In response to Mr. Nein’s letter, “The question of military assault weapons,” published Feb. 27.
The letter published [two] weeks ago entitled “The question of military assault weapons,” missed the mark in so many ways I was compelled to respond.
Mr. Nein opened with how the mentally ill are more often the victims of violence, not the perpetrators. He went on to write how, “the easy access to military assault weapons” is in fact a very large part of the problem.
Except that these murderous criminals are not using military assault weapons. The perpetrator did, at least in the Sandy Creek murders, use a Bushmaster-manufactured rifle RESEMBLING the military selective-fire model.
Is this distinction important? Perhaps it does not seem so, but it should give pause to the reader to be wary of other inaccuracies. If we are willing to accept one writer’s clearly emotional proclamations of how things are, what else might we be susceptible to accepting as fact?
Mr. Nein goes on to state the, “myth that gun controls and bans have not worked is just that, a myth!” To that, I would offer the blaring facts of crime and murder rates in cities such as Chicago and Washington D.C., both having some of the most severe gun control laws in the entire nation. How have these controls been working?
Perhaps Mr. Nein would be willing to bolster his feelings with information from “Just the Facts,” which can be found at: http://www.justfacts.com/index.asp.
Mr. Nein gives us insight into his background, although somewhat confusingly, with statements such as, “right-wing talking points” and, “our massive socialist military” [that’s the confusing part]. I would respectfully suggest Mr. Nein broaden his information intake to include more than one perspective.
One point I do agree with Mr. Nein, which was his statement regarding with freedoms and rights comes RESPONSIBILITY. But I suspect what he means is we are COLLECTIVELY responsible. And that is where my agreement ends.
Our Democratic republic was not designed, nor ever intended to support, the collective, but the INDIVIDUAL. So how do we get every individual to be responsible for their own actions and NOT go over the edge, performing some horrifically violent act?
That perhaps is the question we all should be pondering. And as might have already occurred to you thinking individuals, one needs to be thinking clearly to act with self-responsibility. Which seems to lead us back to mental health? Could it be that logical? For the record, I do not own a “military styled” rifle having some large capacity magazine [not clip], nor do I care that others do. The fact that Mr. Nein does seem to care should be speaking volumes to whoever is listening!
Share on Facebook