Letters, Dec. 31
Heavily armed does not mean safer
Beginning in the 1950s the world armed itself to the point where –l est we forget -- we’ve now enough nuclear weapons to destroy our planet many times over.
The prevailing theory was that of “détente” -- i.e., the more nuclear bombs we possessed, the more we could deter the “other” from visiting violence on us, and we would be more secure.
We are now told that just one of these devices (and there are supposedly tens of thousands out there), in the hands of a single madman, presents a very real threat to our national security.
One example: Experts tell us that a rogue nuclear device detonated in Manhattan would unleash destruction -- if we could imagine it -- 1,000 times more devastating than that visited on the city on 9/11. The ensuing psychological trauma alone, which would follow upon a catastrophe of that magnitude, numbs the mind.
That today the NRA and others are suggesting a similar domestic strategy of “deterrence” for individuals, families, shop owners, teachers, church employees, etc., ignores this basic lesson of history.
While the global community, having realized the precariousness of over-arming ourselves, is moving to rid the world of the existing glut of nuclear arms, and working to prohibit new countries from acquiring them, why would anyone propose that -- by arming individuals to the teeth with handguns, semi-automatic rifles, large magazines of high-velocity bullets -- American families will be any more secure?
That elected officials with one voice do not challenge the illogic of this is baffling beyond belief.
The unspeakable evil that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School was a devastating tragedy. As a parent of two boys, I cannot imagine what those parents must be going through. It’s a parent’s worst nightmare.
This being said, getting rid of guns is not the answer. It is appalling that the left-wing loons are trying to use this horrific act of violence to further their goal of destroying the Second Amendment. Do these people who are so anti-gun really think banning guns will stop the criminal element? Do they think that banning guns will magically take the guns out of the hands of people who intend to use them for evil purposes? News flash to the ignorant ones that think like that. Criminals will still get guns if they want them. Last time I checked, crack and heroin were illegal and people use them every day. Banning guns will only lead to good people being more vulnerable to being victimized.
Here is another thing to think about. Which one of these signs on school property would more likely prevent another tragedy from happening in our schools? A sign that reads "All weapons are strictly prohibited on property." Or a sign that reads "Teachers and staff heavily armed. Any attempt to harm children will be met with deadly force." If you have a brain, you know the answer.
Letters to the editor (up to 250 words) and guest column submissions (up to 800 words) can be emailed to firstname.lastname@example.org. Submissions must include a phone number and home address for verification purposes.