Archive for Thursday, March 1, 2018

Letter to the editor: Sensible gun laws

March 1, 2018

Advertisement

To the editor:

I am a gun owner, and I have no problem with any responsible adult’s right to protection. After all, that is the original intent of the Founding Fathers’ Second Amendment. However, the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen the destructive firepower of assault weapons. Whether we like it or not, they are here to stay. The logical thing to do is to regulate with more detailed and stronger background checks to prevent those with mental disorders or violent agendas from acquiring them.

I really doubt anything will be accomplished as long as the NRA keeps padding the pockets of politicians. The last survey I read said 70 percent of NRA members were in favor of stronger background checks. However the hierarchy refuses to budge, maybe because the gun manufacturers are the true puppet masters.

The NRA perpetuates misinformation to their members and the corrupt cycle continues. NRA people always respond to mass killing with the response that if more people had guns it would not have occurred; however, I understand some of the people killed in Las Vegas were armed, but it did them no good at all. A deranged person intent on murdering large groups will still kill dozens even if everyone involved is armed. We need and deserve sensible, logical gun laws. It won’t stop all killing, but if it saves just one life, isn’t it worth the effort?


Comments

Bob Smith 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Old wine in a new bottle. Thanks, Fudd.

Ken Lassman 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Yes; the best wines are aged to perfection, Bob. This particular year seems to be one of the best ever. The Second Amendment wasn't written to allow criminals and abusive partners to hide behind its language, nor was its intent designed to allow folks with mental illness to harm themselves or others around them. More and more folks "get it," and can easily distinguish between these issues and the right for citizens to defend themselves against oppression.

Brock Masters 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Ken, I believe we can address the concerns you just raised and protect our rights if people would work together and stop playing politics.

The propaganda machines are working full-time on both sides and pitting us against one another.

P Allen Macfarlane 2 months, 3 weeks ago

And of course every time anybody outside of the NRA orbit mentions anything about guns, the NRA and those within its orbit scream shrilly about Second Amendment rights. The NRA's lobbying killed any funding for the CDC to look into the causes of gun injuries because they feared it would lead to more gun laws. The lobbying started when a paper was written by a group funded by the CDC that used data to show a higher risk of injury if a gun was stored in the residence. The NRA immediately interpreted that as a call for more resrtrictive gun laws. The irony here is that supposedly the NRA supports gun safety. Wouldn't it be prudent for some research to be done into the causes of these injuries so that better prevention measures can be taken?

Daniel Kennamore 2 months, 3 weeks ago

When did the pro sensible gun control side take millions from Russia to fund their propaganda? I must have missed that headline.

If you agree with the NRA, you side is being funded by Russia. Full stop.

Ken Lassman 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Totally agree, Brock. Seems like there is a lot to gain and a lot to lose at the same time, which unfortunately seems to end up interfering with real progress. Wish it didn't have to be that way; all I know to do is to periodically runs up some sensible, effective measures up the flag pole to remind folks that they are out there.

Nevertheless, I think that the potential for effective, real changes is better now that it has been for years, and that means doing so without eroding anyone's rights in the process. Like I said, I can easily distinguish the issues and can strike a reasonable balance; we just have to convince our legislators that they have nothing to lose by taking the same stand. With this being election year, things had better move quickly or the polarization will only get worse as both sides try to shore up their positions and folks in the middle get steamrolled.

Bob Smith 2 months, 3 weeks ago

This swill turned to vinegar a long time ago.

P Allen Macfarlane 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Maybe you should stop adding to it, unless you have something worthwhile to contribute to the discussion.

Ken Lassman 2 months, 3 weeks ago

What you're tasting is sour grapes, Bob.

Bruce Weber 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Maybe you can take some of those bad apples and make some néw wine Bob

Brock Masters 2 months, 3 weeks ago

“The logical thing to do is to regulate with more detailed and stronger background checks to prevent those with mental disorders or violent agendas from acquiring them.”

I agree, but wonder what info can be collected that will stop people with violent agendas from being able to legally purchase a firearm?

Definitely need to make sure people with mental disorders are entered into the database and prohibited from owning guns. Make mental health professionals legally responsible for proving the names of their patients receiving treatment and medication for mental illnesses to the background check database. Anyone oppose it?

“It won’t stop all killing, but if it saves just one life, isn’t it worth the effort?”

No, it is not worth it if it unreasonably infringes upon my rights. And before people jump on me, think about how many ways we could guarantee to save one life but don’t because it’d be inconvenient or costly.

Raise driving age to 18 Require audio-visual monitors to be installed and used in bathrooms when young children are bathing. Lower speed limits Require governors on cars to prevent speeding Require alcohol breathalyzers locks on ignitions to prevent drunk driving.

All these all doable and will save lives and none infringe upon a Constitutional right so where is the support for them to “save just one life.”

P Allen Macfarlane 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Seeking to own a pistol for self-defense is one thing, but seeking a military style assault weapon is another. That weapon is designed for maximum damage to maximum people and property. There is no rational justification for owning that type of weapon, unless you plan on using it against other human beings.

Brock Masters 2 months, 3 weeks ago

What do you think the purpose of a pistol is?

I have an AR 15 and while it can be used for hunting I bought it for self-defense. It is not my primary self-defense weapon, but a tool that I would choose to use over a pistol under certain conditions to protect myself and family and yes, I want to have a tool that will inflict maximum damage, I.e. kill a bad guy quickly if I find myself in a situation where it is either killing the bad guy or having him gravely harm my family.

So, I just demonstrated the need for it based on the conditions you put forth - “no rational justification ....unless you plan on using it against other human beings.” I do plan to use it against criminals intent on gravely harming me, AKA human beings and that purpose is legal.

Thanks for the softball.

P Allen Macfarlane 2 months, 3 weeks ago

You must be thinking that a a mob could potentially be harming your family. Why stop at an AR-15? I'm sure you could acquire heavier armament. Doesn't it make the pillow where you lay your head at night get a little uncomfortable with an AR-15 under it. I mean that mob could be at your doorstep any minute now. It's such a dangerous world out there.

Brock Masters 2 months, 3 weeks ago

P please try to keep up. I said the rifle is not my primary defense weapon but a tool I will use under certain conditions. A mob rioting and burning homes is a possibility- less likely in Lawrence but a relatively common occurrence in other cities.

I know you were being facetious but I keep my pistol accessible but secured when not in use.

Do you know when a mob may be at someone’s doorstep and are you saying we’ve never had mobs looting and burning homes and businesses in this country?

It is a dangerous world out there or haven’t you been paying attention. And if you don’t think it is dangerous then why do you advocate for gun control?

Bruce Weber 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Brock I was going to suggest you put addressing MAGAZINE capacity on your list, but it's beginning to look like that may not be enough,,,,There is a Movement taking place and it's growing

Brock Masters 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Bruce, if I thought that it would help or that the anti-2nd A groups would stop there I could support banning magazines with a capacity greater than 30 rounds.

Bob Smith 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Over the past few decades, the US government has sold tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of 20 and 30 round STANAG magazines. That genie is never going back into the bottle.

Ken Lassman 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Australia's changing laws after their mass shooting was coupled with a buy back program which proved to be quite effective. I think there would be a wait-and-see phase, followed by folks interested in making a few bucks by selling their magazines and maybe even other guns as time went on.

Bob Summers 2 months, 3 weeks ago

There is no provision for gun laws in the second amendment.

This is more prattle from the Liberal people behavior that the second amendment was directed at curbing.

Bob Smith 2 months, 3 weeks ago

In other news: "....Despite committing a string of arrestable offenses on campus before the Florida school shooting, Nikolas Cruz was able to escape the attention of law enforcement, pass a background check and purchase the weapon he used to slaughter 14 fellow students and three adults because of Obama administration efforts to make school discipline more lenient. Documents reviewed by RealClearInvestigations and interviews show that his school district in Florida’s Broward County was in the vanguard of a strategy, adopted by more than 50 other major school districts nationwide, allowing thousands of troubled, often violent, students to commit crimes without legal consequence. The aim was slowing the "school-to-prison pipeline." “He had a clean record, so alarm bells didn’t go off when they looked him up in the system,” veteran FBI agent Michael Biasello told RCI. “He probably wouldn’t have been able to buy the murder weapon if the school had referred him to law enforcement."... https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/02/28/obama_administration_school_discipline_policy_and_the_parkland_shooting.html

Daniel Kennamore 2 months, 3 weeks ago

A nice and balanced post.

Unfortunately, as it doesn't pass the 'let's do absolutely nothing' NRA test the typical crowd is here to deflect.

He's a question for the gun nuts: what would you accept? I see you all eager to shoot down any idea besides adding more guns...so what are you willing to actually compromise on?

Brock Masters 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Calling other gun nuts is such a great way to start a meaningful conversation but I will ignore it and share ideas that will prevent some gun violence.

Enhance the background check database by adequately funding it and the FBI to manage it.

Require health care professionals to report patients suffering from certain mental illnesses or using certain drugs for treatment to the background check database. We have to be careful here because we want to keep guns out of the hands of people who have mental illnesses and are more likely to commit a violent act or commit suicide, but we don’t want to deter people from seeking help.

Provide funding for more mental health access that is affordable.

Enact a law that would allow people to report a person who they believe will harm others or themselves and be able, after due process, to remove their guns. Due process is essential, but it can happen quickly. Also, make it a criminal act to falsely accuse someone.

Fund voluntary gun safety training and PSAs to promote the safe handling, storage and use of firearms. We use taxpayer dollars to fund all kinds of safety programs so why not this. I am sure there are people who would like training but can’t afford it.

Increase the penalties from the paltry 3 years many states have for felons illegally possessing guns to 25 years.

Make sentences mandatory no parole for anyone convicted of a felony while using or in possession of a firearm. And such sentences shall be at least 25 years.

Strengthen laws and increase penalties for stealing or possessing a stolen gun to at least 25 years with no possibility of parole.

Stop imprisoning drug users, provide them treatment and thus make room for these deadly criminals.

Allow the CDC to study gun violence and offer recommendations for curbing it.

Ban bump stocks - no purpose other than to circumvent the law regarding full auto.

All are doable, none infringe upon my rights and all will help reduce crime.

Daniel Kennamore 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Great. I agree with pretty much all of those as a decent start. When will the GOP be introducing that bill?

Bruce Weber 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Brock, these are not propaganda machines : Everytown for Gun Safety, Mom's Demand Action for Gun Sence in America. You do know what M.A.D.D. stands for, how a small group of mad mothers fought a up hill battle and grew into a very Formidable group to get legislation changed,,,How many lives have been saved just by that movement..YOU DO NOT WANT PISS OF A BUNCH OF MOTHERS...And I stand or kneel with them

Brock Masters 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Propaganda information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

Look at the number of times anti-2nd amendment individuals or groups refer to the AR15 as a military weapon. This is false information intended to mislead and as such is propaganda.

Jim Slade 2 months, 3 weeks ago

The only real difference between an AR15 and an M4/GAU5/M16 is the omission of a burst or auto selection on the AR. When training with the M4/GAU5/M16 we are conditioned to use semi as it allows for more accurate fire... of course semi being the condition the AR fires in.

To say calling it a military style weapon is propaganda is being purposefully obtuse.

Brock Masters 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Calling it a military style weapon or a weapon resembling military weapons is a truthful description but to say it is a military weapon is a false statement.

It is called a military weapon to sensationalize it and provide justification for civilians not to own it. A criminal uses a 1911 .45 pistol and now one says he used a military weapon but they do so for the AR 15 because it makes it scarier and that is propaganda.

The AR 15 is no more scary or deadly than many other weapons in a school setting. But it is black and has become the political football the anti-gun crowd has picked to signal a political victory. Not to save lives but for political purposes only. The fact that AR 15s are responsible for such a small percentage of mass shooting but it is the target proves it is political and not about stopping murders. Go look at Mother Jones data and you will see the AR is not the weapon of choice for mass murderers so why focus on it?

Bob Smith 2 months, 3 weeks ago

We can say "PISS" in all caps now? Who knew?

Bruce Weber 2 months, 3 weeks ago

I think its so funny,,donnie and the nra think they can throw bump stocks out there as a small bone to pacify this Growing Movement

Brock Masters 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Gosh even when you get what you ask for you’re not happy and want more. This is why those who support the 2nd amendment are reluctant to give any ground - there fear it is a slippery slope.

Bruce Weber 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Brock, bump stocks should have axed the day after Las Vegas, and the nra and all the responsible gun owners should have taken the lead to show they really do care about the senseless loss of human life. bump stock make a legal gun illegal, and respossible gun owner SAY they want to protect their right to own their legal weapons. But yall did not do it and now they are in panic mode

Bob Smith 2 months, 3 weeks ago

"..... bump stock make a legal gun illegal..." Not be the current definition of the ATF. But you get a brown star for trying.

Brock Masters 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Bruce the NRA came out in support of banning bump stocks just days of the Las Vegas shootings. What more do you want? Are you ever satisfied :) jk

Jim Slade 2 months, 3 weeks ago

No they didn't. They came out and said the ATF should review whether or not bump stocks meet current federal law, but opposed any new legislation that would add to current law.

Jim Slade 2 months, 2 weeks ago

Here's their actual statement: https://home.nra.org/joint-statement

Nowhere do they say they support banning them, just that the ATF should review whether or not they meet current federal laws which would deem them illegal.

Obviously the ATF hasn't deemed them illegal under current law, hence NEW legislation would be required, which they oppose.

Bob Summers 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Ban bump stocks all you want Trump and Bruce.

You going to ban pant belt loops too?

Bruce Weber 2 months, 3 weeks ago

Bob Su. your proably the kind of guy the wears a belt and suspenders because you don't truse either one

Bruce Weber 2 months, 3 weeks ago

all I saw there is more reason to remove the tool

Jim Phillips 2 months, 2 weeks ago

Sensible and logical gun laws? Please, please define what you mean by "sensible and logical gun laws! I ask this because prior to 1968, Sears & Roebuck and Montgomery Wards sold firearms mail order. A person could call them up, place an order for a firearm, give the operator the charge card number, and the gun was delivered to one's home. Then the hue and cry went out for "sensible and logical gun laws" after the assassination of the Kennedy brothers and Dr. M.L. King. That gave us the Gun Control Act of 1968, and all was well in the world... until 1969 when people screamed for "sensible and logical gun laws". This cycle has continued every year since the enactment of GCA '68 and every year, even after the passage of "sensible and logical gun laws" the year before, people want more "sensible and logical gun laws". So please define the current meaning of "sensible and logical gun laws" because that definitions expands every year. Either that or just admit that you won't be happy until every evil firearm ever produced has been confiscated and destroyed! Isn't that really what you want?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.

loading...