Editor,

On and on the arguments rage about the Constitution’s Second Amendment right to bear arms. Regardless of which side anyone is on, there are some relevant things to consider.

Just how important is that right? People argue it is necessary to give them personal security, but just how much security does it provide?

We can’t go around shooting people because they appear to be an imminent threat unless they actually make a move to threaten your life. Unless you are a super human reactionary, by that time you are way too late. People intent on doing you harm aren’t going to advertise it, warn you or give you time.

The idea of using a sidearm to threaten someone exhibiting anger toward you is absolute foolishness. If they are that intent all you have done is advise them to go covert and come around behind you.

Then there are those arguing that personal weapons are necessary against an armed invasion or defence against our own government. Their heroic verbosity is loud, clear and indignantly boastful of their personal prowess as though they could outshoot every old western movie star… from the hip.

Unless I miss my guess these people will be the first to drop and run in the face of what in all likelihood would be overwhelming odds.

Having unloaded or locked up weapons aren’t of any value since their need almost always comes suddenly without warning. You can’t tell a nighttime intruder to wait while you go get or load your weapon. The liability of “available” loaded weapons around the house is of course enormous.

All the arguments I’ve heard seem to miss the most relevant factor and that is the different circumstances people face in rural vs. urban environments.

Does anyone know why that is?

Al Williams

Oak Harbor