Gun Laws

If ever there were an issue that both defines and energizes the political left versus right, gun control would have to be in the top three. As a result of the tragic shootings in Newtown, Conn., the Obama administration and state legislatures all over the country are crafting new legislation to at least make it look like something is being done about the use of guns in the commission of crimes. I guess in a representative democracy like ours this is to be expected. This is a very human, albeit emotional reaction to a terrible event.

In her letter to the editor, "Guns do kill people" (Jan. 16), Mary Chestnut repeats the tired and discredited mantra that gun laws control criminals and prevent crime. The tragedy in Tucson was caused by an individual and not by the firearm he used or the gun laws in Arizona. Ms. Chestnut blames the gun and the gun laws rather than the perpetrator. She even goes so far as to insinuate that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is somehow responsible because she supports the Arizona gun laws and (according to Ms. Chestnut)

According to a recent filing by Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler, in response to the pending case Woolard vs. Sheridan, pertaining to Marylanders' Second Amendment rights, he points to the high handgun violence and murder rate in Baltimore as logical and sound reasoning for denying the rest of Maryland their right to carry a concealed firearm for their personal protection. He further contends that the state is not denying our rights, since all Marylanders can legally open carry a long gun (rifle)

In regard to the piece, "After Tucson, don't expect sanity to prevail on guns" (Jan. 11) Dan Rodricks clearly demonstrates that he is a master of blame. What he hasn't figured out yet is that his words only serve to cause even more animosity. He writes of "toning down the vitriolic political rhetoric," but that doesn't seem to apply to him. He mentions the "soul-searching" prescribed by "the remarkably candid sheriff of Pima County. " Mr. Rodricks needs to follow the example of the one he has quoted.

Dan Rodricks states that it is likely that due to a recent federal court decision Marylanders will be able to carry weapons legally ("Adapting to the newest form of gun insanity," July 24). If judges feel that this is a constitutional right, then why aren't folks allowed to carry weapons into court house, police stations or the legislature? It's OK to have one in a Starbucks, but not a court room? The very people who are making these decisions are the ones who are keeping their own place of work safe, aren't they?

Letter writer Larry Sturgill ("Fast & Furious probe not a partisan fishing expedition," July 2) comments that a program similar to one begun under the Bush administration and conducted by the Obama administration, Operation Fast & Furious, was "atrociously ill conceived. " What is not in doubt is that thousands of guns cross the border into Mexico every day. Lax gun laws championed by the National Rifle Association are the direct cause of this flood. Authorities are hamstrung in their efforts to stem the tide by laws that favor the purchasers of large numbers of guns over the interests of law enforcement.

Over 2,000 people - 38 of them children - have been killed by guns in America since the massacre at Newtown two months ago. The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times greater than other high-income countries. We have brought down the death toll from cars, toys and medications through careful study and thoughtful legislation - why can't we do this with guns? Taking steps to keep guns out of the wrong hands doesn't violate the second amendment any more than prohibitions against shouting "fire" in a crowded theater violate the first amendment.

Regarding Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler's recent commentary on gun violence, he should know that you can't legislate proper behavior ("Keep the focus on handguns in Md.," Jan. 14). I am not a crazed gun owner demanding my Second Amendment rights, even though I am against gun control. But I have lived every parent's worst nightmare: My 23-year-old son was murdered by a young thug with a gun on Aug. 31,1992. This was four years after the weapon used in the crime was banned in 1988.

The Sun and others have paid little attention to the importance of firearm size in the context of the current gun control debate. Due to the fact they are easily concealed and portable, handguns are more often accidentally discharged, used to commit suicide and, most importantly, employed by criminals. Rifles, on the other hand, are far less to be involved in such cases. That's why lumping rifle and handgun restrictions together is a mistake. People who purchase firearms less than 30 inches in length should receive the additional scrutiny the state wants, but the tougher scrutiny shouldn't apply to those who buy guns larger than that.

Challenging a major political taboo, Johns Hopkins researchers contend that tighter gun control laws will save lives and reduce violence, particularly if "high-risk" people such as alcoholics and youths under age 21 are barred from buying or having firearms. In a report being released Thursday by the Bloomberg School of Public Health, they call for broadening current state and federal prohibitions on who can own guns while also closing loopholes in the regulation of gun sales. "When you deny high-risk people access to guns, the evidence shows that saves lives," said Daniel W. Webster, director of Hopkins' Center for Gun Policy and Research and the report's lead author.