In regard to Janet Stevens’ column “U.S. needs limits on guns,” I don’t even know where to begin regarding fact checking the writer’s statements. I don’t think it would make a difference. This is the mantra of the group “we need to do something” even if it means “infringement” on the 2nd Amendment.

The evidence is indisputable that what is different in society now isn’t the guns; it’s the person, the culture, and the cavalier way we treat violence. Without morality and virtue, most things in a free society fall apart. But with them anything is possible.

What has increased, however, is the number of people making the case that Americans should give back some of their liberty in an attempt to buy a little security. In my opinion, the right to bear arms is in the Constitution for three main reasons: self-protection, community protection and protection from tyranny.

And that’s what this is all about: control. Not of guns, but of us. Controlling what we eat and drive, how we heat our homes, and how we educate our kids, and that’s nothing compared to controlling our overall relationship with government. The issue should not be the lethality of the gun, but the psychology of the person holding it. Outside of hunting and sport shooting, guns serve as equalizers.

Cutting access to guns mainly disarms law-abiding citizens, making criminals’ lives that much easier. Guns allow potential victims to defend themselves when the police aren’t there. If you look across all nations and not just a select few, what you find is that those with the strictest gun control laws also tend to have the highest murder rates.

As Ben Franklin wrote, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and viscous, they have more need of masters.” I could cite FBI stat after stat regarding the biggest causes of deaths in the United States, but that has already been done. Stats do not seem to matter to those who wish to take our inalienable rights away. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

How about some positive stats, the ones where intruders are fended off by responsible gun owners? How about reporting on those stories, news media?

If 18-year-old women in college can’t protect themselves, (They can get an abortion at 18 with parental consent.), if men and women coming home from military service fighting for our freedoms can’t own a firearm, what is next? Also, isn’t feminism about independence and not becoming a victim? Let’s look at restricting the age to 21. Most of the shootings were done by persons 25-30, so what good would the 21 age restriction do? Of the 14,000 CCW licensees in Oregon, only 4 were convicted of the criminal (not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm. (FBI Uniform Reports, 2000).

While praying for the families who lost children, it is important that we do not double-down on senselessness.

If progressives can change the 2nd Amendment from “thou shall not infringe” to no guns except what they allow, then they have turned the entire Constitution on its head. This is the path we are on. I firmly believe that our Bill of Rights is not merely a list of suggestions, but a road map to freedom. Please “arm” yourself with information, facts and the truth. Information is power. Those without it have nothing.

— Carol Orr lives in Crooked River Ranch.