Thank you for a reasonable, thoughtful column. I’ve published several columns in opposition to the phony arguments of the supporters of unrestricted guns so I’m definitely not on that side of the debate, but I agree that dealing with mental health issues would be a great help.
I think the people who want changes to the gun laws are not anti-gun any more than people who want everyone who drives a car to pass a test and have a license and every car to be registered and have a license plate are “anti-car.”
One side wants unregistered deadly weapons to be freely and anonymously available to any untrained, unlicensed person with the money to buy one and the other side wants deadly weapons to be registered and only available to trained, licensed people.
This is not a pro-gun vs. anti-gun issue. It’s a pro-training, licensing and registration vs no training, no licensing, no registration issue. In other words, treat the use of a gun the same way we treat use of a motorcycle.
I would argue that if we required everyone who wanted a gun to take and pass a course on the safe use and storage of firearms and if the background check included a mental health component I think we would see fewer people shot.
BTW, gun ownership was not a right upon which this country was founded. Gun ownership was protected ONLY so that the country could have an armed militia instead of a standing army. Today, by statute that armed militia is the National Guard and members are not allowed to use their own guns.
And your statement that the only way to reduce shootings is to take away all guns is unworthy of anyone who has passed even freshman logic 101.