Universal gun control not answer
The murders in Orlando were evil and despicable. Understandably, Americans are asking themselves what might be done to reduce the likelihood of this happening again.
It seems like common sense to disallow gun-purchasing rights to those on an FBI watch list. However, some are pushing for universal restrictions on gun ownership, which is counterproductive in two ways.
First, it presumes that legal restrictions to gun ownership actually keep guns out of the hands of would-be murderers. That strategy didn’t work for alcohol in the 1930s, nor has it worked for drugs in recent decades.
If a legal restriction against murder did not keep a guy like Omar Mateen from murdering, would a legal restriction against gun ownership really keep him from obtaining a gun? If that answer is not clear, try juxtaposing the strict French gun-control laws with the recent terror attacks on their soil.
Second, it actually does keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens who would otherwise have the capacity to defend themselves and other innocents in the event of a shooting. If I’m an ISIS or ISIS-inspired terrorist, I’m a fan of universal gun control.
Alan Winter, Mount Hope
Limit gun sales
I am certainly not an expert on firearms. I don’t own one and have no desire to.
But wouldn’t it be right to do everything in our power to keep people safe from harm? That’s why seat belts are required, and why motorcycle helmets are required in many states.
It makes sense to put limitations on gun sales. Yes, I realize that “criminals will always have weapons,” but there’s not much we can do about that except support our police force. What we can do is put limitations on what kind of weapons are sold and who can purchase them.
Yes, I understand that “guns don’t kill people; people do.” But that statement is not helpful. I doubt the man in Florida could have killed 49 people with a knife.
No lobby should be able to own the United States government. When we allow that to occur, we open ourselves up to mayhem and corruption.
Suzanne Koch, Wichita
Could be the end
If Hillary Clinton becomes our next president and has a liberal Democratic Senate to work with, that could well be the end of our constitutional liberties, our national security, our religious freedom, our country’s prosperity, and the United States we have known in the past.
If she is elected president, count on the Supreme Court to be liberal for many years. America will be unrecognizable for most thinking citizens.
Barbara Black-Roe, Wichita
Vote for Price
The upcoming elections are crucial to the future of our state. I have had several opportunities to evaluate the objectives of the various campaigns for the Kansas Senate seat in District 25. Jim Price’s honest and practical approach sets him apart.
Price has shown great concern for the residents of the community, and his willingness to listen to people’s concerns is sorely needed. His abilities and experience with efficiency will make him an excellent legislator.
I urge everyone in District 25 to vote for Jim Price.
Chad A. Russell, Andover
Letters to the Editor
Include your full name, home address and phone number for verification purposes. All letters are edited for clarity and length; 200 words or fewer are best. Letters may be published in any format and become the property of The Eagle.
Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Wichita Eagle, 825 E. Douglas, Wichita, KS 67202
For more information, contact
Phillip Brownlee at 316-268-6262, firstname.lastname@example.org.