No need for semi-automatics
As I read about the National Rifle Association and state Rep. Greg Lucas, R-Edinboro, who wants to arm teachers (“New lawmakers says school personnel should carry guns,” Jan. 12), I am reminded of an episode of the TV show “All in the Family.”
In the episode, Archie Bunker was upset over a TV station's editorial favoring gun control and Archie went on TV to give a rebuttal. He talked about the airplane hijacking that was common in the early ‘70s to oppose gun control. Archie's point of view was that to stop hijacking, give everyone a gun as they boarded the plane — no one would be dumb enough to attempt a hijacking if everyone had a gun. Back then, it was funny because this was comedy and not to be taken seriously.
Flash forward to the present and people now take Archie's advice seriously. It was a dumb idea back then and it's a dumb idea now. How easy would it be for a student or someone else to overpower a teacher or other school employee, take his or her gun and begin to shoot anybody near him?
For the sake of full disclosure, I am a hunter and not anti-gun. But I've never hunted with a semi-automatic weapon, nor have I needed a 30-shot clip to bag any game. Can anyone tell me what type of hunting or sport shooting requires the capability to fire thirty rounds in less than a minute? For hunting weapons, a five-shot clip is sufficient firepower.
These types of weapons and ammo clips are not for sport. They are meant to kill people. If you really want to fire semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons, then consider joining the U.S. armed forces.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Biased? Guilty as charged
- It’s not personal
- ‘Food fight’ lamentable
- Today’s technology
- Cockpit safety stalled
- More than one hero
- UMW fighting EPA regulations
- Misinformation persists
- Unhappy returns
- Zionist view
- Amendment levels playing field