Reader Opinion: Safety or control?

Criminals get and use guns regardless of the law. None of the ideas for new laws will reduce crime.

Stack of newspapers on a laptop computer.

Comparing owning a car and owning a firearm isn’t just apples and oranges, it’s ridiculous.

Let’s look at what, in my noncriminal opinion, would be a criminal’s response on some of the bullet points (pun intended) of the DFLs “A commonsense public safety initiative,” Guest Opinion in the March 11 Brainerd Dispatch.

  • Registering of all firearms. Criminals: “Don’t care.”
  • Registration of magazines over 10 rounds and a ban on military style assault weapons. Criminals: “Don’t care.”
  • All gun owners have a permit and liability insurance. Criminals: “Don’t care.”
  • Prohibits carrying a firearm at all government buildings. Criminals: “Don’t care.”

See a pattern?

  • Limit one gun purchase every 30 days. Criminals: “Don’t care.”
  • Creates a felony for deliberately ignoring signs prohibiting a firearm. Criminals: “Don’t care.”

Footnote: This is like expecting someone that just robbed a bank being pursued by the police to stop at stop signs.
The term assault rifle is used to scare you. They are actually called sporting rifles and they are excellent firearms for hunting. The DFL wants you to envision someone spraying bullets at deer, this is not the case. Shorter barrels and light weight make them a good choice in the woods.

That’s enough of those even though there’s more.


“Gun safety” is teaching someone how to properly use a firearm “safely.” Disguising gun control by calling it safety or common sense is a lie.

All of these measures infringe on gun ownership contrary to the DFL’s claims. It is a deliberate attempt to make it too difficult for law-abiding people to own them. Criminals get and use guns regardless of the law. None of them will reduce crime.

How about one more just for fun?

  • All existing gun laws currently on the books. Criminals? I think you know. 

Todd Dwire

What To Read Next
Get Local