We’re at war with guns — let’s take the battle to states with lax rules
Your Nov. 7 editorial “Make it stop’’ is a good step toward solving the epidemic of gun slaughter that is commonplace in our nation. The state-by-state legislative solutions you cite are good and proper, but I think many of us are now ready to use our power as consumers to push this hard and swiftly. We can do better.
Let’s start by making a list of the states with the most lax gun restrictions in the country. Then we can begin to lobby major professional organizations, such as the American Medical Association and others, to cancel any conventions booked in these states. Let’s issue boycotts of products produced in those states or services with corporate headquarters based there.
First and foremost, we should cancel our family visits and business travel to those states (who wants to end up murdered at the airport?). Let’s collectively file lawsuits against the gun dealers who sell weapons to murderers in those states, repeatedly and unrelentingly, until none of them remain in business.
My friends, we are at war with the guns in our country. It is time we wake up and act together to put them down. Washington won’t save us, so we must save ourselves.
Robert Scholten
Salem
Hero who gave chase put his gun to good use
Hear the drumroll: “We need more gun control now!’’
The Air Force (also known as “the government’’) didn’t notify the FBI (a.k.a “the government’’) of a deranged individual who had been court-martialed and given a bad-conduct discharge from the service, after having cracked his stepson’s skull and beaten his wife. This, combined with his apparently lying about these events in his background, enabled him to purchase guns to murder 26 worshipers in Texas.
“We need more gun control now’’?
I agree.
We need more responsible citizens like the barefoot hero who was nearby, and who demonstrated the best “gun control’’ when he had control of his gun, took aim, and shot the church gunman and likely saved scores of lives.
Yes, we need more good guys, with good control of their guns, to take out the bad guys.
Michael Velsmid
Nantucket
This is not what the Founders had in mind — how could they have?
In the words of the Founders, our Constitution was established “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.’’
Allowing the sale of semiautomatic rifles, which enable the average shooter to fire about 90 rounds a minute, does not accomplish any of the above goals, and citing the Constitution as the basis for such sales is specious.
A union subject to mass shootings of innocent people does not insure tranquility, promote general welfare, or secure the blessings of liberty. That leaves common defense. How does an armed citizenry prevent an assailant in a hotel room from killing nearly 60 people and wounding more than 500 in about 10 minutes? Or a man from walking into a church and killing nearly 30?
Common defense? What has happened to common sense?
Elizabeth Hare
Hingham
Is this what Trump calls keeping us safe?
Another mass shooting, this time in Texas. First, it must be said that the tragic destruction of lives and families is deplorable. Second, it must be said that a president’s fundamental responsibility is to “keep us safe,’’ which Donald Trump made a centerpiece of his rhetoric. He is all over the terrorists, especially when they’re Muslim or dark-skinned. Terrorists do kill dozens of people per year in our country. But neither Trump nor his GOP enablers have anything to say legislatively about increasing the control of guns, which kill 30,000 people per year.
What does Trump mean by keeping us safe? Apparently, that we will be protected from Muslims, immigrants, and darker-skinned people. What about protection from the 300 million guns in circulation in the United States, a number the National Rifle Association is intent on increasing for our so-called safety.
Len Lyons
Newton
A travel ban idea — target countries with high rates of mental illness
Might I suggest, with tongue planted firmly in cheek, a new, more effective travel ban to prevent mass murder? According to one study, countries with the highest rate of mental illness include Ukraine, Colombia, Lebanon, the Netherlands, France, and Belgium. Maybe preventing people from these countries from entering the United States could reduce the toll of mass murders.
I’ve purposely excluded the United States — as has been applied in other travel ban logic — even though we ranked highest in mental illness. It’s hard to stop people who are already here from entering the country.
Paul Danahy
Chelmsford
