No firearm doesn't mean 'unarmed'

No firearm doesn't mean 'unarmed'

In Alaska, a forest ranger shot and killed a huge grizzly bear that was charging him. The bear weighed in at 1,600 pounds, was 14 feet tall, and was found to have killed and eaten at least two humans within the last 72 hours.

Although the bear was completely unarmed - he had no gun in his possession - the ranger was not charged with endangerment to wildlife.

Over the years, endless people, mostly women, have been strangled or had their necks broken by bigger, stronger people who were completely unarmed. People with martial arts training have the knowledge and ability to easily kill others although they carry no firearms.

The Nov. 29 headline in the Herald has a story about a man who killed his mother by running her over with a car. But he was completely "unarmed," although a car is a deadly weapon if so used.

Will the media please wake up to the fact that anyone with the means and the ability to injure or kill another is fully armed, and quit equating "having no firearm" to being "unarmed." Recently, extensive and totally inappropriate use of that term has been responsible for fomenting large scale riots and damage to property.

Media people: Will you please start appropriate use of the wordsmithing talents for which you are apparently unjustly renowned?

Gib Van Dine

West Chicago