I have heard a number of folks share the opinion expressed in Charles Devoe Jr.'s Jan. letter "Arms are defense against tyranny." I wonder whether they really believe what they are saying.
The people who share this opinion cite events in the 1700s that inspired our government. If they believe that comparatively small assault guns can be effective against modern military armaments including Apache helicopters, F-35 fighter jets, drones, missiles, etc., then they've watched too many Rambo movies.
A society that allows ownership of the biggest, baddest, guns must share responsibility for the "collateral damage" that comes with their ownership, just as society has traffic laws to limit highway fatalities. In military terms, "collateral damage" is the incidental death and destruction incurred while achieving an objective.
Assault rifles for supposed militia objectives produce "collateral damage." It seems horrible to me, but it appears the question becomes: How much "collateral damage" are we willing to accept, which recently included 20 children and six adults in Newtown.
Should there be a need to deal with government tyranny, a preferable method would by the manner prescribed by Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and the Chinese man who stood in front of the tanks at Tiananmen Square — peacefully.
Joe Baniak
Troy