Maine doesn’t need gun restrictions

Cathie Whittenburg’s column, “Follow court’s lead on gun control” (BDN, July 5-6) is most notable for its omissions, meandering logic and clear misrepresentations.

Whittenburg’s description of Maine’s gun laws as “the weakest in the nation” is erroneous on three fronts. Firstly, it is wrong by ignoring the state of Vermont, where no licensing of any type is required or any handgun possession (including carrying concealed), as well ignoring the many states whose basic restrictions are no different from Maine’s.

Secondly, by raising the issue of “waiting periods” Whittenburg raises a red herring, since the inception of instant background checks of prospective buyers is now the process of identifying those who do not qualify to purchase and has been adopted across this country.

Thirdly, and probably most notable, is her failure to identify that in most states with “weak” gun legislation, i.e., Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire (as well as many other states nationwide), the rates of criminal activities, firearm misuse and death by firearms are the lowest recorded in the country. In fact, the statistical evidence clearly identifies those states and cities with the strongest gun control restrictions as those with the highest rates of firearm misuse and carnage.

Additionally, by only citing that “All too often our newspapers carry stories of armed robberies, gun violence, firearm suicides, shootings and even murders,” she seems to demonstrate the apparently intrinsic blind spot of gun-control zealots who refuse to acknowledge the disproportionately high incidence of firearm use (and often with only the threat of use) to stop rape, robbery, home invasion and personal attack, as reported by crime statisticians and police agencies across the country.

When attempting to build arguments against Maine’s firearm owners and laws as contributors of violence, she additionally parades another one of the gun-control lobby’s favorite fallacies: introducing guns going across state lines. New York is presently blaming Virginia for its firearm woes, and Whittenburg seems determined to blame Maine for Massachusetts’ woes.

This “sliding of the cause” argument has been introduced as a way to absolve states of responsibility whenever a state finds itself unable to police itself adequately, incur sufficient penalties against those who engage in firearm misuse, or take strong stands against those who commit the most heinous of crimes. Predicated upon this illogical idea, one could responsibly ask why we don’t hold states such as Massachusetts and New York criminally responsible for the wide network of drug distributions emanating from their regions.

Stating that the right of firearm possession is not absolute is stating the obvious. No part of our Bill of Rights carries the privilege of absolution, and the presence of restrictive guidelines does not make firearm ownership any less viable than any other of our protected mandates. Ignoring the plethora of gun laws, mandates and restriction imposed throughout the strata of governmental levels further attempts to tilt the playing field to unscrupulous ends. The recent Supreme Court decision does little to reduce governmental interventions and restrictions but assures that all such mandates are framed to protect an intrinsic American right, established by our founders.

Using the term “gun lobby” as a foil to rail against invites another form of misrepresentation designed to confuse and perpetuate the taking of sides. With many millions of households and untold millions of adult-aged individuals owning firearms of all types, it is clear that the true “lobby” invoked by Whittenburg are the people of these United States, the citizens who value their right to ownership, consistently vote for local and national politicians who support that right, and recognize that the true “common sense” is the viable option of owning, responsibly utilizing, and respecting both the recreational and utilitarian use of firearms.

Up to this juncture, the good citizens of Maine have consistently and wisely avoided subscribing to the irresponsible fallacies perpetuated by self-indulgent gun-control organizations and their agents. If true common sense is to prevail, one must resolve to make concerted and vigilant efforts to keep the organized agencies espousing irresponsible gun control efforts at arm’s length and ever viewed with a suspicious eye.

Ken Fogelman lives in Franklin.