Flaws in the liberal argument for gun control

Given the typically biased and incomplete information given out by the media on liberal progressive issues such as gun control, it's no wonder Marylander voters polled strongly in support of controls on assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines are needed to prevent killings like those at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. ("Marylanders strongly support two gun control measures," Jan. 14).

But before any new restrictions on rifles and ammunition clips are passed in Maryland, everyone, especially the governor and state lawmakers, should step back, take a deep breath and review the statistics on the weapons used in Maryland homicides.

According to the FBI crime statistics, between 2004 and 2011 Maryland had an average of 490 murders a year committed with various weapons. Of those, knives accounted for nearly 13 percent, non-handgun weapons were used in 10 percent and 4.5 percent were caused by hands and feet. Rifles were used in less than 1 percent of cases.

So why are rifles being targeted by the politicians rather than knives?

Gun control advocates say there is no reason for someone to own a semiautomatic assault rifle and no need for ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds. But if that is true, why do we have automobiles that can go 100 mph when the maximum legal speed in Maryland is only 65 mph?

Speed kills as surely as firearms do. According to U.S. Department of Commerce statistics, out of 547 Maryland traffic deaths in 2009, 184, or 34 percent, resulted from speeding. So why not put controls on vehicles that automatically limit their speed? If limiting unnecessary deaths is the goal, car speed controls would save more lives than controls on rifles.

Moreover, according to National Highway Traffic Safety Association, Maryland drunk drivers caused 162 deaths, or 33 percent of all traffic deaths, in 2011. But the vehicle is never targeted for controls, only the driver.

So why are guns targeted for controls and not the person pulling the trigger? Doesn't anyone see the inconsistency in the argument against guns?

Clearly, the liberal progressive advocates of gun control are using the Sandy Hook tragedy to challenge the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment by nefarious methods, hoping the public will not notice how their freedom to own guns that is unique in the world is being eroded. If the progressives are successful, we will eventually be at the mercy of the criminals and the government.

Ron Wirsing, Havre de Grace

Copyright © 2018, The Baltimore Sun, a Baltimore Sun Media Group publication | Place an Ad