Jonathan Hines says real public safety requires holding violent offenders fully accountable for their actions,

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and may not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com

Recent tragic violence at a Seattle food festival has once again triggered predictable calls for expanding gun-free zones and tightening firearm prohibitions. Yet, as details emerged showing individuals equipped with illegal firearms engaging in broad daylight shootouts, the fundamental flaw in modern gun policy became starkly visible.

Jonathan Hines

Criminals, by definition, do not respect statutory boundaries. Adding new legal prohibitions or declaring public parks “gun-free zones” does nothing to deter someone intent on committing violent acts. Instead, these measures disarm only the law-abiding citizens who respect the rule of law, stripping them of their fundamental right to self-defense when danger strikes. This rush to expand restrictions occurs alongside shifting law enforcement realities, such as the Vancouver Police Department altering how officers handle low-level misdemeanor crimes due to public defender shortages. When local governance signals a retreat on holding minor offenses accountable while simultaneously attempting to restrict the self-defense rights of peaceful citizens, it creates a dangerous environment.

A sign proclaiming an area a gun-free zone acts as a guarantee to criminals that their victims will be completely defenseless. Disarming responsible citizens while public safety enforcement weakens places everyday people directly in harm’s way. At the heart of this legislative philosophy lies a fundamental logical error: placing moral blame on an inanimate tool rather than the individual wielding it.

Blaming a firearm for human violence is equivalent to blaming an automobile for drunk driving. A vehicle is a neutral machine. When a drunk driver operates a car and causes a fatal crash, society rightly holds the driver criminally liable for their reckless choices. No reasonable person demands a ban on sedan models or public highways to stop drunk driving. Yet, when a violent offender chooses to pull a trigger, lawmakers rush to penalize millions of law abiding firearm owners who have committed no crime. Firearms, like automobiles, possess no agency; their outcome depends entirely on the character of the person holding them.

Real public safety requires holding violent offenders fully accountable for their actions, vigorously enforcing laws against criminal conduct, and preserving the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families in public spaces. Expanding gun-free zones and targeting firearm parts does not stop criminal violence — it merely ensures that when criminals inevitably break the law, innocent victims are left without the means to defend their lives.

Jonathan Hines
\Vancouver

---

Also read:

• 
  Opinion: Is Mitchell Kelly misleading voters with his ‘deputy auditor’ claim?
  Clark County HR records show no position called “Deputy County Auditor” has ever existed, Anderson argues.
• 
  Opinion: Democrats rig the ballot to save their income tax
  Churchill argues the ballot disclosure warning voters of education cuts describes revenue never collected and not yet allocated.
• 
  Opinion: Bankrupt – A $3.5 billion Rose Quarter Freeway widening project
  Joe Cortright argues ODOT’s Rose Quarter project has grown from a $450M approval to a $3.5B estimate, with a $2B funding gap.
• 
  POLL: Do you believe democratic socialism poses a threat to America’s constitutional system?
  A reader poll asks whether democratic socialism conflicts with America’s constitutional institutions.
• 
  Law firm opposing income tax initiative sought to influence ballot title, summary
  Pacifica Law Group, AG Nick Brown’s former firm, sent letters urging the AGO to shape ballot language for I-645.