RE LETTER to Editor, E. Rowe, July 30: One would hope that people who write to the newspapers would know something of the subject, or would naturally research the subject before taking an opinion. Readers should be able to conclude that the writer has really thought about what he has written, before it is sent to the Letters to the Editor, and the article should not be an emotional repetition of baseless, feel-good propaganda such as the comments by E. Rowe.
For example he must have a personal relationship with Martin Bryant, claiming that he was “Aggrieved”… “seeking attention, power and significance”. When in fact Bryant did not give evidence, as he pleaded guilty and there was no trial.
Maybe E. Rowe visits him in prison, but doubtful as E. Rowe states, “Pity he didn’t die”. These statements seem to indicate irrational, emotional rhetoric.
Then E. Rowe launches into a classic anti-gun harangue wrongly identifying the American Constitution instead of the American Bill of Rights as the home of the Second Amendment.
Not mentioning that the same right is included in our Bill of Rights of 1689 – “may have arms suitable for their defence”.
Most people can understand that the reason for the inclusion of those rights is so that individuals can defend themselves against attack, and in that way defend their whole community.
E. Rowe then presents an incoherent philosophy of ‘hoplophobia'(fear of firearms or the fear of armed citizens) suggesting guns have law making powers and decision making functions, with comments about the “law of the gun” and that “guns are not people friendly”.
Ancient religions empowered inanimate objects such as “tin gods” with supernatural decision making, but most people now have the power of reason and know that a firearm is like a surgeon’s knife, or a box of matches, like fire and water, it can save life and take life, it is but a tool of human invention.
E. Rowe must not be totally anti-gun, as he advocates the disarming of private individuals and advocates the arming of state employees, knowing that firearms are needed to disarm people.
So E. Rowe is very pro-gun, believing that only the government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous) should be allowed to have guns.
Proposing a society where only centralising gun ownership is in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions, or as history has taught us, in the hands of those who ignore all law.
Both sides hunting the disarmed, the helpless meat in the sandwich.
Imagine for one minute, if E. Rowe is in one of those gun free zones, where private ownerships of hand guns is banned, like Paris, and he is lying, maybe wounded, waiting 20 minutes for the police to come, or more likely to be finished off by a terrorist AK 47 before help is available.
Would he wish, for an armed citizen to appear, would he wish for a revolver on his hip, so he could at least fight back and maybe save the lives of others?
Would he be thinking that he would rather live in Chicago, New York, Manchester, Detroit or London where firearms are banned and have no chance of being saved by an armed citizen, or would he wish he was in Texas, Kansas, or Vermont where you can carry a firearm.
Most people in that position would hope that the person next to them was like the citizen in the Westgate shopping centre Nairobi (September, 2013) who had his licenced carry gun at the hip and saved 100 people when it was attacked by terrorists.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430201/British-hero-mall-massacre-Ex-Royal-Marine-handgun-saved-100-lives-terrorists-ran-amok.html
E. Rowe should consider that the only chance that the weak have to defend themselves against the strong is with firearms; they are the equaliser, the inanimate peace makers.