EDITOR: With one killing incident after another, I think it's time to take a close look at the demented people who do this stuff. Do we need protection from guns or insane people? Disarm this country? I don't think so. I don't want to be at the wrong end of one of these incidents with a slingshot.
The Second Amendment is about us protecting our country from a tyrannical government. Let's see, the Department of Homeland Security decides to raid a house in Petaluma. It shows up with a tank, several dozen amateur cops, grenades, automatic weapons and dogs. And we are supposed to try and stop them with a .22 bolt action? They also have drones, night vision equipment, helicopters, machine guns and 450 million rounds of hollow-point ammo. Who doesn't stand a chance here?
EDITOR: Your editorial regarding guns, safety and violence ("Reasonable steps to limit gunfire deaths," Dec. 29) was dead center. You should repeat it once a week until real action is taken.
The gun lobby is so intent on cashing in on shooting tragedies. They reap huge profits from the sales of guns and ammunition. They only want answers that sell more guns and ammo — and expand the chances for tragedy.
I'd have been impressed if the gun lobby had responded to the Littleton, Colo. or Newtown, Conn. massacres with compensation to the families of the victims. No way, of course. They just point at the killers: "All their fault." The hard truth is that the killers didn't use marshmallows or toothpicks.
I hope Adam Lanza's mom had a few seconds to regret how foolish she was to give him access to an arsenal — even knowing only the tip of the tragedy.
EDITOR: The subject of gun control is very simple. When the Constitution was adopted, "guns" were only muzzle-loading flintlocks. Any subsequent development doesn't fit that description and should be regulated. They should be treated like cars — registered and licensed and renewed every year. Like a car, they should have a paper trail through their existence. In this way, people who want muzzle-loaders can own as many as they want. Anything else would be regulated and licensed. As a gun owner, I consider this plan the most able to prevent inappropriate use.
Guns and the 1 percent
EDITOR: A real solution to violence in our society will come when the upper elite are subjected to regulations before the working classes are. I cannot believe that anyone who claims to care about the concept of the 99 percent would want to pass restrictions that would affect many working class, rural and middle class workers before we get concessions from the 1 percent. Just as we expect top earners to pay more before the rest of us see cuts from budget negotiations, we should expect the powerful to be restricted before common citizens are.
Before a single restriction on gun ownership is even debated, we need more spending on services to reduce crime, more restrictions on media violence, more transparency and access to courts to hold elites accountable and more transparency and prosecution of Wall Street crimes.