SUPPORT THIS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM
The article you’re about to read is from our reporters doing their important work — investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers’ businesses have been impacted. That’s why the SC Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insider’s program here. Thank you.
Ron Herbert, San Clemente
In your July 19-25 article about former Rep. Gabby Giffords’ appearance, you stated that organizations in favor of protecting federal gun rights “argue that fewer guns would make it less safe for the general public.” This is not entirely what the fight for gun reform is about. With the exception of automatic weapons, no one is trying to reduce ownership of guns for responsible people.
The thrust of the gun reform movement is more about making gun ownership safer by providing for a more thorough vetting process for buyers, assuring operational training and licensing, stricter laws regarding gun storage and access, and easier access to mental health care. Although a stricter vetting process may well result in fewer guns being sold, I don’t feel this is necessarily a bad thing. There are people who should not own guns, and their lack of ownership would obviously result in the general public being safer.
In summary, to simplify the gun reform movements’ goals by stating it merely wants to assure fewer guns is not fair nor accurate. I suggest that anyone (including the San Clemente Times) interested in the movement do some investigating. Here is a place to begin: www.marchforourlives.com/policy/.