Gun-control criticisms do not hold water

Judy Spady’s letter regarding the Second Amendment (Herald, Dec. 24) is so full of poorly interpreted or absolute misinformation that I had to respond.

She starts by saying the gun-control lobby is exploiting the tragedy in Connecticut. It is many of the victims’ families who are the most vocal about getting assault weapons out of the hands of the mentally unstable.

Do I even need to respond to her statement about God-given rights? Would Jesus ever traffic in AR-15s? God is not behind you on mass murder of 6-year-olds.

Spady seems to think that her most convincing argument is that the 1996 assault-weapons ban in Australia has made that country more dangerous. She cites a rise in assault statistics as proof. While it is true that for one year the assault rate went up 49.2 percent, the director of the Bureau of Crime Statistics states the changes to the crime rates most likely are due to rates of heroin use. Furthermore, while assault rates went up, the murder rate dropped 31.9 percent during the assault-gun ban.

While I don’t want to be assaulted by a heroin addict any more than I assume Spady does, I am pretty happy to know he won’t have an assault rifle when he does it. The ban was enacted after Australia suffered a mass murder by a troubled young man with a Colt AR-15. Spady may be interested in knowing the number of mass shootings that have taken place in Australia in the last 16 years since the gun ban is exactly zero. Australians still have all their hunting rifles, shotguns and pistols; they just don’t have to worry about a lunatic walking into a public space and spraying hundreds of rounds per minute at children.

Spady noted that our Second Amendment is to keep us free from tyranny. What does endangering small children from mentally disturbed people with dangerous weapons have to do with protecting me from my government? We can and must do better than this. The Second Amendment mantra just doesn’t hold water.

Greg Rossell