Banning handguns a seriously bad idea
I am writing in response to Gus Gustafson's Aug. 19 letter.
This ridiculous diatribe was loaded with so much half-truth and innuendo that it is difficult to know where to begin.
Gustafson insisted that because the Supreme Court refused to hear the case of the Morton Grove handgun ban, this means the ban does not interfere with the Second Amendment.
The logic in this argument is incomprehensible.
The court does not even have to give a reason for refusing to hear a case.
I happen to believe that it refused on the basis of political reasons and personal biases.
They probably could not find any legal reasons to not overturn the law and simply refusing to hear the case is so much easier than trying to trump up some irrational argument in support of this unconstitutional act.
I find it very interesting that he brings up England as an example of a country whose laws we should copy.
This nation has experienced a drastic up-tick in violent crime since it passed a handgun ban.
Criminals have been smuggling guns in from Eastern European countries.
Britain is essentially a large island. I tend to realize that it would be much easier to curb this there than here, where we have thousands of miles of coastline and a similar amount of land borders.
Is it Gustafson's belief that we would be better off if the criminals are armed and legitimate citizens are not?
Gus claims to be a past member of the National Rifle Association.
I will give him the benefit of the doubt and suspend disbelief and just ask the question: what happened to him?