To the Editor:
In light of the recent tragedy in Connecticut, I am going to express my opinion on gun control. I feel all military grade weapons, AKA assault weapons, pistol or rifle, should not be sold to John Q. Public.
Those weapons are designed for one thing, killing and killing in big quantities.
They should only be in the hands of the military and police only. The magazine capacities should be a maximum of 10 or lower for any civilian weapon.
This would not affect hunting. If a person needs more than two shots at a deer or squirrel, they need their gun taken away from them. Shotguns have a maximum shell capacity of three shells (some models hold more shells) and I do not see anyone screaming from the NRA.
The NRA, the Non-Rational Association, is only interested in the gun industry, AKA corporations, and the dues of their members. It is all about money! What person in their right mind hunts with an AR-15 with a 30 round clip?
Thorough background checks should be done. If a person fails the background check, they should be charged with the cost of the background check.
We do not live in a society like the 1950s era. In those days, the major school problems were truancy, bubble gum under the desk and maybe a “cherry bomb” in the toilet.”
The latter in those days would be considered an act of terrorism in today’s world. Today’s school problems include illegal drug sales and use, violence towards teachers and students, guns and knives.
Schools and society have changed greatly since the 1950s. And gun laws need to change with them. It is impossible to control people since they can “think” for themselves.
A gun can only be an inert object until acted upon by an external force, a human, thus they can be controlled. Eliminating these weapons of mass killing will curtail the mass killings, but will reduce gun related killings thus saving lives.
When a killer has to reload, they are vulnerable and can be stopped. And the NRA’s idea of armed school guards raises many questions. Who determines the qualifications and background of these individuals?
One guard per school would be inefficient. And who would pay for these guards? The funds for guards would come from the education budgets.
The political supporters of the NRA, primarily Republicans, are against adding money to education.
Would the parents of school children be charged a fee per student for these guards? Would all taxpayers pay for these guards? Better yet, let the NRA foot the bill for the armed guards since it is their idea!
In closing, I know this letter will anger a lot of local people. Once again, what I propose does not interfere with hunting or target shooting. The law biding citizen can still own guns.
If owning an assault weapon is a “power trip” for the owner, the owner needs relieved of his weapons, all of them! The Second Amendment guarantees the right to own guns (bear arms). It does not infer to or say ALL types of guns.
Don Carns Jr.