Letter: How Fortunate to Be ‘Suitable’
To the Editor:
I respond to William P. Walsh’s critique of Charlie Buttrey’s letter regarding a study on gun use and mortality. I quote Walsh quoting the study:
“The following quote gives one the impression that perhaps most of those in possession of a gun were of questionable status: ‘However, compared with control participants, shooting case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where more blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking.’ So we have a report concerning unsuitable people, engaged in unsuitable behavior, and associating with other unsuitable people. What has it to do with the ordinary law-abiding citizen? What has it to do with the purpose of the Second Amendment? I answer: nothing.”
I assume Walsh is an ordinary, suitable person, living in a suitable area, with culture and skin color completely different from those of the apparently invisible and fortunately safely distant miscreants and riffraff described in the study. I congratulate him on his (entirely deserved, I’m sure) safe, affluent environs untouched by alcohol or drug problems, containing only people who are employed, like himself, in indoor, low-risk occupations.