In a letter written to the New York Times he claims that had it not been for his access to guns, his victim may still be alive,
"I do take responsibility for the murder; I'm sorry for taking his life, and all the life he could have had. But without a gun, I would not have killed. Could I have stabbed him? Bludgeoned him? If I had done so and he hadn't died, why would that have made me less culpable than I am now, a man who swiftly and cowardly shot another man to death? A killer nonetheless, I hash these things out, in my head, in my cell, in Attica serving 28 years to life."
His comments make for an interesting discussion. Lennon admits that people will always want to kill each other, that taking guns a way will obviously not eliminate violent crime, but he claims that it could help. He attempts to make his point by discussing an attempt against his life while in prison. Another inmate, in an attempted revenge killing, attacked him in the prison yard. Having no access to a gun, he used an ice pick and stabbed Lennon six times... but it didn't get the job done. Lennon says, "While my assailant's intent was clear, the weapon he had access to was insufficient. Therefore I lived."
Access to guns is one of the most divisive issues in our country today... even locally in Exeter last week there was a run-off elections due, in part, because of new proposed gun control legislation. Is there a balance between preserving the rights of the Second Amendment and protecting citizens from the harm done with guns in the hands of the wrong people? If so, we have yet to find it.
You can read Kristof's entire article by clicking here.