Dear Editor:
Many people have called for gun-control measures like trigger locks, gun lock-ups and other things. These are proposed mostly as a response to occurrences such as in Mount Morris, Columbine, or other similar situations. These gun-control measures would not correct any problem.
What many people are forgetting is that most of the guns involved in problems such as these are not legally owned. The gun obtained by the 6-year-old in Michigan was a stolen weapon. I heard people wonder why there was no lock on the gun. Even if that were the law, there would have been no lock on it.
I do admit that there is a problem in this country with guns and violence. The ideal answer would be to have two strong, involved parents in the home. The absence of either parent in an active role is the downfall of any society. However, I do understand that this will probably not happen. So, what should be done?
There are plenty of gun-control laws already on the books, however, most of these are not actively enforced. When a crime is committed, these laws are invoked. But, if we were to have strong enforcement of these laws, we would have fewer problems. Most criminals would not commit the crimes if they knew they would be caught.
Additional laws are unnecessary. There are enough laws. All that needs to happen is much better enforcement.
Brian Mott
Provo
See related story:
Viewpoint: Communication with political leaders essential 3/6/2000
