I need to correct a fallacy in the logic of the man from Westminster who believes that an increase in gun sales correlates to an decrease in the crime rate ("KAL gets it wrong on guns, immigration," June 24). Certainly, he is right that there are more guns in circulation. Data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives indicate that there are now an estimated 8.1 firearms in the typical gun-owning household.
In 1994, the average gun-owning household owned 4.2 guns. But the problem with this logic is that 80 percent of all of the civilian-owned guns in the world are owned by Americans. The highest per capita ownership of guns is the United States, far ahead of even Yemen, which is undergoing a civil war which is also a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
If gun ownership correlated with a reduction in crime rate, we should have no crime whatsoever. In addition, nations that have strong gun laws and where civilians owning firearms is out of the question have minuscule murder rates. And certainly, people who don't have any guns in the house are rarely shot by their toddlers and pets.
Last year, people in the U.S. were getting shot by their toddlers on a weekly basis. And who can forget the dog named Trigger who shot its owner in Indiana last fall? I can't imagine why anyone would need to own eight guns.
Paul R. Schlitz Jr., Baltimore