If "our outrage is fleeting" and we have no "political will for changing the status quo" (editorial, July 25) — all too true after each mass shooting — there are those who will continue to make our lives more dangerous.
While attempts at limiting the size of ammunition magazines or the number of gun purchases per month have gone nowhere, legislatures everywhere are contending with a ceaseless tide of bills that expand concealed carry rights, that allow all the more weapons into national parks, that establish "stand your ground" laws, and so forth.
The hysteria that follows any sensible suggestion to make this country just a little bit safer — "The next thing you know they will take our all guns away!" — would be funny if it were not taken so seriously. Witness the surge of gun sales in Colorado at the moment.
If we can make our roads and vehicles safer; if we can be persuaded to wear seat belts; if we can turn the tide on smoking; if we can make the air we breathe and the water we drink cleaner — all of this achieved through the political process — we should be able to do the same in the realm of firearms. Not to try would be pathetic.
As fatality rates from vehicular accidents and smoking come down, should we still settle for the 30,000-plus deaths per year from bullets?
I would like to think that there are a few politicians out there who will not duck for cover when their suggestions about reasonable "gun control" measures are met with shrieks and howls.
The Bill of Rights gives us many freedoms, but no single amendment, including the Second, is unconditional.
Edward Walworth, Lewiston
Board member, Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence