To the editor:

I was very pleased to see the responses from Mr. Van Brocklin and Mr. Beard to the letters from the March 7 Daily. However, Tim Paluch raised a sharp point in his March 7 letter that I feel demands a response— that the right to keep and bear arms is invalid. This letter is not meant as a personal attack on Mr. Paulch, and I hope it is not seen as one. I am writing to discuss some of the opinions he presented, which are widely-held beliefs.

One of the most troubling aspects of the gun control debate is how quickly some people discount the Second Amendment as being an invalid part of our Constitution. I have heard people say that it is outdated.

To say the right to keep and bear arms is outdated because the amendment was written 200 years ago would be to say that freedom of speech is also outdated, or that the right to a jury trial is outdated; after all, the First and Sixth Amendments were written at the same time as the Second Amendment.

The Bill of Rights was meant to guarantee those inalienable freedoms that citizens in this nation possess; the freedoms that cannot be taken away from them.

The right to keep and bear arms is one of those freedoms. To describe the defense of any of these Constitutional rights as “closed-minded and stubborn” (as Mr. Paluch did) is nothing short of appalling.

Another argument against the Second Amendment is that it is not necessary. In fact, the Second Amendment is just as necessary now as it ever was.

It gives citizens the right to own firearms, which can be used for personal protection. With high crime rates, personal protection is essential. The police cannot be everywhere at once, so citizens must take steps to defend themselves. Research by noted criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck indicates that in America firearms are used as many as 2.5 million times every year by law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, their homes and their families.

Many gun-control proponents would respond that if guns were banned in this country criminals would not have access to them, so ordinary citizens would not need them.

History has shown us the faults in that argument. Think of Prohibition, or even of the current drug problem in the United States. In this country it is not very difficult to get your hands on illegal items. The criminals would still get their guns and the law-abiding would be unarmed (and unable to defend themselves). That is not a very favorable balance of power.

Guns did not cause the shooting in Michigan. Mr. Paluch wrote that “parents’ hands belong in children’s hands.” That phrase, better than any other, expresses the true cause of this crime— something was missing from the boy’s upbringing. Perhaps it was the absence of a loving family life or maybe he was never taught the proper respect for others. The fact is that if a six-year-old can kill someone by any means, there is a fundamental problem that goes beyond the weapon.

The problem in the Michigan shooting was irresponsibility. The family of the child was irresponsible in how they raised the child and in allowing the child to access the handgun.

The child was irresponsible in killing his poor classmate. And to put the blame for this crime on the gun would be irresponsible, because it would be ignoring the true causes of tragedies like this. To try to ban private ownership of firearms would be irresponsible, as it would take away the abilities of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.

And finally, as to Mr. Paluch’s assertion that “there is no law, no amendment, no bill and no political view more precious than a human life,” what would you say to the millions of people who have died defending our nation and our freedom?

Nathan Kelso

Junior

Physics