I agree with Alan Tanenbaum’s assertion in his recent letter that since current gun laws have not stopped mass shootings, more laws would be unlikely to have any real effect (“What Trump should ask the Democrats.” Aug. 14).
As long as we just chip around the margins of the problem with enhanced background checks, waiting periods, “red flag” laws or more comprehensive mental health services (a topic Republicans never seem to really care much about, except for a brief period after the latest mass shooting), such tragedies will continue.
Other countries laugh at or pity us because of our government’s unwillingness to acknowledge the obvious: “It’s the guns, stupid.” Allowing U.S. citizens who are not in the military or in law enforcement to have military-style weapons and ammunition means that troubled, angry or evil people will have the power to wreak exponentially more havoc than their counterparts in any other nation on earth.
Using the “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution that the political right is so fond of, I wonder if the Founding Fathers would have wanted all of us to have access to semi-automatic or automatic assault weapons.
The assertion that a mass shooting has never been committed by a member of the National Rifle Association is probably correct. The NRA’s task is to fund some elected officials and to intimidate others so that no meaningful action is ever taken to actually stem the horrific tide of bloodshed.
As for the suggestion that if Trump “caves to the demands of the Democratic Party leadership, his credibility will be destroyed,” not to worry. Anyone who believes that this president is credible is unlikely to take off that MAGA hat.
RON EBERHARDT
Plainfield
In his Aug. 14 letter to the Forum, Alan Tanenbaum asked what sort of questions President Donald Trump should ask Democratic legislators when they discuss gun legislation. I have a few suggestions.
He might ask how many mass shootings have occurred in the United Kingdom since the mass shooting at Dunblane Primary School in 1996, in which 16 first graders and a teacher were killed.
The answer is two, one of which involved an offshoot of the Irish Republican Army. By way of contrast, there have been at least 94 mass shootings (defined as those instances in which three or more people were killed) in the U.S. since 1996. After Dunblane, the U.K. enacted laws strictly regulating possession of firearms.
He might ask how many mass shootings have occurred in Australia since the Port Arthur mass shootings in 1996.
The answer is one. After Port Arthur, Australia enacted laws strictly regulating possession of firearms.
He might ask what was the legislative response in New Zealand after the mass killings this past March at two mosques in Christchurch, resulting in the deaths of 51 people.
The answer is that, by a vote of 119-1, the New Zealand Parliament passed legislation outlawing most automatic and semi-automatic weapons, and establishing a $150 million fund to buy back those weapons, which has already resulted in the return of more than 10,000 such weapons.
He might ask if the legislators are aware that more than 60% of Americans endorse stricter gun laws.
And he might ask how anyone can rationally argue that the Second Amendment establishes an unfettered right to possess firearms, when Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the landmark case of Heller v. District of Columbia, stressed that the right is limited, in his words, to the possession, in the home, for personal protection, of the sorts of weapons “in common use at the time” the U.S. Constitution was written.
CHARLIE BUTTREY
Thetford
Federal law prevents duck or goose hunters from having more than three rounds in their gun at any one time. For partridge, the limit is five rounds.
There is no law (yet) limiting high-capacity magazines for semi-automatic rifles used for hunting humans.
Why do the National Rifle Association, Republican senators and the White House not see the insanity in this scenario?
HERBERT CUTLER
Brookfield, Vt.
Let’s just stop and take a breath for a minute, strip away the noise and sound bites and examine what is happening before we accept the “new normal.”
We have active-shooter drills in our schools so children can learn to barricade, hide or flee from fellow students or adults with military-style assault weapons and 100-round magazines. Arming teachers is the next line of defense, although the Dayton, Ohio, shooting clearly shows the number of people who can be killed in mere seconds, armed teacher or not. Think about it: active-shooter drills and armed teachers to try to survive being killed along with others in your school.
We hear the El Paso shooting suspect being called mentally ill, so there is no reason to limit access to military-grade hardware for everyone else. Was he mentally ill when he purchased the assault weapon, or bought the ammunition, got in his car and drove 600 miles, wrote the manifesto outlining his intentions, all perfectly legal? He could have carried the fully loaded assault rifle into Walmart and been perfectly legal and sane like any other law-abiding citizen under our gun laws. He only became “mentally ill” when, according to police, he opened fire.
Let’s not pretend that anyone, either legally or illegally, is prevented from acquiring a military-grade weapon, regardless of any registration law. Someone intent on killing scores of people is not concerned with the legalities of registration or background checks when these guns are so accessible. We effectively ban fully automatic weapons and munitions like grenades. We even limit access to dynamite and other high explosives. We should include semi-automatic, military-style weapons and high-capacity magazines in the prohibition, develop a registered storage program at gun ranges for owners who wish to keep their guns, and begin an education and buyback program to get these weapons out of our society.
CRAIG YOUNG
Grantham
There was a time when most people would have grasped the inanity of a claim that a murder victim was lucky to have been beaten rather than shot, or that a rape victim was fortunate to have been assaulted at knifepoint rather than at gunpoint. But, since a preoccupation with “gun violence” or “gun crime” is a tacit endorsement of such fatuous sentiments, that time has evidently come to an end.
If I’ve done the math correctly, that which appeals to both pacifists and authoritarians, as all gun control proposals manifestly do, must be twice as contemptible as that which appeals to only one of them. Or should I have multiplied?
ANTHONY STIMSON
Lebanon