I’m writing in support of Proposition 3, which will close the gun show and private sale of firearms loopholes by requiring background checks for all sales and transfer of firearms.

Those advocating a no vote on Prop. 3 have basically set forth the argument that Prop. 3 will inconvenience the gun owner who wishes to loan or transfer a gun to a friend.

It seems to me to equate a relatively small inconvenience, such as the one cited above, to negate a proven method (required background checks) which helps keep guns out of the hand of terrorists, the mentally unstable, spousal abusers, and thugs is nonsense. These two positions are simply not morally equivalent. Inconvenience does not trump the people’s right to live safer lives and to claim it does is both morally and practically indefensible.

Further, if there are any impractical inconveniences in Prop. 3 these can be addressed by the Legislature in the next session. However, be assured of one incontrovertible fact, the Legislature will never have the will to pass any reasonable law to curb gun violence which is the reason for going the proposition route in the first place.

Steve Melchiskey lives in Camden