While I agree with some of the views Ramon Tulfo expressed in his column “‘Special’ prosecutors” (Metro, 11/3/15), I wish to take exception particularly to his statement that “[i]t doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that a bullet without a gun is useless.”
Conversely, is he saying that a gun without a bullet is also useless?
A bullet (or bullets) is ammunition of which the mere possession without proper authority is a violation of the law. The law does not require that in order to be criminally liable, the person caught in unauthorized possession of ammunition or bullets must also be in possession of a gun.
Stretching that line of reasoning, are we to let go of a person found transporting several boxes of bullets simply because there are no guns found in his possession? It does not take a rocket scientist either to know the answer.
—GEORGE C. DEE, geex26@yahoo.com