Very few would argue against the fact that we are living in difficult times. Many feel we need to draw back from our involvements around the world and close our borders. To do so would be to err on the side of caution. Being overly cautious will cause hardship and grief for other people and nations. No one should condemn those who hold our self-preservation above all else even though, in many cases, doing so will exacerbate the problems not solve them.

Erring on the side of caution borders on instinctual response. Could someone explain why, when it comes to guns, the same people who are so quick to err on the side of caution now err on the side of recklessness?

There is no doubt that our current gun policy is reckless. We elevate our right far beyond our responsibility. This nation leads all the nations not experiencing internal conflict in gun deaths by tens of thousands. Many are ready to close down a resort because of one child’s death. How many children have died because of guns either accidentally or from an act of terror in the last ten years?

If one is too many in one case why are thousands acceptable in the other? Some see no caution when it comes to this issue, though they might hold caution dear on other issues.

Ask yourself, can anyone who is so cautious on one hand and so reckless on the other, govern capably? Are they fit for public office?

We will soon be voting in one of the most important elections to affect this nation since those in the mid-1800s. The course this nation takes is going to change, certainly not to the degree it did in the mid-1800s, but significantly.

Every person who votes needs to ask himself in November, “Am I going to err on the side of caution or am I going to err on the side of recklessness?” For many, that is going to be a very difficult decision. They might be better off not voting.

Richard Holl

Adluh Street

Mount Pleasant