Carl H. Russell cites the recent murder of a woman by her ex-boyfriend as evidence that firearms are necessary for protection ("Murder makes the case for firearms in the home," Feb. 14).
One could say the same of any murder where the victim did not have a firearm. Yet it is a false argument because it ignores all the homicides that take place not because people don't have guns but because they do.
In an ideal world we would confine the possession of firearms solely to potential victims, while withholding them from potential killers. But that is impossible in the real world.
The fact is that other wealthy nations have much lower homicide rates than the U.S. precisely because they control access to guns and ammunition more stringently than we do.