Friday, Feb. 1, 2013 | 2 a.m.
The gun debate seems to miss the mark in many letters I have read.
First, the Second Amendment was written over 200 years ago in an age when three shots per minute made one an expert.
Things change, and even brilliant men could not really foresee the killing power of arms in the future.
Second, the argument is regularly made that we need arms to protect us from government gone astray.
But even well-armed militias would be no match for top military troops. Even resistance activities are doomed.
The reason for this statement is that government can trace nearly everyone’s movements.
The popularity of cellphones is a real boon to tracking people. The government (and others) can record and analyze cell calls without a warrant.
Those who wish to protect us from government need to concentrate on ensuring privacy, not stocking up on guns.
Finally, the notion that having guns is a protection from criminals is simply not backed by statistics.
Any Internet search will show that, among industrialized nations, the United States has by far the most guns and most related murders and suicides per capita.
One study, published in 2011 in the Journal of Trauma — Injury Infection & Critical Care, found that firearm homicide rates were 19.5 times higher in the U.S. than in 23 other “high income” countries studied, using 2003 data.
Of course, the chances of removing all guns from our citizens are close to zero.
But the need for semiautomatic weapons and huge clips is surely unrelated to hunting or sport shooting.
I personally would like to see a return to the original Second Amendment meaning of weapons giving about three shots a minute.