I felt I had to comment on the [guest editorial from the Hartford (Conn.) Courant] titled “About time for change” on page 5A in Wednesday’s paper.
The author starts off by saying, “Stay angry. Remember how you felt last weekend.”
OK, yes this was a tragedy that we should remember, but does it come up to the level of a 9/11? Does it come up to the level of a Pearl Harbor? Since those tragic events were committed by men in airplanes maybe we should control who owns airplanes? Those children were murdered by a man with a “gun.” We must examine why it happened, if we can get past the fact that Adam Lanza used a gun.
What about the guy in China who stabbed 22 children? Was the fact he used a knife any less a tragedy? By the way, guns are banned in China!
The author who wrote this article made a few telling comments as follows:
“There are eccentrics, loners, odd ducks. But good Lord, there are millions of people who pose no threat to anyone. We simply cannot start isolating people we think are weird. It is unthinkable.”
And this is what stands out to me. “The mental health argument in some sense is beside the point.” Is he serious?
Previous similar events were also committed by unstable persons.
OK, let’s say we removed all guns (“assault weapons”). How about a knife, a hammer, a shovel, an axe, choking someone? Come on, if someone wants to kill they will find a way! Let’s examine why all this violence exists. Maybe taking God out of almost everything might be a good place to start?
The author’s last comment brings this full circle. “Education and reasonable limits on gun ownership can begin to end the Wild West mentality about guns and treat shooting as what it is … an extremely serious public health problem. That is how we have to change.”
My final suggestion is while you place a disclaimer at the beginning of all articles you print, maybe your real motives reveal themselves by the articles you print?
Anthony P. Gulla