Gun argument is illogical

I’d like to expose the illogical argument used in two letters by gun violence apologists in the April 21 paper. Both authors employ two versions of the same premise — that guns kill people just as any other potentially dangerous object of daily use does — as proof that laws requiring any bounds upon the Second Amendment are absurd and unconstitutional.

To put an end to this ridiculous assertion, guns are nothing like the tools noted in their letters, in that a gun’s primary purpose is to destroy life and that hammers are used primarily to pound nails into wood, knives are primarily used to cut things into two and cars are primarily used to transport people from one place to another. In other words, hammers, knives and cars all have a productive purpose whereas the gun’s purpose is solely destructive — whether for target practice, hunting animals or killing other humans (which guns were originally conceived to do). It’s repugnant, especially in the shadow of recent gun massacres committed by the verifiably insane, the second and third words of the Second Amendment, so often quoted by right-wingers as if it was written by God, “well” and “regulated,” are ignored so gun manufacturers’ profits shall not be infringed. I’d like to live with a government that serves flesh-and-blood people and protects the lives of the citizenry. Legislation of universal background checks, not the banishment of all firearms, is the best social policy. Only a sociopath wouldn’t understand that in times like these.

David Kline