Vigilante justice is not the solution to potential gun threats

In terms of limiting gun violence, the National Rifle Association seems to be advocating an un-deputized fatwa posse of gun owners to use their guns to shoot anyone who might be threatening others with a gun, even though they themselves are not directly or even potentially threatened [“Taking the NRA’s advice to its logical conclusion,” Opinion, Jan. 6].

Simply put, should someone with a gun (a teacher in a different classroom, a movie patron in a different theater), voluntarily put themselves in a life-threatening situation so they can shoot, if not kill, someone who might be directly threatening the lives of others?

They may be deemed heroic if they disable or harm the shooter, but they are NRA-sanctioned vigilantes if they shoot to kill. I am not sure the interventionist shooter will want the criminal-justice system to make that determination.

--Gary Hallemeier, Seattle

More statistics on gun owners with concealed carry permits needed

Please, I ask all you timid folk to ask our government for statistics on how many murders are committed (with handguns) by people who have obtained aconcealed-carry permit. Thegovernmentposts a never-ending list of otherstatistics on everything imaginable, but in this time of anti-gun sentiment, why would it not present this information if it were to bolster its cause? Also, never does it report how many citizens with a concealed-carry permit actually stop crime, protect themselves and others.

It is because the numbers would deflate the argument againstcitizens legally defending themselves and others when the cops are writing jaywalking tickets.

--Richard Eirich, Kirkland

Lawful gun owners should not be targeted by ‘common-sense gun controls’ proponents

I have been reading articles in The Seattle Times on “common-sense gun controls” [“We need to embrace common-sense gun controls,” Opinion, Jan. 6].” They range from a 10-round limit on magazines to the confiscation of all privately owned firearms. Most of the people making suggestions for “common-sense gun controls” appear to have limited knowledge of shooters and firearms.

My firearms training started in 1940 when I was 10. At 19, I enlisted in the U.S. Army. At 82, I still shoot weekly at the range and hunt. In the Army I was issued both semiautomatic and automatic firearms. Therefore, I have some knowledge of firearms, shooters and shooting. People like me are generally not invited to the conference table because we question some the “common-sense gun controls” proposals.

Many of the “common-sense gun controls” crowd look at shooters as uneducated, stupid people. I earned my living as an engineer. Most of my shooting friends are college-educated professionals. The others have high-school diplomas and trades. These are intelligent people who like shooting and want to keep their firearms. If you treat us are unfairly, we will fight for our rights. I think many of us might work with you if you’re willing.

--Allan M. Schneider, Bellevue

Common-sense gun control does not exist, will not protect potential victims

There is no such thing as common-sense gun controls. Pump shotguns and pistols can wreak as much havoc and death as an assault rifle. John Malvo struck terror into people in the Northeast with a single shot rifle.

While touting the safety of Sweden and Canada, Alex Algard chooses to move here. Why? Because we have more freedoms. Then, instead of fighting to protect these freedoms, he wants to curtail them in an illogical attempt to keep guns out of the hands of those who would assault society.

Gun-control laws will not protect us from anyone choosing to usetheir fists, a knife, or strangle the victim.

--Byron Gilbert, Seattle

Gun licensing should function as car licensing does

Here's a thought: As long as the NRA and other gun advocates continue to use cars as an example of a potentially deadly device comparable to guns, there should be no difficulty writing laws to require licensing to own and use guns the same way we do for cars.

Universal requirements for training, insurance and operating skill, to be renewed on a regular basis — who could argue with that?

--Sherry Narens, Seattle