Hi 36° | Lo 18°

Letter: ‘Great place to terrorize’

On April 17, in the middle of the Boston Marathon manhunt, the attempt to strengthen background checks for gun purchases went down to defeat in the Senate, or, rather, received only 54 votes – not sufficient to pass the 60-vote hurdle senators had set.

Then, on Thursday night and early Friday morning, the alleged bombers shot an MIT cop and then were involved in a gunfight in which about 200 rounds were fired. The survivor was still firing away that night from the boat in which he had hidden.

So, what guns did these two men have? I’ve heard several pistols and a rifle. Where and how did they get them?

It would seem to me that if these guys hadn’t been able to acquire guns to protect themselves before, during and after this plot, they probably wouldn’t have gone ahead with it.

So while requiring background checks for the purchase of pressure cookers seems off-target, strengthening the provisions for gun purchases would seem on.

When an al-Qaida video promotes the United States as a great place to terrorize because of the easy access to guns, we are not doing all we can to protect ourselves.



Legacy Comments1

You're all wet Tom. Massachusetts has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country. They have a very strict permit system for carrying. GUESS WHAT?!?!?! The terrorist brothers didn't have permits for ANY of their weapons. In other words . . . the Commonwealth's gun laws didn't work in this situation. Sure they work like a charm for law-abiding folks who just want to carry a handgun or go hunting . . . but they don't work quite so well for CRIMINALS.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.