Topic: gun control
You are viewing the most recent posts on this topic.
September 27, 2013 at 7:32 AM
Follow the money
I am very weary of the articles on guns and gun violence because no one talks about the key issue: the dollars that companies in the United States earn by selling weapons and ammunition. [“Obama pushes gun control at Navy Yard memorial,” News, September 23.]
President Obama asked recently why other countries such as Canada and Australia were able to stop gun violence by simply passing a law.
Why, because those countries do not, by and large, sell weapons and ammunition to other countries.
The dollars that are earned from domestic and overseas sales of weapons and ammunition are at the core of the issue of gun violence that all of us wish to understand and stop.
Gail Hongladarom, Seattle
September 23, 2013 at 7:02 PM
Gun-free zones are dangerous
The establishment of gun-free zones on public property has invited demented individuals to transform them into killing grounds in order to massacre their defenseless occupants.
One must conclude that those areas attract hopeful killers for that very reason. The locations of the last three mass shootings, Fort Hood, Sandy Hook Elementary School, and the Navy Yard, are all gun-free zones.
In the case of the military bases, Congress, in its inimitable wisdom, has embedded in federal law the prohibition against the possession of guns or other dangerous weapons on all federal facilities — 18 USC 930.
In so doing, Congress has rendered inhabitants of federal properties bereft of their Constitutional right to defend themselves; this legislative fiat has produced 26 fatalities at Fort Hood and the Navy Yard.
The victims were defenseless and unable to oppose the killers as a direct result of Congress’s ill-considered legislation.
The notion that military personnel, professionally trained in the use of weapons, can be entrusted with those weapons to kill the enemy overseas but not to defend themselves here at home is patently ridiculous. Congress should take immediate action to exempt military bases from 18 USC 930.
Moreover, governments at every level should stop creating gun-free zones and eliminate the ones they now have, lest those who ignore the “gun free” caveat visit their deadly intentions on yet more innocent victims.
Local, state and federal governments must recognize that, in their zeal to protect their citizens, they are accomplishing precisely the opposite.
Richard Porter, Langley
September 21, 2013 at 6:57 AM
While I was in a public library the other day, I observed an individual entering the library with a firearm on his hip.
I asked the librarian about this, and she replied that state law allows firearms to be carried in all public places, including public libraries.
The libraries are full of young children. Their parents should be aware of what they are exposed to. I used to think of the library as a place of calm, a refuge from the craziness of the outside world. Not anymore.
Ross Allen, Tumwater
September 11, 2013 at 6:23 PM
Second Amendment is outdated
Initiative 594 has made me think about the Second Amendment, the National Rifle Association (NRA), which may be unmatched in fervor, focus and funding. [“Some signature-gatherers play both sides of gun campaign,” NW Thursday, Aug. 15.]
Why did the Second Amendment come into existence?
The Constitution sought first to deal with a debt crisis resulting from the Revolution. The Continental Congress borrowed a lot of money to pay for the war. There was no standing army. Washington won the war, but he had to depend on armed civilian militias and borrowed money.
The Continental Congress denied Washington’s pleas for an army. Sam Adams believed that a permanent standing army was “forever dangerous to civil liberties.”
Many founders agreed with Adams, and they penned the Second Amendment into the Constitution, ensuring that citizens, not a permanent standing army, would bear arms.
Today, the U.S. has the largest army ever assembled. It also has a militia — the National Guard. The Second Amendment is now as anachronistic as those laws that permitted slavery. Both are national embarrassments.
The Second Amendment has succeeded in making the worship of guns a form of idolatry. Guns are not gods. They are tools designed to turn animals into carcasses and human beings in corpses, and it is time to become more selective about who we allow to buy them.
C.F. Baumgartner, Mercer Island
July 7, 2013 at 8:00 AM
Gun culture at fault in the deaths of many
The needless deaths of Molly Conley, Justin Ferrari, Nicole Westbrook and Sherry Soth have been brought to you courtesy of the gross misrepresentation and misinterpretation of the Second Amendment, as presented by that demented organization known as the National Rifle Association. [“Man, 21, pleads guilty in shooting death,” Northwest Wednesday, July 3.]
Our Founding Fathers never meant to perpetrate wholesale murder at the hands of irresponsible fools when they gave us the right to bear arms. That right was given so that the citizens of a new country could protect themselves from outside invasion, keep their slaves in line and hunt for food.
May God have mercy on those named above, and on the thousands more who will die by gun violence before Americans have had enough.
Vincent Baldini, Issaquah
July 5, 2013 at 11:30 AM
Gun culture is to blame
The legal culpability of Erick Walker for the random and senseless death of Molly Conley remains to be determined. [“2nd-degree-murder charge in fatal drive-by shooting,” NW Wednesday, July 3.]
However, we already know one thing about the suspect: He is a firearms enthusiast. This is hardly a surprise.
Until we enact sensible gun laws, every domestic dispute or argument in a bar, every individual experiencing an episode of despair or young man on the street who thinks that he has been “dissed,” and every gun nut cruising around in his car will represent a potential tragedy waiting to happen.
Guns and our insane gun culture in this country now represent a form of domestic terrorism.
Richard Williams, Wenatchee
June 27, 2013 at 7:00 AM
National Rifle Association needs to step up
It is time for the membership of the National Rifle Association (NRA) to step up. Their leadership has not represented the views of the more than 70 percent of the membership said to favor background checks such as those recently proposed in gun-control legislation.
Twenty-five of the 76 leadership positions in the NRA are elected annually. It is time for the members to elect leaders who will support them.
The NRA serves a valuable function that is being overshadowed by the mindless objection to the proposed legislation. After all, the NRA spends a lot of effort directed toward gun safety. The legislation was an opportunity to further one of its basic goals.
Jeffrey Murdoch, Edmonds
June 20, 2013 at 8:30 PM
Background checks are necessary
I feel lucky to live in America. We have freedoms people living in many other countries do not. Our freedoms, assured by our laws, are designed to enable citizens to live the best life possible while adhering to ethical principles the society as a whole agrees are “self evident.”
The so-called freedom that allows any person in the country, kind or evil, law-abiding or criminal, sane or not, to own a gun is not a freedom most of us want. Just as we do not want the freedom to murder someone or drive the streets uncontrolled by traffic lights, the majority of us do not want the easy access to guns that allows a daily average of 30 Americans to be killed in gun violence and 151 people to show up in an Emergency Room with a nonfatal gunshot wound.
In today’s world, a majority of Americans believe it is evident Congress needs to pass gun reform now. I am one of those Americans. Gun violence is out of control, and I am ashamed to live in country that continues to allow felons, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill to purchase guns without a background check.
Any member of Congress who does not act to approve simple background checks for all gun sales is party to murder and limiting my freedom to live peacefully in a society where I need not fear that my loved ones may be randomly murdered by a man with a gun that was so easy to get.
Jacquie Stock, Seattle
June 18, 2013 at 8:06 AM
Background checks should be instantaneous
Instantaneous background checks during gun purchases is a good idea, but I will not support the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility’s (WALFGUR) petition to require it for many private transfers. [“Advocates unveil gun background-check initiative,” NW Wednesday, June 12]
Their initiative is not about background checks. It’s about increasing the waiting period for purchasing a firearm from five to 10 days. That is about gun control, not about background checks.
According to WALFGUR’s own website, it only takes 90 seconds to perform these checks. So why wait 10 days?
As a gun owner, this is what drives me crazy about universal background checks. I like the idea, but gun-control advocates use the issue to impose more restrictions on law-abiding gun owners, restrictions that have nothing to do with background checks.
This is 2013. We can do these background checks instantly. I hope that WALFGUR takes back its initiative and submits a new one that implements instantaneous background checks.
That is what the voters want.
Dave Orvis, Edmonds
May 13, 2013 at 6:04 AM
Require gun registration and background checks
I am not against responsible gun ownership, even though I personally do not own a gun [“States seek to fix gun background check backlog,” seattletimes.com, May 10]. What I don’t understand is what most gun owners have to fear if gun registration were to become a requirement. It only takes a few minutes to register a gun and it would greatly reduce the chance of the wrong people gaining access to weapons.
In addition, I cannot fathom why any gun owner would want a high-capacity device. This makes no sense. Registration would make it less likely that a mentally ill person would have access to a gun. Congress must require a background check on all gun purchases.
Ruth Ann Handewith, Seattle
Trending with readers