Don’t clamor for our guns
I enjoyed your article, but I found it a little Bloomberg-ish. I noticed you mentioned the Thousand Parks shooting, but insinuated it was an “assault weapon” when in fact it was a California approved handgun per news sources.
It also occurred in California which has much more strict gun control laws than Colorado. You also mentioned magazine capacity bans, but failed to mention that the shooter in the Florida school shooting used 10-round magazines. Statistics show that “assault style weapons” are the least commonly used weapon of choice in mass shootings. Handguns are the most prevalent.
I’m all about reducing gun deaths, as most law abiding gun owners are, but when all the media and Democrats want to do is pursue gun control, I find that genuine conversation about saving lives and preserving freedoms go by the wayside.
Many of the gun control measures you mentioned have been implemented elsewhere (universal background checks, a gun registry, magazine bans and so on) and have proven to be BOTH ineffective and very costly (which is why many were abandoned). In Hawaii alone, the attempt at a gun registry cost the government 50,000 more man hours and had no significant impact on gun violence.
California has the most gun restricting laws, the unhappiest people, one of the highest costs of living in the country, high taxes and some of the most dangerous cities in the nation. And you want to follow their lead? It’s time to change the conversation to saving lives and not controlling guns and people. It only leads to more problems.
What would happen if hundreds of Americans were killed in recent years by foreign terrorists instead of those killed by domestic terrorists armed with military type assault weapons?
Would the nation’s response be “thoughts and prayers.” Enough. We need aggressive, common sense gun control to remove military weapons from our streets.
The founding fathers certainly did not envision assault weapons when they framed the Second Amendment to allow the right to bear arms as a “well-regulated militia.” Let’s get on the “well-regulated” part of the amendment.
A “call for action” is in order, but you are calling for the wrong action. More gun control will do no good.
The assault weapon ban was in effect during Columbine. The Thousand Oaks shooting occurred in California, a state with some of the strongest gun control measures found anywhere. The shooter was another mentally ill, person who sent up red flags everywhere. What we need is not more “gun control.” What we need are measures to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill persons who are a danger to the public.
One other factor: Wall to wall media coverage of these horrible events, which only encourages copycats to act.
I was not surprised to see The Post call for more gun control. In your tirade you attacked “weapons designed for war.” The handgun used is not used by the military but this was an opportunity to rail against guns you don’t like. You want more control built on the laws passed in 2013 without proof those laws have done anything to prevent murders.
Gun owners generally fall into three categories: the law abiding owners that have not committed any crimes, criminals, or the people that are mentally disturbed. There is nothing being proposed that address these last two groups. Gun laws are passed and when they don’t work your answer is to pass more laws.The problem is you fixate on the object (guns) not the root cause. Nowhere do you call for greater enforcement of current laws or ways to help people with mental problems. Lets spend our time and money on helping these people that need help. Send letters of 250 words or fewer to openforum@denverpost.com or 5990 Washington St., Denver, CO, 80216. Please include full name, city and phone number. Contact information is for our purposes only; we will not share it with anyone else. You can reach us by telephone at 303-954-1201.