Bills would affect legal gun owners
I think your article illustrates why we are not going to have a productive discussion about violence. The discussion usually turns to “gun violence” which is a subset of “violence.” It is never about the people who are committing the violence.
First there is an article in The Reminder assuring us that legal gun owners will not be affected. Then there are proposals such as “high capacity magazines,” whatever that means, and limits as to how many guns one may purchase in a given amount of time, as well as insurance. These items only affect legal gun owners, not criminals. We have heard the promises of Democratic and Republican legislators before about not affecting law biding gun owners, but what passes always has.
Mayor Sarno favors limits on magazine capacity, which will do nothing to stop crime. He also favors dumping money into law enforcement, which will not stop crime. The mayor and some of the City Council have worked in the probation department. We all know how well that department works. The probation department is under investigation.
To be fair, Commissioner Fitchet said that he does not think that the background checks for mental illness are good enough. I agree, but he is spitting into the wind. People have lost their gun permits for things like a DUI conviction, which is not a gun violation, nor a propensity toward violence.
The public opinion now pillories people with DUI convictions. But anyone conducting a background check will find there is nothing to check. Unless one is declared mentally ill by a court there is nothing there to check. The mental health lobby is active in Massachusetts and will successfully prevent any kind of reform.
Typically the mass shooters are coming from the ranks of the well-to-do and politically influential families of the mentally ill. This group will always have money to get whatever they want. They can even move from state to state with ease.
There is also a surprising number of people who are influential in politics with “troubled” children. We cannot see their juvenile records, no matter how serious. We do not see it until they continue their problem behavior after age 18. This group would rather disarm everyone else so they do not pose a danger to their “troubled” spawn. In general they also want the lenient sentencing that results in legions of serious repeat offenders on the streets.
So, we have two politically influential groups of people who have absolutely no respect for the Bill of Rights. And I am suppose to trust them to have a “real” discussion?
Robert Joseph Underwood Springfield
Comments From Our Readers:Login to Post a Response