I am writing in response to John Creveling's column on gun control from the Friday, Jan. 25, 2013, edition of the Sierra Sun.
Mr. Creveling compares guns to cars as his reasoning for why there should not be any reform to gun legislation. I would like to point out the glaring flaw in Mr. Creveling's logic. As he states: a gun is "an inanimate object ... put together by human beings to serve a purpose." The sole purpose of a gun is to kill living things, whether that be ducks, deer or people. The sole purpose of a car on the other hand, is to transport people or things. Despite the killing potential of a car, this is under no circumstances its purpose. I cannot imagine a more greater disparity in "purpose" - thus the total lack of logic in Mr. Creveling's argument.
Secondly, Mr. Creveling writes about the Founding Fathers and the Second Amendment as reasons against updated gun legislation. I have heard this argument countless times in the weeks following the Sandy Hook murders. I am amazed that the obvious must be pointed out: When the Second Amendment was composed, automatic assault weapons (and their incredible killing potential) were not remotely within the realm of imagination.
Nobody is proposing "we give up the right to protect ourselves under the Second Amendment" as Mr. Creveling states. I am simply suggesting a long, hard look at whether assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines should continue to be readily available to the average citizen. Sensible gun legislation in America is tragically overdue.