Responsible gun ownership


To the Editor:

Many people want the solution to resolve and stop violence in America, and while all of the ideas are good ones thus far, the facts are that only America and the Middle East have severe acts of violence growing in numbers.

Let’s look at Denmark and Austria and The Netherlands, etc. They don’t have the problems that Syria and Israel and the U.S.A. and Mexico have. Why? What is it that Denmark and Austria, etc., have that we don’t? In Switzerland, everyone owns a gun, yet there’s no violence like here.

Background checks are fine, but most killers are first-time offenders to acts of violence. Continuing to make buying guns a tougher thing to do only makes the demand for guns go up, and therefore the black market rates for guns go up and as the demand and profits rise, so do the burglaries to get guns for the black market sales.

The Constitution needs to be rewritten; no guns, unless used by authorities and hunters. And all guns must be secured with no firing pins or bullets when not in use with gun locks on them, in alarmed rooms. For storage, responsible gun ownership is the answer.

David A. Rourke

West Warwick


7 comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment

David. Gun violence and violence in general are way down. And what idiot would store a gun with the firing pin removed? What good is having an unloaded gun? We don't need to rewrite the constitution unless it is to stop hysterical people like you from infringing upon my gun rights. Don't like guns? Don't own one. Write all the laws you want. The criminals don't care.

Thursday, May 9, 2013

David I wish I was suprised by your lack of the historical causes that led us to the Second Amendment. Sadly I'm not. The right to bear arms isn't so you can hunt, its so you can protect yourself from the government. Both foreign and domestic.

Thursday, May 9, 2013

The gun manufacturers could make a huge statement for a sane step to eliminating weapons that are clearly not intended for personal protection or hunting by mutualy agreeing to only sell those types of weapons to the military and law enforcement agencies. Obviously the argument would then ensue about infringement of all kinds of freedom. But the Second Amendment starts with,"In order that there be a well regulated militia".You can interpret that several ways {defense against a tyranical government,preparation for the citizen soldier during a foreign attack},but I doubt the framers envisioned a society where massacres are becoming commanplace. At least by selling only to authorized agencies, it would be much more difficult for the "criminals" to obtain them. Every citizen could still possess firearms for protection and hunting. Such a reasonable idea will never even be considered ,because the NRA {it should be called the NRMA,National Rifle Manufacturers Association} will threaten their political minions in Congress,and the extreme right wingers will lead the clarion call,"Obama's coming to take our guns".

Friday, May 10, 2013

beware cox cable has become anti gun all ri gun owners who have cox should drop them

your money is being used against you

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

citizenkane....you can't interpret the militia clause. The supreme court already has stated that the militia is the common man. Also, what kind of weapon you use for self defense is a matter of opinion. My idea of the ideal weapon for all occasions is the AR15. You would be ok with handguns, right? It is handguns that are used in 99% of all gun crime. Not the AR15.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

patientman this isn't the 1700's. I'm sure we don't have to protect ourselves from the gov't. The U.S. is not going to become a hostile country to live in. However, it is an unsafe one as you never know when the next nut job is going to do a mass shooting.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

davebarry109,seems like you're a pretty bad shot.

Saturday, May 18, 2013