Additional gun restrictions are not the answer
I believe that the letter to the editor by Ms. Therriault [“Today, only two reasons for guns,” Jan. 23] is flawed.
She is correct in saying that the reason the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution was to allow the citizens of this new democracy the ability to defend themselves from those who would do them harm. That included our own government.
Checks and balances work only when the electorate has the added ability to remove an unjust government by force of arms if required.
Her contention about the size of a magazine and the ability of an untrained mother to defend herself and her children with a six-shot revolver doesn’t stand up to the light of day.
Just recently, a man broke into a home. Mom and two 9-year old sons were all that stood in the way of this criminal. She hid herself and her children in a crawl space. She called her husband, who in turn called 911 and had police respond.
The robber wasn’t content to take her belongings. He started after her with a crowbar. When she could retreat no more, she fired all six rounds at the attacker hitting him five times. He then went to his car and left. He was caught by police and will face charges when released from the hospital.
If there would have been two attackers, she would have had no more rounds to fire. If the man was on drugs that made him impervious to pain, she and her children could have been killed before the police arrived.
Placing restrictions on law-abiding citizens has never worked to stop crime. It only works to embolden the criminals that prey on people who are not prepared or able to defend themselves. Blaming guns for crime makes as much sense as blaming cars for drunk drivers.