To the Journal editor:
Once again, we have gun violence resulting in multiple deaths and injuries.
On April 2 at Fort Hood, a soldier killed three, wounded 16, and committed suicide.
Does justice require a new anti-gun violence law?
Supporters of a new anti-gun violence law state there is a right to public safety for all and there are reasonable restrictions on gun rights for all.
Supporters state unsafe conditions include that on the average every day 32 Americans are murdered by guns, 140 are treated in a hospital for a gunshot assault, and 45 are accidentally shot by a gun (Brady Campaign, 2014).
Supporters suggest the following provisions be in a new anti-gun violence law:
Supporters assume justice for all. Opponents state the proposal violates self's right "to keep and bear arms" (Second Amendment), violates self's right to self-defense, and violates self's right to a limited government.
Opponents assume justice for self.
Is there justice for all or justice for self?
Justice is stated in our Founders Constitution, legislative laws, executive regulations, and judicial decisions including those related to our founding, civil rights movements, feminist rights movements and environmental rights movements.
"Justice for all" is declared in our Pledge of Allegiance. These rights movements reveal our great rights progression from a limited, federal government using ideology promoting justice for the few wealthy white men, to an activist national government using scientific methodological justice and universal ethical justice promoting rights for all.
Scientific methodological justice uses valid data to describe conditions, and universal ethical justice uses our value liberty for all to evaluate conditions.
In this case, scientific methodological justice proves there is not public safety for all, and universal ethical justice proves this condition is unjust.
Based on justice for all, now is the time to promote public safety for all by passing the proposed anti-gun violence law.