'Deadly force' bills protect all victimsI have reviewed several of the bills in question, and none of them will do what your editorial suggests ("Gunslinger: 'Protection' bills could cause harm," Jan. 13).
These measures do not, in your words, "endorse gun use and deadly force to resolve disputes," unless illegal breaking and entering or kidnapping are "disputes." None of the bills uses "gun," "weapon" or similar words.
Also, your assertion that "no one is 'protected' by gunslingers walking the streets" is both erroneous and silly.
Regardless of the bills in question and your totally unfounded opinions, we do have a right to be armed, and furthermore it is a well-proven fact that the more liberal the laws allowing concealed carry of firearms, the lower the violent crime rate.
Finally, the allegation that these bills "make it easier to shoot someone without consequences" is at best incomplete, considering that each of these bills simply reduces the likelihood of the system abusing a violent crime victim a second time after having to defend himself or herself against a violent attack.
What consequences would The Clarion-Ledger suggest be appropriate for a felony assault victim who remains alive only because she successfully defended herself with deadly force?
Jeff A. Pittman
Terry
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060122/OPINION/601220308/1009.
