Alan Gottlieb's commentary ("First, remember the Constitution," Feb. 12) seems to imply that modern Americans need guns to retain their rights and freedoms. He cites the first battles of the Revolutionary War. Yet seeking independence from British rule hardly seems the same as protecting ourselves in today's United States.
As a nation with a "government of the people, by the people, for the people," we have a system for the election of representatives, debate and discussion. Laws protect our personal freedoms. We have well-established legal and civil mechanisms to negotiate our differences.
Some seem to perceive that their well-being and safety hinges on being armed. By extrapolation, to achieve societal safety, should we arm all our citizens? Or, perhaps, in the case of gun-related violence, might we simply better regulate gun and ammunition sales and ownership? Gun violence would still exist, but if we look at countries with stricter gun regulations, there should be less.
In a society, individuals must sometimes make compromises for the greater good. The public is protected by many sorts of regulations — building codes, professional licenses, automobile registration, driver licenses, dog, hunting and fishing licenses, and prescription requirements for many medications and eyeglasses.
Why should firearms be treated any differently than other things with the potential to put the public at risk?
Firearms and ammunition regulation and registration are for the greater good. Many gun owners support sensible gun control. Across the country, fairly widespread support exists for background checks, banning the sale of semiautomatic weapons, banning high-capacity clips, requiring gun registration and prohibiting felons and the mentally ill from owning guns. We need to formalize these sentiments and enact legislation that will curtail some of our gun violence.
ERICA M. SUFRIN, PH.D.
Voorheesville