<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Thursday,  April 25 , 2024

Linkedin Pinterest
News / Opinion / Letters to the Editor

Letter: Can’t rationalize universal access

The Columbian
Published: December 23, 2012, 4:00pm

I grew up in remote areas of Alaska, before it became a state. My family, and our neighbors, had guns as a matter of course. Our meat was moose or caribou, and we shared fishing streams with bears. I don’t remember any murders or shootings. The National Rifle Association would say that was because we were all armed, I suppose. Maybe. But our long guns were bolt- or lever-action; the fewer bullets you used, the less meat you spoiled. Our handguns were revolvers; safer, dependable in extreme cold and, we thought, more accurate.

The NRA supports ownership of military-type assault rifles that can spray dozens of bullets, and/or semiautomatic pistols with clips that hold 40 cartridges or more. These weapons are for killing people.

Obviously, I believe we’re entitled to firearms for hunting. In a pinch, I suppose I could protect myself against home intruders with those same firearms. And I might reluctantly be able to rationalize gun clubs where military weapons would be kept for target-shooting on the premises. But I am completely fed up with the sickening results of today’s universal access to military weapons. A total prohibition on them would suit me fine.

I don’t believe limits on gun ownership are un-American; I think their absence is irrational.

George Cheek

Camas

We encourage readers to express their views about public issues. Letters to the editor are subject to editing for brevity and clarity. Limit letters to 200 words (100 words if endorsing or opposing a political candidate or ballot measure) and allow 30 days between submissions. Send Us a Letter
Loading...