Gun owners aren’t trolls under a bridge; they’re your friends and neighbors

To the editor: The Times for once offers a somewhat realistic assessment of the gun ownership debate and seems to recognize that much of the politically motivated control measures really won’t impact gun violence. (“Banning firearm sales to suspected terrorists is a distraction. America needs real gun control,” editorial, June 17)

The one glaring flaw in The Times’ argument is its portrayal of the National Rifle Assn. as some troll hiding under the bridge, a malevolent, unique “thing” to be fought.

There are at least 300 million guns in private hands in the U.S. There are 5 million NRA members, and in truth a much larger number of gun owners are not NRA members. These people are your neighbors, your co-workers, members of your family. They are citizens, voters and donors who, at least in part, have opted to use the NRA to collectively voice their support for the 2nd Amendment and their opposition to wild schemes to circumvent that liberty without following constitutional procedures.

Mike Post, Winnetka

..

To the editor: Yes, more needs to be done on gun control, but real progress will be made when gun owners regulate themselves.

Common sense dictates that gun licenses should require yearly training and safety education. How better to enforce that principle than through the NRA and other gun clubs?

Prior to owning a gun, one would have to receive training and join a registered gun club that could reject people who do not meet its requirements. Gun clubs would alert the government when a member is out of compliance and be required to maintain adequate insurance to cover wrongful death litigation due to violence by their members.

By making the clubs liable for gun violence, they would self-regulate, removing at-risk members without the need for heavy-handed, slow and ineffective government intervention. The Constitution supports this approach: Gun ownership is only protected when linked to a well regulated militia.

Alex Shah, San Diego

..

To the editor: The Times’ editorial board does not believe that individuals have a constitutional right to own a gun. It must therefore believe that only certain government personnel can possess firearms.

What would happen if said government became tyrannical? How then could the populace fight back? The founders knew very well of this possibility.

What does the board think would happen if its preference became reality? I along with many others would consider this an intolerable act by a tyrannical government. We would act.

It would not be a romanticized notion of individuals standing up against a government. It would not be a fantasy; it would be a reality.

Dennis Eodice, Altadena

..

To the editor: I completely agree that banning assault weapons is just a drop in the bucket. It helps, certainly, because there is no reason that these weapons ought to be available for purchase on the open market.

What happened in Orlando was unacceptable. But it was not the largest massacre in our history. There have been many. We as the people need to recognize that guns, all guns, have a motive of their own — to kill.

Guns are made to kill whomever you think is in your way. Start now with assault weapons, but we cannot stop there.

Claire Carsman, Palm Springs

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

MORE FROM OPINION

Before you move to Canada...

Cutting through the drug manufacturers’ smokescreen on SB 1010

Liberal gun groups? They’re out there — and they have a different take on stopping gun violence than you might expect