No one but police and armed forces need guns

Dear Editor:

 

Mike, I was encouraged by your statement questioning if current guns laws were adequate. Obviously they are not. One must consider that “wackos” were not born; but rather, unfortunately, emerge over time. As a result they may apply for and be granted gun ownership on their best day, before their problem manifests itself or becomes an issue that affects the lives of others. In this scenario no amount of government legislation can offer assurance that guns won’t fall into the wrong hands. Then there is the Newtown incident where a mother introduced gun possession and use to her child. Was she aware of the problems building in his personal make-up that would result in this mass killing spree? Should she have done something to prevent access, etc, etc. There are, of course, enough questions and possible variations on the theme to muddle the best of us.

The solution is so simple and obvious. No one outside the police and armed forces need weapons of this volume and force. No teacher should go armed to a class room. What happens when some “wacko” student decides he didn’t like his grade and decides to take her/his gun to even some score. Only a reduction in the number and availability of guns will solve this problem nation wide. People don’t need assault rifles for hunting purposes, and the person who will claim he does may well be your favorite “wacko”. I do not support a total gun ban, due mainly to the fact it can’t be accomplished. I can see absolutely no justification for assault rifle ownership and their continuing proliferation will only lead to more and greater problems like those you listed in your musings.

Let’s all do the right thing for our personal safety and get behind logical gun control in the case of assault weapons. We need to get them out of the hands of even the most safe and level headed owners before they fall into the hands of one of your “wackos”. As to your argument about criminals getting guns; I believe they will make the effort to illegally own weapons because they are “criminals”, but hopefully, better regulation will reduce availability to the criminal element as well.

Sincerely,

Gerald Schmiedicke

Clare, MI

2 Responses to No one but police and armed forces need guns

  1. RandyGray

    February 8, 2013 at 11:28 pm

    You don’t get to decide how my family decides to protect ourselves, If you don’t want firearms, that’s your choice to make. The purpose of our right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, The Second amendment makes the rest of our rights possible. That’s our history and our culture.

    Those that are calling for gun control are exploiting tragedies to attack our right to keep and bear arms.

    How many calling for gun control is also willing to give up their right to free speech?

  2. bigd

    February 9, 2013 at 3:11 pm

    to one schmiedicke: do you realize that most any firearm from 22 cal. and forward can be an assault weapon? Yes, lets all do the liberal thing and just hand over the rights and smile and get along. After all,those of us that CHOOSE to own a gun are “wackos”.. I don’t believe I have ever read anything so insulting to gun owners. Logical gun control? You are kidding, right? Personal safety? Good grief, even us level headed people must know a wacko that will come and take our property and assault someone. Are you quoting or is this you writing your thoughts? Assault: unlawful threat/violent attack etc. Weapon: ANY instrument used to injure or kill. So go ahead w/your insulting opinions, Its opinions like this that adds strength to all us level headed and safe gun owners rights.