A recurring theme in letters sent to the editor of this and other newspapers opposing any further limitations on where guns can be carried and by whom, is that where more people arm themselves there is less violence and conversely, where gun ownership is restricted or prohibited, the opposite is true.
We hear about the Nazis in Germany confiscating citizens' guns as a precursor for their taking over the government and waging World War II.More recently we hear about a slight rise in the crime rate in Australia, where gun ownership has apparently been restricted by the government. What we don't hear is any real evidence that the removal or restriction of firearms had any effect on these outcomes.
To isolate guns as the primary cause of a rise in crime rate, absent any empirical evidence, is to create a point of view that is unsupportable.
But look at areas of the world where citizens are widely armed. Citizens in much of Central America, Southeast Asia, parts of Africa and South America are armed, frequently in support of or opposition to some sort of insurgency or jinstability. Is there less violence in these places?
Just pick up a paper or turn on the TV, and you'll see the amount of violence that occurs in these places.
While the people who are opposed to any further restriction on gun ownership would like to make the case that more arming of citizens leads to less violence, any objective view of the world and history seems to make just the opposite case.
Al Smith
Pleasant Grove