Ms. Arquilla’s Tuesday column implied that stricter gun control laws would solve the violent crime problem. Why are the crimes blamed on people who lawfully purchase and register their guns? If the right to bear arms was revoked, perhaps there would be fewer drive-by shootings. If the right to drive (not protected by the Constitution) was taken away there wouldn’t be any. Nor would there be any drunk driving deaths, forty car pile-ups or hit and run accidents.

The NRA does not encourage people to buy weapons and “live in a perpetual state of paranoia.” Their goal is to secure a right already guaranteed citizens by our Constitution, and allows us the freedom of choice.

No one is “proud” of the pre-teen deaths due to misuse of ballistic weapons anymore than they are proud of pre-teen drug overdose victims. In spite of the fact that drugs are illegal, those children still die.

Aside from all this, the worst part of your argument came in the last inch of the column: “Seeing as the Constitution is over 200 years old, I feel safe in saying it’s a little outdated.”

I thought it was impossible to graduate from high school with such complete political ignorance. The right to life you so vehemently wish to protect is one of its oldest amendments. (But that may be antiquated right, along with the rest of them.)

Although the violent crimes attributed to guns are a problem, you optimistic approach is a far cry from its solution. To make and enforce stricter anti-weapons laws will not ensure the safety of the average citizen. It will merely open another black market for the American crime syndicate, and lower the livelihood of resistance by average citizens to those who evade the law.

JACKIE LEFEVRE

English

Senior