Can we really end the violence?

  Comments (...)
Text Size: AaAaAaAaAa

Competency with firearms should be a direct factor in gun ownership. When putting a pistol in your hand makes you a bigger danger to yourself than taking it away from you, you don’t need one.

The NRA doesn’t like the idea of a ban on assault rifles, but let’s make one thing abundantly clear: Assault rifles are not built for hunting. Assault rifles are not built for target shooting. The manufacturers of assault rifles would likely tell you the purpose of these weapons is right in the name — assault. An assault rifle is meant to kill — quickly, but not necessarily cleanly.

Some people should not even be considered to be gun owners. If you’ve got a history of violence, wanton property damage or DWI charges, I think it’s in my best interests to make sure you’re unarmed.

The genie is out of the bottle; guns have been freely (compared to the rest of the world) available for most of our nation’s history, and making the owners of those weapons give them up is problematic at best. We can’t ban guns, but can we at least approach the problem with a little common sense?

And if not, could you at least wait until I’m in a position where I can return fire?

Staff writer Ken Schroeder can be reached at kschroeder@putnamcountyrecord.com.

||2|Next Page

Comments

Total Comments
6

View/Add Comments

Most Recent Comment

Back40 wrote on March 8, 2013 9:44 a.m. ...
@ Reality Checker: 2 criticisms of your rationale, 1. Hammers have alternative uses, 2. There maybe no more correlation in incidents of bad things (guns vs hammers), but the consequences of those bad things - incident for indcident -are substantially more severe when involving guns. I like lookingin's suggested measures and would add undoing legislation that restricts conducting gun related research.

National Video