Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Letter: Gun access

December 18, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

The news reports from Connecticut indicate that the 26 victims of the shootings at the school were shot with at least one assault weapon using a high-powered bullet that has a devastating effect on flesh and bone. As a former prosecutor and district attorney, I have seen more than my fair share of autopsy photographs illustrating what effect bullets have on the human body. Some of those photographs are seared into my memory. I can’t imagine what the high-powered ammunition used at the school shooting would do to the bodies of 6- and 7-year-old children.

The extreme gun advocates in our midst will predictably argue that this was the solitary act of a madman. That much is true. But it is also true that someone put the assault weapon and high-powered ammunition into circulation. This type of weapon and ammunition has only one purpose: To kill human beings. The country has seen enough of these mass shootings. The distribution of assault weapons and high-powered ammunition must be regulated.

The extreme gun advocates believe that the Constitution affords them the right to the unrestricted access to even the most powerful assault weapons and ammunition. I say this to those people: Go to Connecticut. Sit down with parents of the dead children, and explain to them how your unrestricted access to assault weapons is more important than the lives of their children.

Comments

Leslie Swearingen 1 year, 3 months ago

I swear,Bea, you could wear a rock down to sand! After all of this I am sick and tired of the whole subject.

Has anyone read the series of Reacher books by Lee Child? The movie with Tom Cruise is out, check out the scene where he hides in the crowd. I think Cruise is excellent in this role and I know what all the objections were to him playing this part. There are about eight books in the series at this point. You really should check them out. This is the most unusual character I have read about in a long time.

0

yourworstnightmare 1 year, 4 months ago

The second amendment is unusual compared to the other sections of the Constitution because it is the only one that mentions a specific technology, firearms.

The most conservative reading of the second amendment, then, is that it refers to the specific firearms technology of the day, just as the language of the day is taken into account in interpreting it (e.g. "well-regulated").

The technology of "arms" to the writers of the Constitution meant front load-muskets, swords, and front-load cannons.

To extrapolate from the second amendment that the writers could have possibly meant to include automatic weapons and other modern weapons of war is extreme liberal overinterpretation.

0

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 4 months ago

Why doesn't Switzerland have these mass murder issues? We don't have a gun problem in the USA, we have a societal problem. "Violence is as American as apple pie."

"There may be various reasons why the Nazis did not invade Switzerland, but one of those reasons is that every Swiss man had a rifle at home. The Nazi invasion plans themselves state that, because of the Swiss gun ownership and shooting skills, that country would be difficult to conquer and occupy. The European countries occupied by the Nazis usually had strict gun controls before the war, and their registration lists facilitated confiscation of firearms and, in many cases, execution of their owners."

0

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 4 months ago

Ted on the 2nd. I don't agree much with Sweaty Teddy, but he's right on when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, IMHO.

0

Klumma 1 year, 4 months ago

Ok. Not sure I have ever seen so much banter - some valid points, others not. I guess I will throw my hat in as well.

If any of you think that the horrible thing that happened last Friday will change anything, gun control, etc. you are wrong.

Our President has control, in a small way, and may even "own" the SCOTUS. However, if he tries to needle into the Second Amendment, he may want more arms to save himself, family, and others whom protect him. I pray that this would never be.

I know. Sounds crazy, right? Just hope no more harm comes from crazy people who kill human beings. That is just not how we, as "civilized" people, act unless there is a certain "wrong" instability going on which has been overlooked or ignored or are threatened with certain peril.

I own a firearm or two and have been educated on the respect and use for such. It does not appear that others have, in a school or on the street, and that is truly scary. Very scary.

For those who do have the education, respect, knowledge, and fear of what a firearm of any name, age, caliber, or history is capable of you should not be penalized by the actions of others who do not.

  • Have a nice day!!
2

RoeDapple 1 year, 4 months ago

RoeD - "Licensing a driver will not prevent him from driving into a crowd."

Katara - "Requiring a license renewal helps prevent the driver from driving into crowd because they have poor eyesight."

Katara, Licensed or not, if this 20 year old murderer had not had access to firearms he could have just as easily driven a car down the sidewalk as school let out and killed as many or more young people. The goal of mass murderers is the result, not the means. It's not about his eyesight, but it is about his vision.

1

Chris Golledge 1 year, 4 months ago

I can't think of any law that would prevent someone from killing lots of other people if they are motivated. You could ban guns altogether and even if the ban worked, they could switch to IEDs - a little chemistry and some metal scraps would get the job done.

You could ban large clips; it would slow them down a little. You'd get some pushback from the home defense crowd, and a counter that guns in the home lead to more accidental shootings that successful defenses. But then, I would think that an individual might want to make that decision for themselves; there are risks on both sides, but I'm not sure I'd want someone else telling me I could not arm myself against potential threats.

Assault rifles versus hunting rifles: There is no real difference, with the possible exception that hunting rifles using center-fire cartridges rarely hold more than 4-6 rounds. Anyone can get around an assault rifle ban; if nothing else they could switch to a shotgun.

0

Roland Gunslinger 1 year, 4 months ago

CLEARLY many on this board have not a clue what an "assault weapon" is.

Please explain to me how having black plastic body parts as opposed to wood body parts on a semi-auto rifle makes the rifle more deadly or "military" style.

The look of a rifle does not determine the function of a rifle.

Please watch this video and learn something.

3

ImRonBurgandy 1 year, 4 months ago

If he were really a District Attorney he would know the difference between an Assault Rifle and a semi automatic rifle. The rifle was not an assault rifle, it was NOT fully automatic. One trigger pull one shot. That is not an assault rifle dummy. If you don't like the Amendments given to us in this great country then leave. Just leave.

0

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 1 year, 4 months ago

My deer rifle is an AR-15 chambered in 6.8 SPC. With the bolt locking on eight lugs, the bolt to barrel interface allows for great accuracy with a free floated barrel.
Yes, I hunt with an AR-15, and it has a legitimate sporting purpose.

3

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 4 months ago

Millions of responsible gun owners hurt no one last Friday. We should not be forced to sacrifice our 2nd Amendment right, or our weaponry, because a minority of mentally deranged a-holes got hold of a gun and lashed out.

We already had an "assault weapons" ban from 1994 through 2004. It did not stop the mass murder of school children at Columbine. We mentally deranged people decide to hurt people and lash out at society nothing will stop them from doing that. We need to address the real problems of poor mental health facilities and a society full of suck.

1

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 4 months ago

The Swiss have over 400,000 of these Sig SG550's and Sig-Saur P220 pistols in homes across the country. The Swiss government even subsidizes the sale of ammunition. Yet, they don't have near the gun violence as our country. Why? Because we, as a society, are failing.

400,000 Assault Weapons in Switzerland.  The government subsidizes the sale of ammunition.  Have about 1/3 of the gun violence as the USA.  Why?

400,000 Assault Weapons in Switzerland. The government subsidizes the sale of ammunition. Have about 1/3 of the gun violence as the USA. Why? by Crazy_Larry

2

Liberty275 1 year, 4 months ago

Second amendment. You already lost, Mr Wells.

Also, the .223 isn't really high powered. If your daddy owned a deer rifle, it was much more powerful than a mini14 or an AR15.

Also, AR15 rifles are built for one purpose - to shoot bullets. An M4 or an M16 is built to kill humans. Get your story straight. Of course, all the M4s in the world can't kill someone until a human pulls the trigger.

Your ilk would punish innocent people and exploit tragedy because a mentally ill person in a country of 300-odd million committed an atrocity.

No worries, the house will stop any law you want. Like I said, You've already lost.

1

George Lippencott 1 year, 4 months ago

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense

The court has also ruled that reasonable restricitons may be applied. Mrs Feinstein has a bill to be introduced soon that attempts to limit clip size, assualt weapons (defines same) and a few other things. Does not attempt to end gun ownership. Would have precluded (if enforced) the shoot all week solutions now available (large magazines).

0

David Klamet 1 year, 4 months ago

Clearly you people do not have a clue. As horrendous as this atrocity is, and as much emphasis as the media has given it (a double edged sword, excuse the metaphor), the real problems are only hinted at...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-shooting-anarchist-soccer-mom/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Here is the problem. There are many, many people with problems. Some of them are undoubtedly in Lawrence. Some of them may be in class with your kids. Or riding with them on the bus to school.

They are what you should be afraid of. They are the ones who need your help.

0

Pal 1 year, 4 months ago

Invincible Ignorance

by Thomas Sowell

Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of "gun control" advocates?

The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.

If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.

Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.

When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.

http://lewrockwell.com/sowell/sowell123.html

1

ferrislives 1 year, 4 months ago

continued...

Although #5 is what I wish would happen, I don't have much faith that any psychiatric community would commit that person indefinitely. Just look at the Guy Turcotte case in Canada of a father who stabbed his own 2 little kids got acquitted and released due to his insanity defense, or the Greyhound idiot.

But these steps would have involved no new laws; only enforcement of existing laws, and this change could be enacted quickly. Then we could focus on what else needs to change. I feel that the National Instant Criminal Background Check Improvement Act from 2007 was a major step in the right direction. It needs to be strongly funded by the federal government, and strongly enforced by state and local government.

Former Quebec doctor who killed his children to be released - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/12/12/montreal-guy-turcotte-mental-review.html Murder of Tim McLean - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_o...

0

ferrislives 1 year, 4 months ago

As a parent, I just cannot imagine what I would do. I'm amazed by the strength of their families, and the community as well. Wow.

I apologize that this is so long-winded...

I do know this: if the NRA and other gun-rights organizations don't take a hard look at how they can proactively make changes to how they do things, the government (for better or for worst) is going to have to do it for them. Continuing to put your head in the sand while innocent adults and children get killed by products you manufacture and distribute will never work. For the love of God and those poor kids, please at least start with the gun show loophole!!!

fred_mertz wrote: "I heard that a law was passed and signed by Bush that requires mentally ill people to be put into the background check database but it is not funded. Maybe we need to fund it."

This interested me, so I looked it up. It's called the "National Instant Criminal Background Check Improvement Act", and I absolutely agree with fred that this law needs to be funded and enforced 100%!

If this existing law had been funded and enforced, this is what's supposed to have happened: (I won't acknowledge the person by name, as he doesn't deserve that.)

1) Person has major mental issues and has been declared "mentally defective", so their mother, father, or other family member gets them added to the NICS database per the National Instant Criminal Background Check Improvement Act from 2007. 2) When the person tries to purchase another rifle from a sporting goods shop in CT (like they apparently did), a red flag goes up once the employee enters the person's name into the system. 3) The employee contacts law enforcement immediately to report an attempted illegal gun purchase. A mark is automatically put on the person's record to show what they tried to do. 4) Law enforcement takes the person into custody and commits them to an institution. 5) The local psychiatric community evaluates the person, and they ends up being housed indefinitely because they're at risk of harming themselves and/or to the community.

0

Thomas Bryce 1 year, 4 months ago

The latest statistics I found showed firearm related deaths in America are Approximately 30,000 a year. Automobile related deaths caused approximately 40,000 Deaths. Do we ban automobiles? Maybe just the Really Powerful ones that are so fast? No. We educate and train our student drivers the best we can and hope it is enough. You can't ban everything that causes death but you can EDUCATE people to help them make better choices. Why is education being cut on all levels

0

RoeDapple 1 year, 4 months ago

Only idiots and the media (media idiots?) continue to call semi-auto sporting rifles assault rifles.

1

carp 1 year, 4 months ago

Start teaching firearm safety in the schools. Use this as a tool to identify those individuals who should not be allowed to own a firearm. The sooner potential problems are identified, the better chance we have of defusing a pontetial problem. Doubt this would ever fly, but think education and problem identification is a better long term solution than banning.

0

Armstrong 1 year, 4 months ago

I'm not a hard core 2nd amendment supporter. I believe there are many people out there who have no, zero nada business owning a gun much less a sharp object. That said people want something bad enough they will get it, be it abortion guns, drugs.... It is a fact of life sooner or later some numbskull will get his/her hands on a gun and you know the rest. Given the climate of random violence I plan to apply for a C and C the first of the year.

1

Karl_Hungus 1 year, 4 months ago

riddle me this, neocons........if ya care so much about life, as you say you do.....put your money where your foot is (hint, mouth)

3

disappointed_regressive 1 year, 4 months ago

Grammaddy says, How about requiring a license and insurance for all gun owners. In order to keep the license you must submit to an annual mental evaluation.

But I'll bet you don't like the idea of mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients, do you? Wouldn't that also save lives, of not just the user, but possibly that users' kids?

Seems a little like a double standard to me.

0

colicole81 1 year, 4 months ago

Who has unrestricted access to assault rifles? Background checks and waiting periods are restrictions. As a former city prosecutor I would expect you to know that. In addition, I haven't heard one person claim that their right to carry is more important than the lives of those children. The two are not even related. Taking guns from law abiding citizens won't bring those babies back or prevent future mass killings. Stricter regulations might but taking them won't. It's time for a real conversation about how to prevent criminals and psychopaths from getting access to guns, while providing increased mental health services.

0

RoeDapple 1 year, 4 months ago

"This type of weapon and ammunition has only one purpose: To kill human beings."

Please explain to me what I've been doing wrong. I have fired in excess of 85,000 rounds of ammo in my lifetime and never so much as put a scratch on another human being.

On the other hand, I have dispatched a few deer, coyotes, prairie dogs, feral dogs, a duck or two, tin cans, paper targets, hedge balls, black walnuts, coins, potatoes, rabid skunk, a realty sign (at the gun range), cans of warm cola, watermelons, pumpkins, apples, . . . .

and a Buick Skylark. (also at the range)

3

beatrice 1 year, 4 months ago

Owning several guns did not protect Nancy Lanza. Adam Lanza did not purchase the guns he used, but stole them and used them on the owner as well as others. Very few armed Americans belong to militias. Republicans arguing on television and in the media that school teachers should be armed are not going to help the gun enthusiasts' cause. I seriously doubt that Connecticut legislators will follow the lead of Arizona legislators naming an official state gun (the Colt single-action army revolver) shortly after a tragic shooting in their state.

Military styled assault rifles will again be limited if not outright banned, but extended clips that are never used by hunters (but may be for target shooting) likely will not be banned. Unfortunately, any bans now will be like trying to fill the Grand Canyon by tossing in pebbles. Bans now will do little in preventing future killings. The issue of mental illness, which is now too often handled by our government through the police and our jail system, will see little to no change. That is likely the biggest concern for those in support and those against guns, yet it will receive the least amount of attention, I'm afraid.

0

andrew55 1 year, 4 months ago

Science failed. Education failed. Laws failed. Jesus has never failed. People need the love of Jesus in their hearts. Have you tried Him?

1

rockchalk1977 1 year, 4 months ago

This tragedy stems from a lack of parental control and a mental health issue. This is not a gun control issue. At a time when our nation should be grieving, Democrats are politicizing this tragedy to further their extreme anti-gun agenda. The three opinion letters printed today prove this point. Be advised liberals, the Second Amendment will not be overturned anytime soon!

2

Norm Jennings 1 year, 4 months ago

Yet another BIG LIE

If WE do not lessen stigma and educate/ empower families to get support for 15-35 y.o. males needing mental health mornitoring/ assistance/ support have we accomplished anything?

Secondary markets for firearms (gun shows, internet sales, and the like) make a mockery of the laws already on the books, and those brave men and women working hard and risking everything to enforce those laws. These reckless and irresponsible practices need to end; state and federal governments need to lead. This will save lives the week the laws are enforced, wherever they are enforced. Not just if another madmen pops up in a few weeks or months (who would probably be using weapons that have already been purchased anyway).

It is a dis-service to the suffering of these children and families to go after the all-too-easy quick fix of assault weapons bans.

When is the last time anyone opened an aspirin bottle without a tamper-proof seal? Nope, not due to a firearm. OK City tragedy--not due to a firearm. Are firearms needed to make pipe bombs? letter bombs? level skyscrapers?

If you just want a back-slapping, kumbaya, self-congratulatory, political hay-making festival, then ban away any and every weapon that you yourselves have never been inclined to own or use. However, do NOT look in the mirror and lie to yourselves. You are not making the most effective efforts possible to leverage this tragedy into a better world that will significantly reduce or prevent tragedies perpetrated by mentally unstable or fanatical young men. You ARE wasting an opportunity to make our nation a safer place for those of us with living children.

0

grammaddy 1 year, 4 months ago

And re-instate the ban on assault weapons.Those belong in the military. Period. If you think you need one to fight the government, you are too delusional to own one.

0

grammaddy 1 year, 4 months ago

How about requiring a license and insurance for all gun owners. In order to keep the license you must submit to an annual mental evaluation. The score on that evaluation determines the cost of insurance PER GUN for the owner. You have to have a license to hunt, fish, even drive and insurance to tag your car. Just a thought.

0

oldbaldguy 1 year, 4 months ago

read "on killing" by david grossman. shot expert with M16 for years in the Army, own guns, hunt birds and deer, have a ccl, do not own an AR or M16 drivative or an AK. civilians do not need to own semiautomatics that can cycle large capacity magazines. semiautos are used for hunting but they generally have a five round magazine not 30. no one needs a handgun that has more than a 8-10 round magazine. the last three shootings involved either AK or the M16 variant.

1

disappointed_regressive 1 year, 4 months ago

If we can have sky marshalls, why can't we have school marshalls? But would that stop those like Whitman in the TX bell tower? No. But in today's modern school configuration, there is opportunity to have a skilled professional (or maybe more than one) stationed at schools across America. We are a nation of 320 million. One out of five young adults have some form of mental condition, one out of four suffer some level of depression. These are staggering numbers. Do the math and you have alot of potential nutcases out there, and then there are the adult nutcases. I can carry, but I don't. I fugure ir, hypothetically, I'm at a business that does not ban concealed carry and some nutcase goes on a shooting rampage, and I am able to take him or her out, then what is the rest of my life going to be like? I would face all manner of criminal charges and likely spend alot of time in lock up, or at a minimum, wipe out my life savings defending myself only to end with up with a record. Look at what the subway shooter (forget his name) from back in the 80's. His life was hell after that.

0

disappointed_regressive 1 year, 4 months ago

This is not a new problem. Archie Bunker had ideas back in the 70's.......lol hilarious!!

0

SouthWestKs 1 year, 4 months ago

I see a easy fix to the school shootings. Only requires a 1 line law.. Repeal the GUN FREE ZONES law.. There problem fixed..

1

Pork_Ribs 1 year, 4 months ago

To say that guns kill people is like saying that a spoon made Rosie O'donnell fat.

0

Pal 1 year, 4 months ago

Peacemaker452 1 hour, 35 minutes ago

Soldiers are not allowed to walk around armed at CONUS bases. They are gun free zones as stated above.

Really.

Gun-Free Zones=Victim-Rich Environments

Bank on the fact that the Obama administration will now go into full force mode to not waste the tragedy (in the paraphrased words of Rahm Emmanuel) in Connecticut. There has been a trend within the last decade among the states in the carrying of arms for personal protection. This seems to have culminated in the recent federal court of appeals that found the Illinois ban on concealed carry unconstitutional.

The issue of concealed carry seems to have evolved from restrictive “may issue” to less restrictive “shall issue” to the least restrictive “constitutional carry.” Will this trend be broken by these recent tragedies? Or will it bring into focus the fact that gun-free zones are victim-rich environments?

Delegating personal safety to the government is never a good idea and has an extremely poor track record. But that’s not what you will hear in the days and weeks ahead from the mainstream media. Forget the fact that armed teachers and administrators have stopped school shootings in the past. Plus, you won't hear much coverage of police stepping forward endorsing the idea of arming school personnel or how some states are expanding existing restricted access for permit holders to carry in more places.

Gun-Free Zones=Victim-Rich Environments

0

kernal 1 year, 4 months ago

Do non-military persons need assault weapons? No! If you think you do, your mental stability is questionable. And if you think you need it to hunt, then you're not much of a hunter.

None of you live in a drug and crime ridden ghetto, so quit using that as an excuse.

Those who are pushing for gun bans are as off base as those who think it's okay to have an assault weapon. A ban is impractical and it's not going to happen. What does need to happen is a ban on assault weapons, stronger sentences for theft and sale of stolen weapons, criminal background checks on ALL gun purchasers, no more sales at gun shows, no online sales of weapons or ammo, license requirements and two year renewals for ownership complete with a new background check and gun safety test.

Don't like it? Tough!

1

disappointed_regressive 1 year, 4 months ago

This type of weapon and ammunition has only one purpose: To kill human beings.

Not true. I know many people who enjoy shooting them at a range, for recreation and to keep their shooting skills (for hunting) sharp.

As great as a horrific tragedy this was in Newtown CT, it comes as no surprise it was destined to be used (in MSNBC's case--within hours) as a political football. And this is from both sides.

I've had one predominant thought though through all of this. Why in the heck did this shooter's mother, knowing the mental state of her son, not keep those three guns under lock and key, in a safe, god rest her soul? I can tell you, every single gun and the ammo I own are in a 600 lb, fireproof safe....also a good place to store important documents.

People, if you're going to own guns, LOCK THEM UP! Simple.

0

cowboy 1 year, 4 months ago

  1. Gun owners , secure your weapons so a burglar does'nt end up with them.
  2. Secure your weapons cache so in a passionate moment they are not accessible to your household
  3. Outlaw high capacity clips. no one needs more than ten and six would meet most any legitimate need.
  4. Outlaw assault weapons
  5. Require background checks on secondary market i.e. gun shows.

No it won't solve everything but it will remove opportunity and access and if it reduces the violence its well worth it.

4

Pal 1 year, 4 months ago

Jerry,

What would you do to revise gun laws, to prevent another massacre?

I realize the question is sacrilege. It's against the protocols of the conservative movement.

But enough is enough.

I'll tell you what I would do. If you're on psych meds, no guns.

Right now, if you are on any controlled substance, you are not permitted to own firearms, under the Gun Control Act of 1968.

But you'll notice that antidepressants have not been added to that list.

Yet in almost every case of a mass shooting over the last number of years, antidepressants have somehow been involved.

The medical establishment is so deeply connected to the profit motive that we have to fight them, and add antidepressants to the list of those who cannot own a gun in America.

You might say, "Then half the police would be banned from owning guns. And what about politicians?"

I think there should be mandatory drug testing for Congress.

It would probably explain why we're living through the hell we're living through.

0

hipper_than_hip 1 year, 4 months ago

You mean like making schools, army bases, movie theaters, malls, etc gun-free zones?

A gun-free zone are simply killing fields for mass murderers. When's the last time you read about a gunman walking into a police station and shooting it up?

1

Pal 1 year, 4 months ago

Since a divorced single mother allowed an autistic child to access her firearms, divorced single women should not be allowed to legally acquire/hoard firearms.

There. Solved that dilemma. Now... are there any other types of people that should be banned from legally acquiring firearms?

btw. assault weapon is defined as what? ....a liberal cliche' for loud fire stick pop pop hurt ear thingy? Or a knife?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/china-school-attack_n_2298430.html

0

friendlyjhawk 1 year, 4 months ago

Doesn't matter what the name or caliber of the gun is. If it causes death, pain, or suffering to any of us it is GUN.

1

jhawkinsf 1 year, 4 months ago

It's time for a culture change. It's time to choose another path. That other path will not be one free of challenges. There is a chance the other path will have greater obstacles. But the road we are currently on is no the right one. The road we are on is not the right one. The road we are on is not the right one. The road we are on is not the right one.

1

KSManimal 1 year, 4 months ago

Do you drink alcohol, Mr. Wells? A beer after work, or perhaps a glass of wine with dinner? Or, maybe even a cocktail now and then?

According to the CDC and the NIH, alcohol kills 75,000 people every year - including 5,000 under-age children. Obviously, existing laws aren't enough to prevent the carnage.

We need an outright ban on hard liquor, and background checks with ten-day waiting periods for beer and wine. Also, all home alcohol shall be stored under lock and key to prevent unauthorized access.

Now, before you go fussing about how responsible, law-abiding citizens shouldn't be inconvenienced by such laws....sit down with the parents of those 5,000 kids who die from alcohol every year and tell them how your drinking pleasure trumps the lives of their children.

And if you won't do that, then sit down and shut up about guns.

2

Brock Masters 1 year, 4 months ago

The .223 caliber is only a high powered caliber if you consider all rifle caliber a high powered. It is at the bottom end of rifle calipers and not high powered enough to hunt deer in Kansas. It is used by hunters for smaller game like coyotes.

It does have a hunting purpose and not just one purpose as the LTE wrote.

The rifle used by the shooter was not an assault weapon by definition of Connecticut's assault weapon ban.

And finally, one more error that many make and must be corrected is that the rifle and most others in hands of civilians was a semi-automatic rifle.

Now that I've cleared up most of the factual errors in the letter lets look at solutions.

CT has an assault rifle ban and some of the strictest gun laws in the nation so I don't think a law banning guns will work. But what will? I heard that a law was passed and signed by Bush that requires mentally ill people to be put into the background check database but it is not funded. Maybe we need to fund it

We also have to get to the root cause of why people kill. What is causing these things to happen? Do we need to relax privacy rules to make it easier to report mentally ill people like the shooter that shot Gifford, the CO shooter and this latest one?

Do we need to examine if there is any cause- effect between violent movies and violence?

On a final note these types of mass killings have been happening for decades but have declined in recent times. Lets take a holistic approach and find meaningful solutions to violence in our country.

3

Ginny Hedges 1 year, 4 months ago

How about banning violent video games that give the players points and rewards for killing people? After awhile, some kids/adults may not be able to distinguish between reality and fantasy. Just something to think about.

4

Liberty_One 1 year, 4 months ago

"and explain to them how your unrestricted access to assault weapons is more important than the lives of their children."

How about you go to the inner cities where violence is rampant and police protection non-existent and tell those parents that they have no right to defend their children.

3

mikekt 1 year, 4 months ago

Bad news for those who think that an assault weapon ( street sweepers ), will protect you from the government going south !

Sorry, ......but there is no way that you are going to stop an M1A1 at your front door, with a street sweeper ! It's not happening !

Think that you can take out an attack helicopter with hellfire missels or an A10 sporting their trademark rotary cannon with depleted uranium shells on board ? Right !?

This country has bombs that could be released over downtown KCK, that could glide 40 miles to Larryville and deploy mini bombs over a football field sized area, that could definitely make a mess of ones life & you can't shoot those down with your useless street sweepers !

Maybe if we would pay attention to what kind of a fascists ( ? ) that we vote for, instead of being played by gun lobbies, we could avoid that make believe some day future run in with the US Government, that some fantasy warriors are " so self called - prepared for ", with automatic assault rifles ( right? ). Whatever !

Now, for those of you who could afford a Nuclear Sub with multiple re-entry nuclear warheads, ....on long range missiles...and stay well hid, .....somewhere.....well,, you might begin to approach some,..... short lived parity, .......with a US Government Gone Rogue !

Anyway, You all need to take those street sweepers back, have them put the $ back on your credit card & call Northrop Grumond and order a Sub ( or two ), for the lake !

5

Mike Gerhardt 1 year, 4 months ago

As a law enforcement professional, I too have seen many gunshots, but claiming that a .223 caliber round causes more damage that a 30-30 or 30-06 is pure political grandstanding.

7

Commenting has been disabled for this item.