M.D. Harmon, in a recent newspaper column about gun ownership, offered a simplistic rationale for every house and every housewife to have a gun.

He gave an example of a woman who had a gun and managed to wound an intruder. In a second example, the woman didn’t have a gun and an intruder killed her.

Unfortunately, this really doesn’t prove anything.

Life is complex and unpredictable — particularly where confrontations with guns occur.

True, an armed woman could succeed in scaring off an intruder or even wounding or killing him/her. It’s just as likely, however, a woman could be surprised by an intruder and be not able to get to her gun.

Unless she wears it 24/7, it would/should be in a secure place where her curious children could not put their hands on it. Or maybe she could get to her gun, but finds she is facing an armed intruder who is much more capable than she in using their weapon.

On the other hand, the unarmed woman, because she is not posing a threat, might not cause the intruder to draw his/her weapon. No one can say with certainty how situations like these will actually go down.

The core issue here is extremely complex. How do we protect that Second Amendment right while at the same time correcting some flaws that have crept in which contribute to misuse of guns. The answer is not in ideas like Harmon’s.

It will require good minds, deliberations, debating all sides of the issues and finally, open minds.

Chris W. Conway


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or to participate in the conversation. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.