Gun control, yes or no

Posted Sunday, Feb. 03, 2013  comments  Print Reprints

Have more to add? News tip? Tell us

Defend against what?

The folks who are so adamant about the necessity of owning military-type assault weapons actually believe we need to be prepared to protect ourselves from our own government! They routinely quote the Second Amendment, which is not a reason why, only their perceived right to own these guns. They like to refer to the Hitler regime for proof that this can happen.

The NRA argues that the only people who need to be denied the right to own these weapons are the mentally ill. I would submit that this group of self-appointed "defenders of the people" fits this criteria perfectly.

-- Barbara Johnson, Hurst

Come on down, y'all

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz's comments on Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel asking banks in Chicago not to do business with gun manufacturers were fun to read.

You have to like Cruz promoting Texas and putting Emanuel on notice as a bully, then saying the banks should move to Texas. Wouldn't it be great to have those banks and jobs respond to Cruz's invitation and move here? Like, to Fort Worth? How about some follow-up reporting from your editors -- and some invitations, too?

-- Marshall Sansbury Sr., Fort Worth

Actual gunfights

When considering the advisability of allowing teachers and other school personnel to carry concealed weapons, consider this from the Jan. 16. Time magazine:

"In the New York City police department, for example, officers involved in gunfights typically hit their intended targets only 18 percent of the time, according to a Rand study.

"The research on actual gunfights, the kind that happen not in a politician's head but in fluorescent-lit stairwells, schools and strip-mall restaurants around America, reveals something surprising. Winning a gunfight without shooting innocent people typically requires realistic, expensive training and a special kind of person, a fact that has been strangely absent in all the back-and-forth about assault-weapon bans and the Second Amendment."

This issue requires careful, thoughtful and thorough study rather than a knee-jerk acceptance of the gun lobby's proposal.

-- John H Pickett, Fort Worth

Rifles misrepresented

I write in hope of correcting the repeated misrepresentation of AR-style rifles as being both "high-powered" and "assault rifles."

The Remington .223 cartridge (virtually identical to the military 5.65mm NATO) has about 1,280 foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle. This is barely powerful enough to legally hunt deer in Texas. Granddad's old .30-30 has approximately 1,900 foot-pounds of energy, and the .30-06, used in our military rifles in World War I, World War II and the Korean War, has approximately 2,800 foot-pounds of energy, more than twice as much as the AR-style rifles in .223 Remington. Hence, referring to AR-style rifles as "high-powered" is an error.

The term "assault rifle" was coined in 1989 by the anti-gun folks. It has virtually no meaning (other than to sound menacing). I suppose the Thompson submachine gun of World War II (in .45 Colt Automatic pistol cartridge), which was full-automatic capable, could be considered an assault weapon, and the M-4 carbine used by our current military (in 5.65 mm NATO and also full-automatic capable) could be considered an "assault weapon," but the military doesn't name them as such. I don't think the media should either.

-- David White, Fort Worth

Where's the research?

As I read the Jan. 20 article, "Rallies attract gun supporters," I became intrigued about the name of Eric Reed's new group, "More Gun Control [equals] More Crime." I'm anxious to see Reed's research that correlates that a ban on "assault weapons" and magazines exceeding 10 rounds, that requiring background checks on all gun purchases, that an interstate database sharing gun ownership information, that more restrictions to keep guns out of the hands of those with certain mental issues and that keeping the NRA from banning medical research on the relationship of gun ownership and the potential for gun violence will result in more crime.

I would find that to be some very interesting reading.

-- Larry Gwaltney, Fort Worth

Individual choice

What do these massacres have in common? They happen in a gun-free zone and they stop when the good guys show up with a gun. I prefer to have a choice to live.

-- Frank M Wagnon, Grapevine

Trained humans

The only way to immediately -- repeat immediately -- secure our schools or any facility is to have properly trained human security forces. They would immediately alert authorities and then, using whatever force is required, delay and stop an attacker until help arrived. These individuals could be in uniform or not; they could be school employees or not; but must be properly trained.

-- James Yule, Springtown

Looking for comments?

We welcome your comments on this story, but please be civil. Do not use profanity, hate speech, threats, personal abuse or any device to draw undue attention. Our policy requires those wishing to post here to use their real identity.

Our commenting policy | Facebook commenting FAQ | Why Facebook?