Force does not generate peace

To the editor:

Gun advocates say that guns don't kill. All mechanical devices have been devised for one or more purpose. Guns are designed to shoot bullets into a living creature or other object.

Does not the need to carry a gun indicate my fear or distrust of people in my surroundings? Jeb Bush says I can have one to stand my ground, but if I were exceedingly scared I probably would shoot first and ask questions later. Also, if I believe that I am superior, right and wiser than others and look upon others as inferior beings, I just might be trigger-happy. These two attitudes are not classified as mental illness, but are sparks that often cause violence.

So as a nation do we wish to hang together through the use of force and intimidation or through building respect and trust of one another? Is the militant group in Oregon occupying a wildlife refuge the way we need to proceed? And did the Second Amendment first mean the original immigrants from Europe could be gun-toting members except those who were slaves or Native Americans? Unfortunately, each nation does need a military as provided in the Second Amendment. Australia has recently restricted guns and crime in their country has dropped drastically, the reliance on force does not seem historically to build a social peaceful community or nation.

Terri Nederhiser

Cedar Rapids