
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: MONDAY, March 9, 1992                   TAG: 9203090211
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A8   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: MARIANNE R. MILLER
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

MANY ANTI-GUN-CONTROL CLAIMS RIDICULOUS

IF THE RIGHT to possess and sell guns were not such an emotional issue, perhaps the proponents' arguments would be more rational. As it is, these arguments often approach the ridiculous.

A letter to the editor Feb. 17, not the first of its kind, compared the deaths due to airplane crashes to the carnage caused by private ownership of handguns. Did the writer stop to realize that airplanes and pilots (and cars and drivers) are strictly licensed and controlled? That their use is forbidden to anyone under the influence of drugs or alcohol and the penalty can forbid the violator the use of his/her car or plane; that people wishing the privilege of their use are tested at regular intervals?

Would we wish to live in a society where this were not so?

Another recent letter claims that in those localities where gun controls exist, the rate of crime has also increased; New York and Washington, D.C., were cited as examples. Pair that letter with an article in the paper Feb. 24, headlined: "Virginia is gunrunners' paradise," and you have your answer.

The article states: "Statistics show that the commonwealth is the leading supplier of handguns for criminals in Washington and New York. Other cities have been hit by crime aided by Virginia firearms. Last year in Washington, D.C., more than one-third of the 963 guns recovered from criminals and traced came from Virginia. The figure was about 50 percent in 1989 and 1990." It seems so obvious that the only effective solution to this problem would be national control of firearms.

Another truly ridiculous argument is that possessing a gun is protection against an oppressive government. Isn't it rather naive to believe that individuals are any match for the type of weaponry that could be used by government forces? Isn't an alert, educated and involved citizenry a better prevention?

And neither does a citizen stand a better chance of deterring a robber by being armed. Statistics also show that people are more likely than not to be killed by their own guns, to say nothing of the fact that a criminal is more likely to kill when threatened.

To assert that individuals would be better off if everyone possessed guns is the equivalent, on a local level, of the argument that the world would be better off if all nations possessed nuclear arms. This is a suicidal argument for individuals as well as nations. Tighter control on both levels is our only hope for a more sane and peaceful existence.

by CNB