l***@yahoo.com
2019-08-10 17:53:36 UTC
FWIW:
Conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby recently wrote a column that was headlined: "No, expanded background checks wouldn't prevent mass shootings."
You can read it here.
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/23045/no-expanded-background-checks-wouldnt-prevent
Anyway, here are two responses:
Jeff Jacoby's conclusion, “If there were 'common sense' gun regulation that could unfailingly foil mass shootings, we would have adopted it long ago," indicates that he should get out more — perhaps to Japan, Greece, Canada, Spain, Ireland, Australia, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, or Britain.
Emilie DiMento, Winthrop
And:
It has been just a couple days since the devastating murders in El Paso and Dayton, and there goes Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby (“No, expanded background checks wouldn't prevent mass shootings," Aug. 7) arguing about the futility of legislation that can prevent future such atrocities.
Let me make a suggestion — and I do this as a lifetime gun owner.
The Dayton gunman's rifle, according to police reports, fired bullets into the bodies of more than 20 innocent victims, nine of them fatally, within a span of a mere 30 seconds. Can anyone in their right mind justify public ownership of an instrument like that?
The time to control sale of such lethal weapons is now. Assault rifles are not toys for big boys. They are designed for a single purpose: killing human beings by shattering their bodies. They need to be kept in the same place as machine guns, howitzers, and nuclear bombs: out of reach of the general public. Perhaps this is where we can begin proving that sensible laws are capable of preventing these deplorable killings.
Mark Hopkins, Concord
Lenona.
Conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby recently wrote a column that was headlined: "No, expanded background checks wouldn't prevent mass shootings."
You can read it here.
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/23045/no-expanded-background-checks-wouldnt-prevent
Anyway, here are two responses:
Jeff Jacoby's conclusion, “If there were 'common sense' gun regulation that could unfailingly foil mass shootings, we would have adopted it long ago," indicates that he should get out more — perhaps to Japan, Greece, Canada, Spain, Ireland, Australia, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, or Britain.
Emilie DiMento, Winthrop
And:
It has been just a couple days since the devastating murders in El Paso and Dayton, and there goes Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby (“No, expanded background checks wouldn't prevent mass shootings," Aug. 7) arguing about the futility of legislation that can prevent future such atrocities.
Let me make a suggestion — and I do this as a lifetime gun owner.
The Dayton gunman's rifle, according to police reports, fired bullets into the bodies of more than 20 innocent victims, nine of them fatally, within a span of a mere 30 seconds. Can anyone in their right mind justify public ownership of an instrument like that?
The time to control sale of such lethal weapons is now. Assault rifles are not toys for big boys. They are designed for a single purpose: killing human beings by shattering their bodies. They need to be kept in the same place as machine guns, howitzers, and nuclear bombs: out of reach of the general public. Perhaps this is where we can begin proving that sensible laws are capable of preventing these deplorable killings.
Mark Hopkins, Concord
Lenona.