Says gun laws not the answer
It is apparent to me that each time there is a horrific slaughter of innocents, there is a mad rush by those who would cheerfully ban the possession of all firearms ownership (“…by an individual” per President Obama) or to “strengthen reasonable gun laws.”
On the surface, no normal citizen could possibly object to this rational of creating “reasonable” legislation. The argument is always framed in this way: “Do you want every man, woman and child in America walking around with a Howitzer?”
The most resent restrictions passed in reaction to attacks concerned magazine capacity.
More recently, we have seen mass shootings in Colorado and in California. Both acts were committed with legal firearms using illegal magazines.
In these cases, or in any future case, will a $1,000 ticket stop an attacker?
We will never understand the motives of the Planned Parenthood shooter. The two in California were cold, calculating terrorists, intent on killing as many as possible.
The new laws made no difference.
I thought liberals were people of science, yet I believe the American left wants to legalize all drugs and yet ban individual firearms ownership.
How can they possibly imagine banning guns will ever work and yet with drugs (drug overdose kills more Americans that car crashes and firearm murders combined) they want free and ready access?
Konrad Lau, Sedro Woolley
This story was originally published December 11, 2015 at 4:01 PM with the headline "Says gun laws not the answer."