Printed letters, Febrary 19, 2013
Why do legislators continue to try to pass bad gun laws that only serve to protect us from honest people? We have legislators who don’t know the difference between an AK-47 and a Red Ryder BB gun trying to define assault or military-style weapons and not the violations. Quit trying to define the gun.
If a person intends to use it to harm or kill someone, it doesn’t matter whether it is a .22 caliber or a bazooka. Another bad gun law will not stop that problem.
One only has to look at where tough gun laws are already in place, such as Washington D.C., Chicago, or Los Angeles.
Wow! So-called tough gun laws really work there. It seems only the honest people got the message.
Writing a good gun law should not be complicated if we quit defining the gun and look at the offender:
✓ Have stringent requirements to purchase a gun, including a thorough background check. If this takes a long period of time, so be it.
✓ Anyone selling, possessing or acquiring a gun in violation of the existing gun laws immediately pays a fine, serves some jail time and loses the right to own a gun again — ever!
✓ If a gun is used while committing a crime, do not “pass go.” Go straight to prison. No plea bargains. No “I’m sorry.” No “I didn’t know the law.”
What we don’t need is another 200- or 2,000-page gun law defining a gun. Define the consequences.
Measures promoting safe use of firearms can save lives
Don Foster makes three very good suggestions in his Feb. 7 letter about being informed before taking a position on gun laws. Unfortunately, he concludes with a misleading comparison.
He says you are many times more likely to die in an automobile accident than from a gunshot.
It’s true that you’re more likely to die from an auto accident than be shot by a murderer, but that leaves out the cause of most gun deaths.
In fact, counting accidents and suicide, the number of gun deaths is within a few hundred of the driving-related toll.
Auto deaths have declined substantially over the past several decades, in part because of government mandates related to safety and better roadway design.
Gun owners, friends and family have the most to gain from measures to promote safe use of firearms.
Holding gun manufacturers liable for mishaps absurd
From what I read, the Democratic legislators in Colorado want to make gun manufacturers liable for damages that occur when that manufacturer’s gun is used to cause damage to people or property.
At first I thought that I hadn’t read the report correctly, so I reread it.
I never put a lot of faith in the Democrats in office, but with this obvious absurdity, I am now positive that my opinion of this bunch is absolutely on the money.
If we’re to adopt such laws, why not get really crazy and regulate all manufacturers and hold them all liable for any harm brought about by any misuse of any of their products?
Or how about this: Let’s just outlaw all products and services of American origin.
We’ve tried this before. It didn’t work then, and it will not work this time either.
Propositions of this type are insane. They do the same thing over and over again, getting the same result but expecting a different result.
That is the definition of insanity.
Gun regulations go way back in American history
My gun totin’ relatives are about to disown me, thinking I want to take away their guns, but that’s not true. Indeed, I’ve enjoyed eating my share of wild game and have even plucked, skinned and butchered wild critters.
Guns are fine. Crazy is not. And crazy travels far and wide.
The Feb. 12 edition of The Daily Sentinel reported that Mesa County Commissioner John Justman used this quote, “Those who turn their weapons into plowshares will be plowing for those who didn’t.” Justman apparently has a gun, so by those words he would become the tyrant.
I wish folks would read a bit more history — perhaps actually read what the Founders said or try reading gun historian Clayton Cramer.
Our Founders registered and confiscated guns and adopted all kinds of gun regulations. The South had the most stringent, including denying guns to ex-slaves. Of course, we could go back to George Washington’s rules for militia weapons or Boston’s rules for gunpowder, if following the Founders’ thinking is so vital. That would reduce gun-involved murder.
Our county commissioners have a constituency that speaks of “armed revolution,” fear of our government and the UN abolishing our Constitution.
Members of this constituency have such tight blinders, the only things blocking their great vision are their noses. They must think the American public would give a yawn at this. I have far more faith in our people than that, without having an armed revolution.
Consider this: When your armed revolution succeeds, you will be the police state. What are you going to do with it?