Gun control—an opposing view

I read with interest the guest column by Jeanne Bishop in your August 25-31 issue. While I feel sorrow for the losses she has seen and/or suffered, as the father of three and grandfather of four, I have an opposing view.

Ms. Bishop says that she cannot understand why the “assault weapons” ban is being allowed to expire. In my opinion, it is a bad law which should not have been passed in the first place. Worse yet, it was just more liberal chipping away at the Second Amendment.

Now, I am a lifelong member of the gun culture and strong supporter of the NRA. There is very little in the way of personal weaponry I would ban. After all, most weapons covered by the assault weapons ban have the same basic function as regular sporting firearms. Some of them look “menacing” and thus are used to scare the public, especially those ignorant of guns.

As we become more urbanized, more people tend to take a negative view of gun ownership. This is why I admire any politician who tries to slow/stop any anti-gun legislation (like Denny Hastert).

The problem is today it’s so-called “assault weapons,” next handguns, then high-powered rifles, etc., etc., ad nauseam. A gun is no more dangerous than a hammer unless you have a careless person or criminal using it. This is true of thousands of other products. Should we ban them all?

One final note. I don’t think it should be anyone’s business why a person wants to own a weapon, of any kind. In other words, why should we care the reason an individual owns a particular weapon, as long as he doesn’t hurt anyone with it?

Ms. Bishop says, “It’s hard for me to imagine why anyone but criminals need these weapons.” I believe no one should have to show a “need” because someone will always be able to find a reason why you don’t “need” a particular weapon.

Richard Gribbins is a resident of Polo.

Enjoy The Rock River Times? Help spread the word!