Comparison not valid

Once again, I hear the comparison of guns and cars. Once again I say to myself "What the…??" Let's really compare the two.

Cars are designed and manufactured for "transportation." Many times, irresponsible bozos get behind the wheel after drinking too much or drive too fast, overcorrect and roll the sucker! And many times irresponsible drivers kill innocent people and damage/destroy property.

Guns are designed and manufactured to "kill things" - road signs, targets, tin cans, clay pigeons, animals, people. Many times, irresponsible bozos (or mentally disturbed individuals) get behind the trigger and blah blah blah ….

When gun folks compare guns and cars, they ignore the licensing, registration and liability insurance required for cars. How about we apply those requirements to guns and gun owners?

When the Bill of Rights was written, people owned a couple of guns to provide food for and protect their families. I doubt the framers of the Constitution envisioned citizens collecting gun arsenals and ammo on a grand scale for "recreation." And by the way, threatening to overthrow our government is not patriotic even if it makes you feel real tough! It's still called treason and we've been way too lenient on enforcing that felony!

JEANNE PAULS, Eagle

An unsafe country

I believe we need to question how we have arrived to this point in time in which we feel the need to turn our schools and public places into armed camps. Has our country become so unsafe that we have the need to arm ourselves with assault weapons? Have we become so unsafe that military weapons are now to become a part of every household in America? Has a gun-carrying insanity taken our country hostage?

Where do we go from here and what do we really want our country to be? Where is the America that I grew up in where I could ride my bike on country roads, play outside till dark, walk to school and feel safe? What has happened to that America and how do we fix it?

Heartsick, sad, disappointed and living in Idaho where I used to feel safe. Lots and lots of guns and my would is more dangerous than ever. Something is very, very wrong.

MARY ANN SHUKER, Nampa

Don't restrain civilians

It is difficult for many to separate the tragedy and emotional effect of the shooting of children at Sandy Hook School from facts that might put things in perspective. A recent edition of Time Magazine points out that "the odds of a U.S. student's being killed at school are about 1 in 3 million, lower than the odds of being struck by lightning (1 in 1 million)."

Prominent Democrats including the president are currently using this tragedy to marginalize the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. This same administration allowed guns to be sold to known gangsters and drug cartel members without any restrictions in their program "Fast and Furious." Afterwards they hid what happened by invoking "Executive Privilege." President Obama and Eric Holder, his attorney general, have never come clean on their own irresponsibility that caused the death of American citizens, and now want restrictions on the rights of others.

Time Magazine offers us another gem: "of the mass shootings that are stopped by others, roughly two-thirds are brought to an end by civilians." Does it make a lot of sense to restrict the ability of civilians to stop a deranged shooter in the future?

TYLER J. SMITH, Meridian

A plan that works

This gun background check plan meets everyone's needs.

Gun owners, after passing a background check, would get a numbered ID card containing their info, photo and thumbprint. The government would retain a copy of the card containing only the card number and thumbprint, no names.

All gun sales, even private party sales, would require the parties to visit a gun store or police department.

Their card numbers would be checked to verify the gun's owner and that the buyer's card is still valid. The sale would register the gun to the buyer's card. The feds/police would never know the gun owner's identity thereby allaying fears of registration leading to confiscation.

If gun owners become felons or mentally ill, police could run their prints to see if they are card owners. If so, their guns would have to be transferred to another. If they can't produce the guns, they could be charged with gunrunning.

Recovered stolen guns could be listed on the Internet under the owner's card number and list the agency holding the gun. The owner's card with their photo and number would be all that's needed to reclaim it.

This system protects rights and hinders the criminals and crazies.

CHRISTOPHER BOLTON, Meridian

Less control, less crime

Switzerland... a country with no gun controls has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Further, Switzerland, awash in guns of all kinds, has a substantially lower murder and robbery rate than England, where guns are banned. In 1993, not one single armed robbery took place in Geneva. School shootings ? Never been one.

Genius liberals watch too many fictional TV crime shows. Facts: Criminals' guns are rarely left at crime scenes, and the ones that are, are registered to anyone but the perpetrator, and the gun was stolen.

Hawaii has registered/licensed guns for some 50 years. Liberal-controlled Hawaii is a violent place to live. Honolulu is dangerous and has a plethora of burglaries, crime, murders, violent rapes, assault and battery.

Pelosi, Biden, Obama and liberal Marxist demo-rats won't tell you this, it would spoil their fun. They're like gun violence. Yes, this is how they commit their own brand of violence against the conservative U.S. Constitution. After liberal registration comes the liberal confiscation of guns.

Good luck with that. Law abiding citizens following constitutional law (Second Amendment rights) will not let you take our guns and rights away. Don't bring your lunch...you won't need it. Book 'em Danno.

DANO SAVINO, Nampa

Response to letters

In response to "Guns" in Monday Feb. 2 letters. Mike Cramer - The NRA's position is not "Gun Zones" but freedom-to-protect zones.

If more law abiding people carried guns your kids would be better protected, you are responsible for protecting your home.

Martin Davis - Great solution, enforce the laws we currently have. Trudy Day - NRA runs the country? "The blood of the children and all the people being shot in this country is on the hands of the people that refuse to admit the laws need to be fixed to match the times."

Laws only stop the law abiding. It is not a question of more or different laws to stop the criminal, it is about the freedom to protect the law abiding from the criminal with equal or greater force. Jan Lang - Really? Dallas Baird - I agree it is our responsibility to protect our children, the problem with doing so is the laws that prohibit the law abiding to use our guns to protect our children. Melanie Hessler - Well said. Rocky Rotharmel - Hand grenades are uncontrollable therefore more dangerous. Dennis Schrecongost - How would you suggest we protect ourselves and our children?

MARK FLOYD, Boise

Ban is based on emotion

The arguments to ban assault rifles are based on raw emotion and totally lack the use of logic and common sense.

In 2011, only 323 people were killed with rifles and only a portion of these are the so-called assault rifles. On the other hand, 496 people were killed with hammers and clubs.

Anyone who takes a breath and thinks can see that banning semi-automatic rifles makes about as much sense as banning hammers. If you really want to save lives then it makes more sense to ban cars, which kill over 30,000 people a year.

Actually, banning bicycles should make a lot of sense to the gun-banning mindset. In 2010, there were 618 deaths from cyclists who crashed into cars and over 50,000 injuries reported on top of the many thousands not reported. Should we really be teaching our kids to ride such a dangerous instrument?

In 2010 there were 3,615 deaths from motorcycle accidents. Motorcyclists are 35 times more likely to die in a crash than a passenger in a car. There are all kinds of things more logical to ban than semi-automatic weapons, but banning weapons appeals to those who are governed by emotion.

JOSEPH J. DEWEY, Boise

Weapons have changed

We are certainly bound to protect our school children. But stationing armed guards at schools? And we must protect the sanctity of the Second Amendment, an amendment passed to ensure that citizens could feed their families (pre-Walmart and Winco) and protect their communities (pre-cellphones and 911 operators).

The guns that the Second Amendment was written to protect were muskets, muzzle loaders and the occasional derringer.

Our Founding Fathers could no more have imagined assault rifles and handguns with 35 shot clips than they could have imagined ... automobiles and heart transplants.

There has been much discussion about our mental health system and "protecting our citizens" from the mentally ill.

What about those who are simply evil? And do we not have the right to be protected from the dreadful weapons that allow individuals with agendas to wreak such havoc?

Other countries, notably Great Britain, Germany, Japan and Australia, have instituted firearms restriction and those countries are notably without the gun-related atrocities which have plagued the USA in past decades.

This certainly is a complex and many-faceted issue. But it is one that will be solved through use of reason, logic and humanity, not anger, fear and paranoia.

JULIE A. GRASS, Kuna

Agree with writers

In regard to Mike Cramer's letter to the editor on February 4, 2013; and also Trudy Day's letter on the day...... Here's my two cents...... AMEN.

LILLI CUSSINS, Boise