a republic based on the rule of law with a government of limited powers that is controlled by its citizens.

I understand that it is very easy to point fingers and say that guns are evil, but the world is a far more multifaceted place than the one we learned about in first grade.

There are shades of gray between the black and the white, and to say guns are evil is the same as saying the Second Amendment allows for the possession of a missile launcher.

­— mjsu@umail.iu.edu