May 26, 2022
Dear editor;
The writing and publication dates of Phil Wood’s recent commentary in The Voice on The answer: Intact mother/father, May 19, 2022) on our Nation’s gun laws preceded the sad incident in Uvalde, Texas, but it is nonetheless unfortunate that many of us now find it difficult to read his contribution with a calm and receptive thoughtfulness. I have done my best.
Mr. Wood suggests that in order to understand and hopefully address the problem of gun violence in our Nation, we need to ask ourselves what has changed over the past 100 years. He argues that since guns have remained easily and widely accessible over these years, the current epidemic of gun violence must have some root cause other than firearm accessibility. He suggests that the breakdown of the traditional family unit is this cause. I can accept the idea that this may indeed be a contributing factor, but I believe that other factors are equally, or perhaps more, important.
I’m certain that we can all agree that one of the most profound changes over the past 100 years has been the development of powerful weapons of war such as the AR-15 and related arms. These pieces were never designed to serve the general public, but rather to equip our Nation’s fighting forces. All too often the gun violence that we see involves the death of many at the hands of one misguided, but militarily-armed individual. Another notable development over the past century has been our ability to identify and ideally treat those among us who suffer the wrath of mental illness. It is difficult to comprehend how one could argue that a mentally-ill individual should be allowed ready access to any firearm.
Quite predictably, Mr. Wood makes reference to protecting our Second Amendment rights, but does the Second Amendment grant our citizenry the right to own a weapon of war? If an AR-15, why not a bazooka or an M1 Abrams tank to decorate my front lawn?
Is it unreasonable to require verification that an individual attempting to purchase a lethal weapon is mentally fit to own one? Is it appropriate to interpret our Second Amendment rights according to conditions as they existed 100 years ago, or should we allow common sense to creep into the gun laws that we expect our governmental representatives to establish?
Let your answers guide you in the voting booth.
Vince Smith, Big Rock