Letter: A dozen safety suggestions

For the Monitor

Monday, December 31, 2012

Email
Print
Comments (13)

Some suggestions on gun safety:
1. Ban all sales of assault rifles.

2. Require all assault rifles to be turned in to the government

3. Limit each adult in a household to two handguns.

4. Gun licenses must be required in all states.

5. Gun license applicants must list all persons in their household and ages and also have a mental health/criminal background check on all occupants over 14 years old.

6. Gun license applicants must provide a secure plan to prevent others from gaining access.

7. Any changes to additional household occupants must be reported to the police chief for a mental health/criminal background check.

8. All guns must be re-registered at the time of the driver’s license renewal.

9. All gun owners must have a heavy safe for guns secured to the floor and wall in a manner approved by the police chief or a burglar alarm on their house or a sworn oath that any guns will not be left in the home while they are not at home.

10. Loss of driver’s license would also include loss of all handguns.

11. Any criminal or marital disputes involving the police or legal system would require temporary loss of handgun license

12. School officials should determine which school officials should carry a small handgun.

Yes, guns don’t kill people. People kill people, right?

Yes, but people with guns kill people and innocent little children in their classrooms. The only reason anyone needs to have assault weapons is to worry about an invasion from another country, a worldwide catastrophe, space invaders or a zombie apocalypse.

JOE LAURENDEAU

Gilmanton

Share:
Email
Print
Comments (13)

Comments 13

gdn1 wrote:

02/01/2013

Obviously you're not paying attention. Our highest court already ruled that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and that "militia" isn't part of their ruling. They also ruled that outright bans of any specific type of firearm is unconstitutional. I am not thumbing this in your nose, just pointing out a couple of problems you have to work around. I am totally in your court when it comes to school violence and mass shootings, however we need to deal with facts. That starts by acknowledging that the AWB once tried didn't do anything to reduce either issue. Just because you don't see why someone "needs" an AR does not make the thought valid. Nobody needs a V8 powered, 4000+ pound gas guzzling tank to commute to work with either, but far more people are killed by these every year on our roads than are killed in mass shootings. Why is there no public outcry? Where is your voice?

gracchus wrote:

02/01/2013

"Our highest court already ruled that..." 1) Slaves and former slaves are property even if they live in a state that has abolished slavery. 2) Separate but equal is the law of the land and does not violate the equal protection clause. Wrongheaded Supreme Court decisions are destined to be reversed.

Walter wrote:

01/01/2013

Joe...you need to understand that the M-16 ( a full auto carbine) is the Army's choice personal weapon. The use (shooting, cleaning, and repairing) was taught to millions of soldiers, including Marines. You can see that, when these soldiers returned home and sought a home defense weapon, it would be their choice for something that imitates the M-16. Armalite Corp developed the M-16, and sold the pattern to Colt who marketed it as the AR-15 as non-full auto. Since there are now millions of these AR-15s in private ownership, any type of ban would be impossible. I think the discussion needs to be about mental illness and how potential mass murderers should be identified and monitored. I think a person's right to (mental) privacy should be subservient to public safety.

Hunter_Dan wrote:

31/12/2012

Ummm . . . Joe: 1) Your first suggestion stinks. You didn't define "assault weapon." 2) Regarding your third suggestion, am I to assume that you're not limiting the number of long guns a person may have?

gracchus wrote:

31/12/2012

Dan, let me try a rough draft definition of "assault" gun. 1. Any center fire handgun capable of accepting a magazine which can accommodate more than 7 rounds. Please note the built-in bias in favor of the Colt 1911. 2. Any center fire rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine which can accommodate more than 10 rounds. This will severely restrict most of the paramilitary rifles out there - AK's AR's, etc. 3. Any center fire rifle which can be readily modified to accept a detachable magazine which can accommodate more than 10 rounds. This is directed at things like SKS's which are often converted from 10 round fixed to 30 round detachable mags. 4. I would specifically waive U.S. military issue M1 carbines. I welcome your offerings for a second draft.

Hunter_Dan wrote:

01/01/2013

Thank you for defining your terms.

gracchus wrote:

01/01/2013

Happy New Year, Dan, to the - after myself - most thoughtful contributor to this forum. Gracchus (Gaius or Tiberius, take your pick)

ItsaRepublic wrote:

31/12/2012

Oh good....no banning of rimfire rifles. A .22 can do as much damage as any of those you mention. The Henry AR-7 is a rimfire that is a .22. So all AR's is kind of disingenuous.

ItsaRepublic wrote:

31/12/2012

Sounds like Moscow or Nazi Germany. The Constitution is clear "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed". Interpretations aside, if anyone wants to amend the Constitution, there are remedies. 2/3 of the states would have to ratify a ban on arms, that would mean 34 states. Doubtful that will happen. If you count the states that might they would include: NY, MA, CA, WA, OR, VT, RI, CT, IL, MI, WI, MD. On the fence would be OH, IA, VA, MI, NV, DE. Nope, not enough. Maybe 20 states would vote to ban guns but the majority would not.

gracchus wrote:

31/12/2012

Moscow? Nazi Germany? Getting a bit carried away are we? Have you forgotten the "well regulated militia" bit that was put there when the country had no standing army and no intention of creating one? The near absolute reading of the second clause of the Second Amendment is a fabrication of the current Supreme Court. It's no more real an absolute than the Fourth Amendment freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures in the era of the PATRIOT Act.

ItsaRepublic wrote:

31/12/2012

The only definition of an assault weapon would be one that used in the theater of war. Therefore, an AK-47 or a M-16 would be considered assault rifles. Guns resembling these with magazines carrying 5 to 10 rounds are not assault weapons. Anyone could define assault weapons as any weapon but the weapons don't assault anyone, people do.