Handgun defense misfires

Re “In defense of guns,” Opinion, April 20

James Q. Wilson correctly states that guns facilitate violence in our society but then uses a number of unsupported assertions to backpedal away from the obvious solution of controlling availability and ownership. As with most apologists, Wilson starts with the excuse that eradicating the ill is impractical; this reason has been used historically to avoid dealing with a number of social ills Americans have faced, including slavery. Here are two practical steps: First, control the manufacture of guns. Just as drug lords flood our country with cheap drugs, domestic arms makers flood our country with cheap, affordable handguns. Second, require licenses for gun ownership, including a multi-month process wherein the individual learns firearm safety and real background checks can be accomplished.

PAUL AYERS

Glendale

*

Wilson’s argument is circular, which is why it should be less effective than it is. The argument is that as long as guns are readily available, gun-free zones are actually more dangerous than the rest of the country because when a bad guy shows up with a gun, he is the only one with a gun. Nobody can defend themselves. However, the reason gun-free zones are dangerous is because they are islands in an ocean of readily available weapons. Dry up the ocean and the danger disappears also.

PETER V. ROMAN

Washington