I’m tired of reading Bill Richardson’s articles where he rallies against any sort of regulation over guns (Latest, “Gun-free zone is truly fatal conceit,” AFN, Dec. 11). His entire argument is to make good the enemy of perfect. He continually gives statistics about how individuals who want to do bad things will do bad things. I agree.

What he doesn’t ever mention is the sheer volume of deaths by direct cause of guns and the simple desire to reduce that number. Slate.com has a nice interactive webpage that illustrates the capacity of gun violence in our society. What if we were to regulate guns in such a way as to reduce that number? Would that be of interest to Bill Richardson?

A parallel example might be seat belts. Seat belts greatly reduced the number deaths in car accidents every year once they were installed. Car deaths still happen, but at a much reduced rate thanks to the regulation of seat belts.

Why is there so much vitriol against regulation to reduce gun deaths? No, evil government is taking away your guns. The government (read: you and me, Bill) just wants less death. Is that really so bad?

Brian Beck

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.