Cumberland Times-News

Letters

January 16, 2013

The government doesn’t want to take your guns

Lately, there has been a great deal of debate over the issue of firearm control in the United States.

However, despite what the N.R.A., Fox News, and their disciples would have you believe, the government does not want to take your guns away.

The government desires to accomplish two things. Firstly, a more rigid regulation on the purchasing of firearms such as more strict permit and background check laws.

To me, this comes across as nothing more than common sense; after all the U.S. government requires licenses and permits for driving, hunting, fishing, and construction to name a few.

These are, for the most part, in place to promote safety and responsibility. How could any rational person argue against promoting safe and responsible firearm use?

Additionally, firearm users should be held accountable for their weapons at all time and ensure that when not in use they are safely and securely stored.

One suggestion could be implementing a firearms insurance program. After all, insurance is in place to protect automobile users in the event of theft or accident. A similar system, if enacted for firearm owners, would hopefully further promote safe and responsible gun ownership.

The second issue with which the government is concerned regarding firearms is the plan to ban military grade assault weapons, much like those used in the Sandy Hook, Aurora. Virginia Tech, and Columbine shootings.

While I understand the practical uses of some firearms for home protection and sport/hunting, what practical purposes do military style assault weapons serve other than efficient mass killing.

Additionally, banning assault weapons from civilian use is no different from not permitting civilian access to other military style weaponry such as rocket launchers, missiles, and weapons grade nuclear fuels.

I for one believe that granting civilians access to such weapons would be an absurdly bad idea.

Even conservative demigod Ronald Reagan agreed with these sentiments, stating at his 78th birthday party celebration on Feb. 6, 1989 that “I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

Furthermore, I would like to argue against the reasoning that gun laws and regulations would be ineffective because criminals will not obey such laws.

Well, since when have criminals ever obeyed laws? Based on this flawed logic, we should have no laws whatsoever.

Lastly, other developed nations such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have implemented regulatory practices similar, if not identical, to the proposed regulations in America.

A simple glance at the firearm based violent crime statistics in these countries, the highest of which is 10 times lower than that of the United States; suggest that these regulations have been extremely successful.

It is my hope that the American population will come to its senses and realize that such laws are necessary to help curtail the mass killings and violent incidents that have taken the lives of so many innocent Americans.

Alexander M. Brant

LaVale

1
Text Only
Letters
Latest news
Facebook
Must Read
House Ads