Those 'Gun-free zone' signs really did the trick, didn't they?

To The Daily Sun,

Kudos to Ruth Larson and Robert Miller for validating the idea that people who don’t understand firearms should not propose laws affecting firearms.

Ms. Larson doesn’t seem to know that, contrary to her assertion, “universal background checks” would apply to all sales, rentals, loans, and gifts. N.H. HB-109 referred to “commercial sales” in one paragraph and stated that if neither party is a licensed dealer, those parties would have to complete the private transaction at a licensed dealer. The bill also defined “sale” as a “sale, transfer, or exchange.” Federal law already requires background checks via NICS for sales by licensed dealers.

Those are the very same checks that the majority of mass killers passed. So, how would checks on private sales help?

You know what else mass shootings have in common? Over 90 percent take place in foolishly named “gun-free zones.” Those signs didn’t help, did they?

Most media outlets skipped the Sutherland Springs, Texas church mass shooting once it was learned than a defender used the same type of “evil” black rifle to effectively engage the killer. The “good guy” flagged down another citizen and they gave chase until the police caught up with the assailant.

Mr. Miller, regardless of what you, the “gun culture,” or the NRA consider, according to the NICS data, these murderers "were" viewed as good guys before they committed their heinous acts — because they hadn’t committed a disqualifying crime yet. We can’t predict bad behavior nor does our justice system allow for charging people before they actually commit a crime.

Mr. Miller refers to polls and statistics without citations. He states that more than 30,000 are shot to death annually. First, as sad as it is, about two-thirds of those are suicides (2017 homicides 12,979 and suicides 22,018 - CDC). He ignores that firearms are used defensively somewhere between 500,000 and 2.1M (CDC) times per year (depending on the study).

Polls may or may not provide useful data on opinions, but, hypothetically, if polls showed that a vast majority of citizens didn’t want women to vote or indentured servitude to be legal, should laws be proposed to elect changes?

Mr. Miller, and many others, use the now-cliched term “common sense” to refer to proposed policies that have no common sense. Actually, none of the laws proposed after a mass killing would have stopped the killing had it/they been in place. What is common sense about that?

Did anyone else notice that the Gilroy, Calif. shooting took place in a “gun-free zone” where the assailant cut through a chain link fence to gain entry? But alas, we can’t use that example anymore because only three people actually died (mass shooting = four or more deaths).

In closing, Ms Larson says that we should “consider the victims” of these crimes. Not only would these pointless laws not effect future such crimes, but they tend to reduce the ability of potential victims to defend themselves.

Try searching for Suzanna Gratia Hupp’s testimony about how she watched her parents and others be murdered in a Texas cafeteria because Texas law disarmed her. It’s painful to watch.

Rick Notkin

Gilford