Letters: Gun control ideas create more questions

Responding to last week’s column on gun control, I have a few questions. The answers have to be exact.

How do you identify and stop the “mentally” ill? Who determines (under a red flag law) that someone is a danger? Tell me which mass shooting could have been prevented under a “universal” background check law? Wouldn’t the law abiding citizens bear the brunt of this law? Is there a danger of these citizens becoming lawbreakers if they gave a gun to their son or relative?

It is said that if it saves one life, all gun control laws are worth it. If you raised the drinking age to 25 or 30, wouldn’t that save thousands of lives? How about limiting the sale of one six-pack or a pint of liquor per week to save more lives?

I won’t try to provide the “necessity” of owning an “assault” rifle but millions of us use them for hunting and target shooting.

What is the necessity of having a four-wheeler, personal watercraft, painting, flowers, going out to a restaurant, designer clothes, a subscription to a paper or magazine, buying a T-bone steak, and on and on. The people who make all consumer goods “need“ them.

I don’t have the answers — nobody does — but everybody wants “something” done. Just don’t do that “something” on the backs of the law abiding Americans who are protected by our Constitution.

Tony Sheda, Wrenshall