The Enterprise opinion pages are an open forum for our community. We encourage readers to express their thoughts about issues that appear in this newspaper or affect the community. Letters should be brief (with an outside limit of 1,000 words) and must include the writer's address, name, and phone number for verification. The editor may reject letters that have been printed elsewhere. Letters concerning elections will be cut off one issue before the election at the editor's discretion. No unsigned letters will be published. The deadline for letters is Tuesday at noon.
To the Editor:
Every time an article or news report says something about how guns were used to kill people and how we need more gun control, I think to myself, do they really know what they are talking about?
I always say, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” If you disagree with that statement, then spoons are making people obese. Right?
Why are we blaming guns and especially organizations (which had nothing to do with a shooting) for the actions of an individual? We should be blaming the individual and only the individual. To call the National Rifle Association “child killers” just makes you sound foolish.
More gun control is not the answer. It isn’t going to solve any problems, and research and statistics have showed that. Practically more people are killed in Chicago every day with guns than the rest of the United States combined. And they have very strict gun laws in Chicago.
We need real solutions to ensure that individuals who have mental problems or are convicted felons, do not get their hands on guns. Stricter background checks and the banning of military weapons should be the first steps.
I will agree that no American needs a military weapon, which our soldiers are using to fight terrorists, in his or her home.
Also, think about this: Instead of putting armed guards in schools, what about secretly taking select teachers, training them to use a gun, and having them act as “air marshals” of the school?
To continue to ban guns will not stop criminals from gaining possession of them; that is why they are criminals in the first place.
Someone who calls the Second Amendment impractical, outdated, and invalid must not understand what our Constitution is or what it was designed to do. (See John Wolcott’s letter from Dec. 27, 2012.) In no way, shape, or form, should our rights as Americans be infringed and especially not repealed, and those statements are insulting to us.
The Second Amendment has never been obsolete and has been a way of life of many. Many rely on their weapons to supply food for their families in the winter, especially in remote areas. Weapons offer hunters the ability to hunt for sport, and for families to protect themselves from home intruders. It is also a vital piece of equipment for law enforcement.
In all, the Second Amendment could not be repealed in today’s society. What would happen with all those guns in use? Do you really think no one would use them or they could not easily be found? And I certainly would not want the government to be the only people allowed to have guns.
Josh VonHaugg
Knox
Editor’s note: Josh VonHaugg is a Berne-Knox-Westerlo High School senior.