Contrary to the opinion expressed in a Saturday letter, the purpose of sensible gun regulation isn't to "disarm the good." It is to keep guns out of the hands of mentally/emotionally unstable individuals and to limit the firepower that any one person can bring to bear in a given situation. Background checks won't catch every person with stability issues, but they'll help. A ban on assault-type weapons and extended magazines won't keep everyone from obtaining them, but it will make it harder, and will allow intervention by law enforcement before these weapons are used, at time of purchase or upon discovery.
The problem with more people
carrying more guns as a solution is that most people don't want to
carry. Even in the 'old west' most people didn't. What we'd rather
have is fewer chances for unstable people to easily act on their
homicidal impulses. If a responsible citizen wants to arm himself for
personal protection he still has that right. We just want him to
demonstrate that he IS responsible. And if he can't protect himself
with a nine shot semi-automatic pistol (or less) then maybe he should
make some life-style changes. Is that too much to ask?
Sent about five minutes ago.