To the editor:

Chad Lawhorn’s July 1 interviews provided a unique opportunity for rational discussion of gun rights and regulation – an opportunity partly accepted and partly declined.

Rational people recognize two conflicting story lines, each with an element of truth: Available guns can be used to protect innocent people; available guns can lead to wrongful injuries and death. We have to decide, in the light of experience, which happens more often. But irrational people hold only one story line in their head.

Rational people know that gun rights and regulations are created by legal and political traditions that can be changed in the light of reason. But irrational people believe rights and rules are magically given and immutable.

Rational people know that both fear and courage can be shown by both those who carry and those who don’t carry guns. But irrational people confuse the tool with human character.

By these standards, Marilyn Roy made a credible effort to engage in rational discussion, while supporting gun regulation. Richard Dyer on the other hand acknowledged only a one-sided story line, claimed that gun rights are immutable and unarguable, and praised the false courage that comes from packing a concealed gun.

One cannot generalize from a sample of two, but there is no need to. The Internet is filled with arguments like Dyer’s. Irrational but well-organized gun supporters with intense feelings are setting an extremist political agenda. Meanwhile, polls show a substantial majority of Americans supporting reasoned gun regulations. Maybe it’s time for them to get angry.

David Burress,

Lawrence