Argument on guns is preposterous
Editor of the Reformer:
I'm not sure why I continue to read the columns by John McClaughry — perhaps to see if he can make an argument more preposterous than the last one. In "Gun control ideas that won't work," he cited the worst massacre prior to Orlando as being in Michigan in 1927, conveniently overlooking such massive tragedies as Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook, among far too many others to name. Individuals are required to have a license to drive a car or to fish as an adult. No other so-called advanced country allows such unfettered access to firearms nor do they have the mass shootings that the US has come to take for granted. How can McClaughry so nonchalantly state that further "gun control ideas" won't work? Isn't it worth the lives of so many children and adults to test that hypothesis? Surely the writers of the Constitution never envisioned semiautomatic weapons that would have communities living in such fear and would expect us to interpret and/or amend the document given the nature of modern life.
Laurie Black Guilford, July 6