Gun Control: Restricting Criminals vs. Citizens

Regarding the editorial "Sensible Gun Control," Feb. 11: I am a member of the National Rifle Association and as such, I disagree with the claim that additional gun control laws are needed. I am greatly offended by the suggestion that the Bradys have the right idea regarding gun control.

In the case of John Hinckley's assassination attempt, the handgun he used had been purchased far enough in advance that no reasonable waiting period could have prevented the attempt. Instead, let us consider that as a mental patient, Mr. Hinckley was not supposed to have a gun at all and that when tried, he was found to be insane.

Perhaps we should try enforcing existing gun laws before adding new ones. It is noteworthy that Washington and New York have two of the toughest gun bans in the country and two of the highest murder rates in the world. Instead of further restricting citizens' rights to keep and bear arms, let us restrict criminals' abilities to avoid punishment. After all, is it not better to restrict criminals rights' than to violate citizens' rights? James E. Gwyn Jr., Greensboro, N.C.

Letters are welcome. Only a selection can be published, subject to condensation, and none acknowledged. Please address them to "Readers Write," One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
QR Code to Gun Control: Restricting Criminals vs. Citizens
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today