Gun control laws not answer to prevention to shootings

After reading the recent letter of Carolyn Schneider ("Stop killings vis sensible gun laws"), I felt compelled to write to you.

Ms. Schneider states that the NRA (and other "misguided souls"), in response to "mass shootings," is to blame for believing "everyone should be armed at all times." She then expressed her broken heartedness over the needless deaths of children and innocent adults, from what one must conclude is death by gunfire. Her prescription for remedy? Stricter gun laws.

A question: If every one of the "wish list" stricter gun-control items espoused by Barack Obama, Michael Bloomberg, Charles Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, et. al. were inaugurated, how many of those "mass shootings" would have been prevented? The factual answer is zero.

I am also nonplussed that the initial comments by the current resident of the White House and his camp following any "mass shooting" incident is an emotional appeal to further restrict the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. There is a total absence of rhetoric about how to disarm the criminal element or tighten security against radical Islam and other aliens who have expressed a fervent desire to bring violence to our society.

The endemic issue is that Ms. Schneider and her colleagues focus on the "how" rather than the "why" when analyzing the incidents of "mass shootings." The simplistic answer is to perseverate on the weapons rather than the perpetrators.

Many large urban areas that suffer the highest degree of death by shootings have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Unfortunately, many people continue to ignore facts and instead espouse "feelings" about the necessity of stricter gun control as if that was a substitute for reality.

John D'Alusio

Bradenton

This story was originally published December 26, 2015 at 12:00 AM with the headline "Gun control laws not answer to prevention to shootings ."