Letter: Real men protect, not endanger, others
In reference to the Herald's front-page reporting of U.S. Rep. Kevin Cramer (Arguments against gun silencer bill are "an overreaction," Oct. 5).
I would offer the following: I'm sure that if Cramer would ponder the anguish and pain of those innocent Americans that experience gun violence that he would change his view.
Certainly our cultural narratives support the view that the Second Amendment is being properly interpreted. And, in context, I would go so far as to agree that bearing a single-shot musket in 1776 was a reasonable thing to do. However extending that "right" to assault weapons (weapons of war) and to silencers (an augmentation often employed to hide murder) is not your great-great grandfather's flintlock. Cramer argues that silencers would protect hearing at gun ranges. Kind sir, if you've not the sense to wear hearing protection, do you have the sense to own a gun?
In what some have characterized as a hyper-masculine culture marinated in tales of false derring-do, the average Joe fantasizes about the power of his modern handgun which in comparison to even his father's is no less than a hand-grenade that you can point. In 22 years of law enforcement, I dealt with several wanna-be tough guys armed to the hilt and displaying the petulant state of angry 3-year-olds. Indeed, in an inverse relationship, the more guns the bigger the chip on their shoulders was a rule of thumb.
Again I would encourage Cramer to think about what it is like to have a hole tear through an innocent person's body because they had the misfortune of living in a tough-guy culture. Does he believe it's not so bad if they can't hear it? That it would be more polite?
I would also suggest to Cramer that real men protect and don't endanger others.
Evans is a retired senior inspector with U.S. Customs.