More legislation not the answer to gun violence

I agree that something must be done. But it has nothing to do with limiting any further, the availability of firearms. For the very first time since he took office, I agree with President Obama on something he said:

“In his broadest remarks on gun control yet in the aftermath of the mass shooting at a Colorado movie theater, President Barack Obama called late Wednesday for tougher background checks designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.”

“It’s up to us, as parents and as neighbors and as teachers and as mentors, to make sure our young people don’t have that void inside them,”

Since I got involved in the gun debate, it’s been my opinion that what could curb gun violence (and all violence, for that matter) is to instill in children a strong value for human life. You and I will never see that happen though. Too many people making WAY too much money in encouraging kids to think it’s no big deal. Starting at a young age with cartoons (hey, they just get up so they can be shot again, right?), and then into the teen slasher movies, and the violent video games, right to the evening news, where the old axiom is “if it bleeds, it leads,” showing that “everyone’s doing it.” Next best thing would be to allow the background checks to work as they were meant to. Too many doctors and institutions are afraid to report names to the database for fear of lawsuits based on privacy act “discretions.” If they worked as designed, Loughner never would’ve been able to buy the gun in Arizona and Cho never would’ve been able to purchase the pistol he used at Va. Tech. In fact, most of the mass murders that have occurred where the guns were legally purchased, would not have happened.

Now onto one fact, concerning all these mass shootings, that you left out, and right down to the smallest incident, they all have in common – every single one, without fail – occurred in a so-called “gun free zone,” where firearms could not be legally carried, which means, anyone looking to do harm, knows he doesn’t have to worry about anyone shooting back.

Concerning your editorial, I have two problems with what you said. First, you talk about “assault weapons.” I’d like to know how you define them. Is it a round that is military in nature? Like the 30/06 that’s so commonly used for hunting (comes from the M-1 Garand)? Or maybe the .308, also used for hunting (also known as 7.62 mm, used in the M-14 and M-60 machine gun). Maybe the .223 Swift, used as a popular varmint round (also known as the 5.56mm – the caliber of the M-16/AR-15) Obviously, that can’t be the definition. Maybe it’s the fact that they’re semi-automatic? I don’t know if you’ve ever been in the military, but it’s been decades since semi-autos were used in combat, not to mention that better than half the so-called “sporting arms” are also semi-automatic. So what constitutes an assault weapon, other than the attitude used when firing it, whether it be single-shot or semi-auto?

The second problem I have is that you need to check your facts. It was, at first, erroneously reported that the guy in Biddeford had a machine gun. That was some moron’s definition of the AK-47 he had. But let’s just for a minute give it the benefit of the doubt, and agree that he had a fully automatic weapon. I’d be willing to bet he did not have the class III license required to have that weapon. It’s extremely difficult, if not next to impossible for a civilian to get a class III, which means, if he did have a fully auto weapon, it was highly illegal already, meaning more legislation isn’t going to do a thing. Either way, you need to think about this before you say anything else about it.

Bill Vincent

Bridgton