Normally I would guess that the letter was satire, except that I actually know someone who thinks that way. She simply does not believe in self defense by force. We asked her once what she would do if Charles Manson appeared on her doorstep and said "I'm here to kill you, and I'm not going to leave until I do." She said (I am not making this up) that she would invite him in for a cup of tea, and simply talk him out of it. I know what you're thinking, but no, she was dead serious.
There really are people out there who are that clueless.
That's true enough, and I've always wondered what "kind" of people these are and how they go about "thinking" as they do. To simply label them liberals is inadequate, and "liberal" is a misused, misappropriated term these days anyway. Is it accurate to label them socialists? It'll have to do. The difference between them and other people is chiefly twofold: their view of personal responsibility and how it ties in with the basis of their fear response.
First off, these people generally do not fear other people the same way that most of us do. I don't know whether it's in their genes as some kind of ultra-extraversion or something, but they tend to view people as all being the same, and highly subject to external forces and influences that cause them to behave in certain ways rather than free will or individualism. To them, people are a product of experiences and circumstances, and are not innately responsible for what they do. This is why they fear guns so--in their minds, guns were created to do harm and therefore inspire people to harm others (the gun made me do it!). Guns are also perhaps the ultimate symbol of responsibility, which socialists fear even more than guns per se. The only entity capable of handling responsibility, in their view, is the government (and to a more limited extent, "society") which exists to protect people from things they fear, such as guns and responsibility. The only people there are to blame is
everybody, never
somebody--that and inanimate objects that enable individuals to commit violence. Violence is always bad because it hurts people, and there is no difference between hurting a murder victim and the murderer because the latter is merely a "victim" of his circumstances. Society has failed him by not ensuring "equal" circumstances and government has failed him by allowing him to have a gun with which to commit murder.
This is why some people would be willing to talk to a guy like Charles Manson instead of filling him with lead like any rational person would do (assuming he attacked). Manson is the same as everybody else, and once he realizes that he's just a victim of government and society, then of course he won't hurt anybody, right? That's better than using an evil gun (symbol of scary responsibility) to commit evil violence against somebody who is just like me (morally equivalent) and not responsible for his actions, isn't it?
Obviously, I don't have to explain the opposing point of view.