Letters to the Editor: Readers weigh in on Florida school shooting and gun-control debate

A 2nd Amendment believer who opposes civilian assault rifles

I have my dad’s West Point carbine and his .45 caliber revolver from World War II.

I have an 1872 Colt .45, chrome-plated, pearl-handled revolver, which has been in the family forever. I have a Ruger .22 caliber revolver formerly used for occasional Midwest squirrel shoots and two rarely fired shotguns, which we keep in a cherry gun case in our bedroom. (All ammunition was discarded once the kids turned toddler age.) I am a believer in the 2nd Amendment (and, no, I don’t wear bandoleers to bed).

Two of my wife’s kids went to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., where she substituted.

On Feb. 20, I read Ben Stein’s Diary piece (“Let’s Have At Least A Modicum of Common Sense”) in The American Spectator, as well as the barrage of pro and con comments it generated.

Mr. Stein has convinced me as a 2nd Amendment believer that American civilian sales of AR-15 and other military-style semi-automatic rifles should be discontinued. As Mr. Stein argues, it’s only common sense.

Why?

We don’t need an AR-15 or its cousins for those Midwest squirrels.

We don’t need them to make holes in the scowling paper villain at the local target range.

We don’t need them to protect our house. That unloaded 14-gauge did the trick in the one instance we needed it.

We don’t need them for self-defense.

If the AR-15 and its cousins are banned, won’t that ignite a “gun control/ban all guns” movement, a slippery slope?

I’m betting that the talented legal minds in Congress or their staffs can carefully draft a limited and specific prohibition that laser focuses on the civilian sale of assault weapons without affecting the types of arms envisioned by our founders and creators of the 2nd Amendment. Or maybe it’s time to consider an improved 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004, or to enact a limited version of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015.

Yes, I understand that there are automatic handguns with burst capabilities that could be substituted for the AR-15 and its copycats, but the Parkland tragedy should, in my view, be the final straw for assault-type weapons. Enough is enough!

Paul K. Watkins

Newport Beach

Let MADD be the model for gun-control effort

In 1980, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) was founded by Candace Lightner in direct response to the death of her 13-year old daughter by a drunk driver. This was not the first death from a DUI, but it was the last before the group took action.

As a result, today’s DUIs are heavily monitored and penalized, indicating fewer numbers of death by intoxication. There is at least one MADD office in every state, including one in each province of Canada.

In 2018, it is time to form MASS (Mothers Against Semi-automatic Slaughter) and address the senseless killing of our kids by savage assault weapons. Let no one tell you it can’t be done. It already has.

Britta Wilder

San Clemente

A nation cries out for gun control

How many of our children must be gunned down before Congress has the courage to pass widely accepted gun-control legislation?

That was the question Ohio Gov. John Kasich posed in a Feb. 18 interview on CNN. His impassioned plea was for members of Congress to risk losing their jobs for the sake of stemming the spate of gun violence that is killing or maiming our children on a weekly basis. It would take remarkable fortitude, especially by Republican Congress members, to risk losing their seats in the face of the National Rifle Assn.’s oft-repeated threats to punish anyone who dares reject its gun-rights orthodoxy. But this is what our nation is crying out for.

There is broad consensus for closing the loophole that exempts sales at gun shows and by private sellers from background checks, to outlawing so-called bump stocks that facilitate converting semi-automatic weapons to fully, and to keeping persons on the federal no-fly list from acquiring guns.

Would passage of provisions such as these end the slaughter of innocent kids? Sadly, no, but it would help. For example, studies indicate that some states with tougher weapons laws have fewer gun-related deaths.

So where are we seeing courage now? In the determined actions of children and teens who, in the aftermath of the massacre at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., are traveling to the capital in Tallahassee to push for stricter gun laws. On Monday, a group of students demonstrated outside the White House and elsewhere. “March for Our Lives” rallies are scheduled to take place in D.C. and other major cities on March 24.

When will Congress — with 80% of the public demanding reforms — possess the courage and moral character to take a stand and make our nation whole? Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Costa Mesa) and Mimi Walters (R-Irvine), are you listening?

Benjamin J. Hubbard

Costa Mesa

Permissive gun laws are a slippery slope

At $38 million, F-14 Tomcats are expensive fighter jets; maybe someone could dump me a used one. Then I could blow up invasive drones that are a threat to my family and property, but I worry: What if I became delusional? Would I wipe out office buildings, personal reminders of drudgery?

OK, maybe I should stick to land guns. I’d take a M-109A6 Paladin that can hurl a 155-millimeter shell up to 20 miles. I’m guessing the neighbors would bring up zoning laws — a 64,000-pound gun is unsightly — but surely real patriots would give my 2nd Amendment rights top priority. Or is having the ability to take out hundreds of people with one blast not worthy of being covered under the 2nd Amendment? Is a more-responsible weapon an assault rifle that can kill “only” two dozen humans with a squeeze on the trigger?

When I was a teenager I earned an National Rifle Assn. marksman certificate for consistently hitting target centers with a .22 caliber rifle and, in turn, my dad honored me with a .35 caliber pistol to shoot cans, sometimes a desert jackrabbit — a callous waste of desert life. Thank God this gun was not an assault rifle that could quickly kill off a herd of cattle. Even a .30-ought-six Winchester rifle is more akin to the muskets at the time the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment, not anything like the machine guns that later used those same .30 caliber cartridges to mow down troops.

The founding fathers could not have imagined what weaponry would become when they gave us the right to bear arms and so now, does that right mean we are entitled to any kind of arms? Do we draw a line between arms for sports or protection, and ones for mass killing?

Where does the NRA want to draw the line? Is it where, in a few seconds, only one live being or animal dies or dozens? Is there a “reasonable” finger pull to death ratio under the 2nd Amendment? If not, where’s my Tomcat?

Gary Hoffman

Huntington Beach

Gun worship is faith in a false idol

We write as people of faith who are either attendees at, or members of, Irvine United Congregational Church. We express horror, sadness — and, yes, anger about the school shooting last week in Florida.

A 19-year-old former student, seemingly suffering from emotional/mental problems, bought an assault rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammunition legally, then slaughtered 17 students and teachers (firing an estimated 150 rounds). Sadly, this is not an isolated incident. In this country eight children/teens are killed every day by guns, according to the Brady Campaign to prevent Gun Violence.

In the Bible we learn that Jesus loved children and blessed them; our faith also warns against worshiping false idols. Yet many in our society (including some “Christians”) seem to worship guns — and are willing to sacrifice children at the altar of these weapons. But we will not be silent — nor simply offer “thoughts and prayers” — as gun violence takes the lives of children and other innocents, at a rate exceeding the death toll of all wars ever fought by the United States.

Sadly, despite calls for action, our elected leaders seem paralyzed. Surely one reason is that the National Rifle Assn. (essentially a gun lobby group funded by weapons manufacturers) provides staggering amounts of money to many politicians’ campaigns.

That includes our president and many of his biggest supporters — including our local members of U.S. Congress: Mimi Walters (R-Irvine), Daryl Issa (R-Vista) and Dana Rohrbacher (R-Costa Mesa). These politicians all strongly support gun rights and stubbornly fight any attempt at sensible gun control.

There are steps that might reduce the carnage: background checks, bans/restrictions on military assault weapons, limits on ammunition sales, screening buyers for mental health issues, etc.

But our local representatives favor extremist NRA priorities over the precious life of citizens, including schoolchildren. They prioritize gun rights over the rights of children and other innocents. We call on them, urgently, to change their priorities — otherwise it will be our moral duty to make sure that we elect representatives that will put the rights of people before those of guns!

The Rev. Paul Tellstrom and 80 other signers

Irvine United Congregational Church

Irvine

How to get published: Email us at dailypilot@latimes.com. All correspondence must include full name, hometown and phone number (for verification purposes). The Pilot reserves the right to edit all submissions for clarity and length.