To the editor:
I am writing to comment on a column that suggested the best response to headline-making, mass killings by armed psychopaths, would be to encourage more citizens to carry a gun ("Guns, gumption and government" by Robert McGlew, March 25). The idea being that if everyone had a gun, the psychopath could be killed quickly.
The chance that the average person would ever be anywhere near such a situation as Virgina Tech or Columbine are infinitesimally small in a sprawling nation of 300 million people. You would be better off lugging around a fire extinguisher on the off-chance that you happen upon a fire.
Our country is already densely populated with more than 223 million guns as of 1995. Filling it with yet more guns and concealed gun carriers is likely to have the unintended effects of more accidental killings, more fights that escalate to a fatal conclusion, and more radical domestic abuse, rather than making a dent in sensational, but rare massacres.
The writer points to the reality of evil and the need to combat it in this instance with firearms. Evil is certainly a fair description of certain acts, but they are committed by people, just people. People shaped by experience, other people, and sometimes mental illness. Massacre-scale violence is often committed by very sick people. Shooting them would end the specific situation, but is that the best general prescription?
Rather than wait for the potential killer to start shooting, wouldn't it be better to look around, reach out to the lonely and isolated among us and engage them? Bring them into society before situations get extreme. Get them help if necessary. It's a far easier target to point the finger, as the letter writer does, at movies, music and TV. We can all make a difference, but it shouldn't be with a weapon.
ANDREW SHIRSHAC
Amesbury
