John and Deborah Owens’ impassioned plea (“Gun rights have no restriction,” Reader Input, April 4) that they need more laxity in gun ownership in order to protect them from whatever they’re obviously frightened about fails to mention the paucity of evidence suggesting gun ownership serves any purpose whatsoever. A few years back, three armed and trained police officers were shot and killed in a restaurant in the Pacific Northwest. Unless these men had their weapons in their hands and aimed at the killer when he entered would they have been of any use? Do the Owens propose to answer with a weapon in hand every time their doorbell rings? While the insane justification for more weaponry continues unabated, a more useful purpose might be to actually question why the Second Amendment is of so little use other than to perpetuate mass slaughter.
Ed Scotten, Colfax