Paul Sharp (“Road to totalitarianism,” The Public Forum, June 27) believes it unconstitutional for the government to require masks in public places for the express purpose of protecting others from potential death. He believes “Forced masking” is a “slippery slope” to end all freedoms, and that no citizen should participate, else they have given way to tyranny which will result in the big bad government taking his guns.

Sharp refers to those willing to submit to the call for mask wearing as “the frightened herd.” I have a question for him and his clearly insular belief:

Who is more frightened? Those willing to wear a mask to prevent death (primarily parents and grandparents), or those frightened that the big bad government will next be coming for their guns if they wear a mask?

I’ll take the liberty here. Tis you, Mr. Sharp, tis you and your like-minded, who roam with the irrational and frightened herd.

As a legal investigator and part of “the government” for nearly three decades, I have learned by interviewing many thousands of the irrational, that a “slippery slope” argument to sell an idea literally means: No factual basis or evidence exists to support an idea or belief.

It is well-established that the emotion of fear frequently comes from a lack of knowledge about pertinent facts, also known as ignorance. It is at the very apex irony, for Mr. Sharp to mistakenly conclude those with knowledge, compassion and concern for others are “the frightened herd,” while at the same time he is, in fact, blindly lost within that very herd.

Mr. Sharp, if you don’t believe it is constitutional for the government to require you to wear something, might I suggest you run a test of your little theory. Try walking around the city naked and see what happens.

Craig Watson, North Salt Lake