To the editor:

I want to thank Mr. Clyne for his reply to my article. However, it is unfortunate that he chose to employ tactics whose purpose is to stifle, not promote, conversation. 

He demands that "loose talk needs to stop" and then states that my article had "false and unsupported statements" and is "misleading." Unfortunately, Mr. Clyne fails to back up his statements with any substance, so all we are left with is hyperbolic hand wringing. 

Mr. Clyne also states that my talk is “dangerous” and "can lead to negative consequences for those who act on those opinions." Pray tell Mr. Clyne - what is so "dangerous" about what I have written? We all know - nothing, nothing at all. Ah, but as I reflect a little longer on Mr. Clyne's assertion, I find that I am mistaken and that he is indeed correct; my words are dangerous. They are dangerous to today's gun control narrative that relies on emotion, scare tactics, and people’s ignorance regarding the issue. So when people speak out against such narratives, when facts are shared, along with coherent arguments, and when independent, open-minded, critical thinking people listen to an alternative point of view and start to think for themselves, then people like Mr. Clyne get worried, and for good reason. Such open debate threatens their position. 

Now to Mr. Clyne's specific points that he made: 

1. Whether or not a firearm “saves lives” is not necessarily a relevant factor in determining if a certain kind of firearm is constitutional. AR-15s can and do "save lives," but that is largely irrelevant. 

2. Mr. Clyne's data on the prevalence of defensive gun use does not contradict anything I wrote. Such numbers are open to debate, and I would argue they are far greater than the roughly 55k-80k that Mr. Clyne reported. However, for the sake of argument, even if we go with 55k-80k per year, that is a substantial number that should not be casually discarded. Furthermore, I only brought up the statistic because another writer stated that he did not know of a SINGLE case of one using an AR-15 to save a life. 

3. With all due respect, Mr. Clyne also appears to have misunderstood the idea of "common use" and how the Supreme Court uses this standard when analyzing the constitutionality of certain types of firearms. He points out the fact that handguns are more common than AR-15s. So what? This doesn’t matter. The standard is “common use” not “most popular.” And for the record, I pointed out the fact that AR-15s are the most common RIFLE, not firearm. Given their commonality, any ban on AR-15s will almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional. I recommend anyone interested in learning more about "common use" language read some Supreme Court opinions.  

4. Mr. Clyne stated there are 77.5k gun owners in America; I assume this was an honest mistake, there are 78 million. 

Lastly, I find it interesting, in my prior articles, I have suggested several areas that we should focus on to help stop gun violence: violent criminals who possess firearms, fatherless homes, purposeful division of society, a decaying culture, etc., yet the only solution anti-gunners seem to push are those that do nothing to save lives and only end up infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens. Why is that? 

Matthew Fletcher

Barrington