- Home
- Solano News
- US / World
- Opinion
- Living
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Business
- Obituaries
- Comics
- Gallery
- Classifieds
- Advertisers
- Coupons
- Contact Us
1,056
1,482
Here are some ideas to fix gun problem
As a naturalized citizen of this country, it is difficult for me to understand America’s obsession with guns.
It is my understanding that historically the inclusion of the Second Amendment had more to do with the right of slave states to own firearms to use for their militias to patrol against slave uprisings, rather than for the citizenry to arm itself against some vague and ominous attack by the federal government.
Guns, from small handguns to assault rifles, have only one purpose, to wound or destroy life; whether it’s hunting defenseless wildlife or assaulting a fellow human being. I can’t imagine the thoughtful, sober forefathers of this country aligning themselves with the pro-gun rhetoric of today, particularly after the Sandy Hook massacre.
Having said that, I don’t see guns leaving American society. I respectfully propose to our lawmakers to push for a nationwide minimum age of 25 for an individual to purchase or own a firearm.
Most of the recent, senseless mass killings have been conducted by people under 25 years old. Just because the Constitution allows us to have guns, it doesn’t mean we should allow young people, with their undeveloped brains and heightened emotions, to possess the power to wound or destroy life.
Additionally, just as we have to have automobile insurance in case we damage property or harm people with our vehicle, insurance should be required for firearm owners in cases ranging from negligence to willful malice. As we have a sliding scale of car insurance rates for older, safer drivers, we can have something similar for firearm owners.
These proposals, along with other proposed limits, like the assault rifle ban and the closing of the gun show loophole, is the least we can do as a society in response to the immeasurable damage and grief caused in Sandy Hook.
We should take responsibility as a nation for that tragedy, rather than to put all the blame on the shooter. Thank you.
Carlos Escobedo
Fairfield
Discussion | 10 comments
The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy
Recent Posts
rlw895January 17, 2013 - 9:11 pm
Keep those ideas coming! There is a price to pay for our position on guns, whether legal or cultural. Society doesn't pull the trigger, but it enables the tragedies in other ways. So we need to think about how we are going to pay that cost if we're not going to change the law or culture. And tht will take time.
Reply |laffsatliersJanuary 21, 2013 - 7:22 am
A few thoughts on this seriously warped letter: Mr. Escobedo's "understanding" of why the Second Amendment exists is absolutely, unequivocally wrong, period. Read your history. As for the "thoughtful, sober forefathers," don't ascribe your own thoughts to them: READ WHAT THEY (Washington, Madison, Jefferson, and so forth) ACTUALLY WROTE and you will see that Mr. Escobedo is guilty of serious distortion of history. Last, there is no "gun show loophole" especially in California where every firearm purchaser, including sales between individuals, must take place in the presence of a holder of a Federal firearms license, the buyers undergoes the required state and Federal background check, the the buyer must wait 10 consecutive 24-hour periods before taking possession of the weapon. We should welcome healthy and well-informed discussion of the problem; this letter doesn't meet those criteria.
Reply |John MillerJanuary 21, 2013 - 6:00 pm
Beautifully put Sir
Reply |rlw895January 22, 2013 - 8:16 pm
I agree with you about the historical origins of the Second Amendment. But rather than say Mr. Escobedo is wrong in his history therefore his ideas are warped, tell us what you think the actual history is and where that leads us today.
Reply |The MisterJanuary 21, 2013 - 11:09 am
Another school shooting to remember: Kent State, May 4th, 1970. The shooter used his .45 pistol. His accomplices used M1 rifles. The victims were unarmed. The shooters were representatives of the government. Because the government will shoot you is the reason the people have a right and a duty to arm themselves.
Reply |Tai_mai_shuJanuary 21, 2013 - 2:26 pm
To the guy who thinks our forefathers were sober... This whole thing needs to be put into perspective. Are you the the toughest guy on your block? Me neither. Can you defend yourself and the lives of your loved ones, neighbors, innocent people, complete strangers, and your dog with just your fists? Me neither. Take a look at the murder rate in Chicago. Last year there were over 500 murders in that city. Over 60% were at the end of a gun. Wait one minute. Chicago bans all law abiders from protecting themselves. So, how did this happen then? If Mr Emmanuel says "no guns" then how did that many murders take place? Yes you guesses it! There are people in a free society who just don't follow the rules. Will this ever change? Probably not. Will all gun violence cease once so called assault weapons are removed from law abiders? Nope.
Reply |rlw895January 22, 2013 - 8:11 pm
You think the students at Kent State should have been armed? The National Guard troops there were not prepared for what they faced, that's all. They were poorly led and felt they were acting in self-defense. It wasn't a matter of the government attacking citizens to support a tyrannical regime. It was more like the Boston Massacre than Kristallnacht.
Reply |Check this outJanuary 21, 2013 - 11:20 am
wwwnomorefakenewscom
Reply |John MillerJanuary 21, 2013 - 5:58 pm
So you can send your kids to Afganistan at age 18 but they have to wait till there 25 here to posess a firearm here. You can kill on the battle field for your country but not protect yourself or family. Liberals have this claim that guns kill. Gun, knife, club or broken bottle, it's the person behind the object.
Reply |Danny BuntinJanuary 21, 2013 - 10:29 pm
I consider myself a liberal, and I do not want to ban ALL guns. I reconcile this by accepting the idea that I want as many freedoms as I can have. It would be hypocritical for me to scream for freedoms that I want, and then advocate taking away freedoms on matters that do not fall within my scope of wanting. A line must be made on how much fire power a person can possess, that is the bottom line. Where that line is drawn, is paramount.
Reply |