To the editor,

Let me start by stating I am not against the Second Amendment or gun ownership. However, I know we can have sensible laws regulating guns that do not go against the constitutional amendment protecting our right to speech or guns. It is possible.

I then want to go into some facts that are unique to the US. Guns are the leading cause of deaths among children. Violent crime (not just gun crime) in the US is higher than any other developed nation, with a unique emphasis on gun violence. School shootings are only a problem in the US with hundreds of deaths per year. There have been 288 school shooting deaths in 2025 alone. The next closest is Mexico with eight, South Africa with six, then Nigeria and Pakistan with four.

I could lay out facts about how this problem is unique to the United States that would fill the entirety of this newspaper, but it would change nothing. In effect the gun debate is over. America decided after Sandy Hook that kids suffering and dying in the worst of circumstances by being gunned down in a school was not enough to even try to address this problem. As Mr. Hansen from Prescott put it, "You are not going to get gun deaths to zero." Why then even try to reduce children's deaths? Put plainly, these children dying are a necessary and acceptable cost to pay to keep our guns.

It is possible that no amount of words that I put on this page will ever change anyone's mind. And yet still I feel it necessary to try. I don't and will not believe children's suffering is a necessary sacrifice to sustain our country's freedom or the greatness of America. If I accepted such a foolish thing then I would question whether this country was even worth fighting for anymore. If one honestly believes that guns are so important that it is not even worth trying to protect our kids from suffering and death, then maybe they should reflect on the sort of person they have become and the sort of country they believe they live.

Jacob Proue

Spring Valley