Published DateTo the editor,
Let me start by saying the same thing I started with the last time: "I am not an expert and never claimed to 'know it all' about anything. My views may change as I learn more about anything or anyone. I love to learn new things. But here are my "suggestions" for gun control after the tragedy in CT.."
It must have been my imagination but I thought I saw a "gun enthusiast" from Newtown, CT. on NECN this morning (Jan. 17) complaining that he has "the right to own an automatic assault rifle to protect my family". From my understanding (please correct me as I am always wrong about everything), an automatic assault rifle is designed for long distance "warfare". That means an automatic assault rifle was designed to hold or protect an army, people or location. It may have been useful in close combat but was never intended to protect a family at home from a few "intruders" when a hand gun is more than enough fire power until the police get there. You can really "mess up " a burgular's night with six shots and the police on their way.
Perhaps another issue is the estimated time of arrival of law enforcement. Should families who live in a rural or country setting with a police E.T.A. at 10 minutes or more be allowed more "firepower"? By all means, yes! But in a town or city where the police E.T.A. is under 10 minutes, perhaps one hand gun and two magazines is enough? We pay our taxes for protection which includes the police and fire departments. The police are trained and paid for our protection. Maybe we need more police and a faster response time? That makes more sense to me that allowing anyone to own an automatic assault rifle. Although an owner of an automatic assault rifle may be an upstanding member of the community who is to say their mental health may change, a family member may gain access or their home be broken into and weapons stolen?
Perhaps police could be allowed to keep an automatic assualt rifle as personal property? But the idea I heard on the "new gun laws" was that any person could buy a gun but be limited to only one gun per month? "Why the hell would anyone need to 'collect' or buy a gun per month"? Nobody needs to buy a gun every month unless they exchange their old gun each time. Everyone should have the right to protect themselves and their falmilies and home. Two hand guns and two clips per adult, per household is more than enough. Only four hand guns per household reguardless on how many adults in the home. If you think you need a machine gun to protect yourself against our government, Japan, aliens or zombies that will attack you and your family you need to spend your money on your mental health not weapons.
People who seem too preoccupied with dying prematurely need to wear seatbelts and stop smoking and drinking. Once you reach 50 years old it is your children's job to protect you. You are gonna die, some day, some place and all the guns you buy will not stop the day from coming. Everyone is worried about protecting themselves too much! The end is coming for us all one way or another. The police are here and maybe we need more police to improve the response time which will increase your taxes. Wouldn't that be better than giving all your neighbors an automatic assault rifle? Can you imagine what the world would be like if everyone owned an automatic assault rifle? If you think everyone should have an automatic assault rifle then everyone would need to carry one everywhere they go. Could you imagine America where every adult carried an automatic assault rifle? Duh? Wouldn't that be the perfect world? Ugh! THAT SUCKS!