One way to avoid gun control

Guns: Rumors of Confiscation, the title of a recent letter to the editor by Tom Price, once again illustrates how misinformation and fear collectively rule the national gun debate. The letter is taken almost verbatim from a debunked conspiracy chain email where the facts tell a different story.

In 1996, Australia created a national firearms tax to fund a gun buyback of certain automatics, semi-automatics and shotguns, this after a nutcase killed 35 people in Port Arthur. The objective: Encourage Australians to give up those types of weapons and establish classification rules for ownership. Thirty-five innocent people in a town of fewer than 500 was a wake-up call and would be in any country except America.

As a responsible firearms owner, I do not understand the need for people to stockpile firearms and ammunition, nor do I see the need for military grade weapons or to pack firearms wherever I go. Personally, it just doesn’t make any sense in this day and age. For one thing, the government is not the threat; it is the people you send and in Idaho we’ve sent some real oddballs.

Second, does anyone believe motley gangs of middle-aged mostly white men with pot bellies are a match to the United States military? Get a grip. A few days and you’d go back to the Snickers, easy chair, and television. Besides, what would be the goal — armed insurrection, tearing apart the nation? Face it, most Americans do not have the same goals that the so-called 3 percent do. We are mostly happy and understand the need for compromise and trade-offs in society. Besides, I surmise we would quickly get pissed and rise up in retribution, so are you ready to gun us down, too?

I understand there are people who need or appreciate the need to carry, not an issue, but don’t we need minimum standards to curb access by lunatics? There is absolutely no logic in arming every man, woman, and child, and thinking we can lock up every crazy and wannabe gang banger. Good luck with those ideas.

Americans just bury their heads collectively in the sand refusing to do anything and when they do, the gun lobby reacts with scorn. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D- N.Y., has introduced a bill that would require gun owners to carry liability insurance. The Firearms Protection Act is an amendment to the Brady Bill requiring non-service gun owners to carry $10,000 liability insurance, or get fined $10,000. This seems like a good idea and a reasonable compromise to gun control. Personally, the liability standard is too low. It should be $100,000 or a fine of $25,000. Chris Cox of the NRA calls this “ridiculous on its face, as it presumes law-abiding gun owners are guilty for merely exercising a fundamental, constitutional right.” Nonsense. You can not legally drive without proof of insurance; why should you able to purchase ammunition and firearms without it?

A simple solution, not 100 percent but over time it could help to add a little bit of sensibility to what has become a ridiculous situation. Use a little common sense about firearms. Not every American should have access to them.

Port Arthur Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)

Firearms Risk Protection Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2546

NRA Position http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/02/democrats-propose-10000-fine-for-gun-owners-who-dont-have-insurance/

Reid Harlocker is a Hayden resident.