Tonight's Journal Sentinel letters to the editor had two real gems most everyone here will enjoy. The first is remarkable because of the writer's obvious lack of firearms knowledge (funny how the Journal Sentinel will publish letters from people who know almost nothing about an issue). The second I imagine was meant to be sarcastic, but comes across as no less stupid than the first.
Enjoy.
Aim to wound, not kill
Why did the homeowner in Slinger shoot to kill the intruder instead of shooting at a leg, knee or other nonfatal part of the body ("Homeowner won't face charges in fatal shooting," March 22)? Ditto about the neighborhood watch volunteer in Florida who killed a teenager in his gated community.
Many of us wonder why these men chose to kill instead of maim? We also wonder how these two men feel about killing someone. Do they wish they had shot their victims a little lower, which they could have done had they chosen to?
Bonnie Berglund Bruch
Milwaukee
***
Shoot drunken drivers?
Castle doctrine supporters like to say that if you don't want to be shot, you simply need to stay out of other people's homes. That's fair, I suppose. However, some of the same people (and our Legislature) are hypocritically soft on drunken driving, saying "anyone can make a mistake" and wanting three or four offenses before there are serious consequences.
People usually drive drunk many times before being caught. Someone caught three times has usually driven drunk dozens of times. So this system leads to habitual drunken driving problems.
The solution? When police find drivers intoxicated, they should pull out their gun and shoot them. Harsh? Yes. But I promise it would lower drunken driving rates. And under castle doctrine logic, it's fair. After all, if you don't want to be shot, you simply need to not drive drunk.
Justin W. Braun
Burlington
