Regarding the July 18 column “How arguments against gun control detached from reality”: Much of the reasoning was circular in nature.
In the vast majority of crimes involving firearms, the criminal obtained the weapon illegally (by theft or fraud). The laws are already there, but we are not enforcing them.
Of particular note was the argument “No laws could have prevented the tragedy.” Even the NRA agrees that guns should not be allowed in the hands of those who should not have them, but how?
Congress would have to change laws that currently prevent the sharing of medical information that would prevent weapons sold to those with potentially volatile mental conditions. The terror watch list was never intended to be used to prevent people from a constitutionally protected right. There is no due process, which must exist if this solution is proposed.
Finally, trying to limit the weapon to the magazine size or reloading speed – where do we draw the line?
Why not mandate that the only legal weapon is a smooth-bore, muzzle-loading flintlock musket like those used in the Revolutionary War? This is silly.
Steven J. Hovey