Monday letters
Wikimedia Commons
Cuba, guns and background checks in today’s letters to the editor.
Pick of the day: Identify the few unfit to own guns
Anyone who wants to know what the Founding Fathers were thinking about when they crafted the Second Amendment could simply read the Federalist Papers instead of attempting to dissect one sentence in the Bill of Rights. Hint: Nobody has gotten it right yet in this newspaper, but I don’t want to ruin the surprise.
Using the logic that to protect us from disturbed people we must remove types of guns from all people is as logical as taking cars away from all people because there are drunken drivers on the road.
There’s no political advantage to or big campaign contributions in addressing the mental health issues that are the real source of the issue, but isn’t that the correct position to work from?
Shouldn’t we find out and educate people about warning signs that a loved one might be headed toward an act of unspeakable violence so someone can intervene? Shouldn’t we talk about empowering mental health professionals to have a greater opportunity to flag a person to fail a background check if they think someone is not capable of safely owning any gun?
DOUG MARTIN
ROANOKE
January 21, 2013 - 6:15 AM
I am confused as to what secret society there is that people believe knows and can “educate” us “about warning signs that a loved one might be headed toward an act of unspeakable violence so someone can intervene”.
And what is it precisely that can empower “mental health professionals to have a greater opportunity to flag a person to fail a background check if they think someone is not capable of safely owning any gun?”
Two letters refer to such as if it exists and we are all just ignoring it or refusing it. What “information” is there that “would identify individuals who should be restricted from access to weapons”?
I do not expect meaningful gun control from Congress (or anything else), but I am really not seeing what it is these folks are referring to or how that comes to be anything more than stigmatizing more people and labeling, perhaps falsely, more kids, for life. We are not good at the bull in a china shop obvious and truly abysmal with the finesse of reading minds.
1 – Sandi, didn’t you propose that families with people who have been determined by a medical professional to be a potential threat be required to store their weapons in a secure place? Forgive me if I garbled your words somewhat (not my intent); I was paraphrasing but I think I got the gist of it.
Actually, I would think a sane person would know to “store their weapons in a secure place” whether they have a mentally ill family member or not. That it should have to be “required” is telling. But that is not the point I am making here. “Determined by a medical professional” and “educate us about warning signs” are two very different parameters.
The whole problem with storing a gun “securely” is that it is not then available to shoot an intruder (or an agent of tyranny) on a moment’s notice. We tend to think of gun rights as inalienable, but then in order to exercise those rights in a responsible way, we have to trample all over other people’s rights such as the privacy of people with mental health issues and now the liberties of their family members.
The next time a horrific shooting occurs, people will say the shooter was a little weird (or maybe even deeply troubled) but nobody though he would do THAT.