D. Lafontaine: We need to relax gun laws

Ask yourself: If you were mentally unstable and wanted to cause harm, would you take your arsenal and shoot up a police convention or a school?

Without a doubt, you would pick a school because if you did so at the convention your efforts would be thwarted by multiple guns firing back at you.

In most states it is a felony to possess a gun on school property, even for security personnel. Imagine a security person responding with mace, night stick and threatening words. Gun laws need to be loosened, not tightened.

Concealed permit holders as well as trained security personnel should be allowed to carry on school property. If a would-be gunman knew there was a chance that there would be someone firing back at them, you can bet they would rethink their actions.

Each time there is a tragedy and new laws are passed, they have nothing to do with the incident, nor would they have prevented it. The Connecticut gunman broke multiple laws —  guns on school property and murder, both of which are already on the books.

Reduced clip capacities? It takes less than a second to change your clip. Furthermore, there is no such thing as an "assault" weapon. It's merely a different caliber.

Gun control is less about guns and more about control. Outlaw guns and only outlaws carry them.

If guns didn't exist, people would find other ways to cause harm.

Dennis Lafontaine, Chesterville

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.




More guns

Saying that more guns would make us safer is a little like saying throwing gasoline on a fire will make it wet. The problem we are having with guns today has to do with their availability. Most of the worst carnage occurred when people with no criminal or previous history of violence suddenly decided to go out in a blaze of bullets. Most of them had no intent to come home. They planned to vent their rage then die. They would not have been deterred by an armed guard. Perhaps they might have chosen a different location but they were able to do the amount of damage they did because of the kind of weapons that were readily available. Saying that regulating guns will mean only criminals will have guns is bogus. We do not forego traffic laws because some people ignore them. Having those laws makes it easier to catch the irresponsible because most people obey them. I think guns should not be categorized by caliber or rate of spay. They should be either tools or toys. If they are tools, as in hunting weapons, collections, or security guard weapons then they should be registered, with background checks and the owners should be licensed. Hunters already need a license to hunt. Toys, guns used primarily for fun, should be used only in shooting ranges or gun clubs and they should remain there. They could be any kind of gun. It is very rare that anybody shoots up a shooting range. The point here is to reduce suicidal behavior from Rambo wanna-bes. All guns should be registered with law enforcement but the registrations should never be made public. Other countries who have taken these measures have reduced suicide rates, massacres and domestic violence.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

What I find interesting is

What I find interesting is that these types of incidences increased alone with the proliferation of psychiatric drugs.

 's picture

Hey, Dennis -

You say: "If guns didn't exist, people would find other ways to cause harm." And that's true. But they wouldn't have assault killing machines now, would they? If I'm not mistaken, that's what was used in Connecticut, Colorado (twice), Virginia, etc. They COULD have used something else. But they didn't. Why was that, do you suppose?

Jim Cyr's picture

The gun used

at Sandy Hook was a .223, far from an "assault weapon".

 's picture


Didn't realize it was a single shot squirrel gun.

RONALD RIML's picture

Two sides to every story

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

When did Henry Kissinger open

When did Henry Kissinger open a gun store?

RONALD RIML's picture

When he found that there was more money in it.....

Than being an international peace-maker.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Ahh, instead of being a

Ahh, instead of being a peace-maker, he sells them. Good move.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

More Mischacterization from RR.

Given the number of firearms privately owned, the chances of being shot in a Conn. style shooting is statistically infinitesimal.

RONALD RIML's picture

Yet the chances of being shot in a U.S. style shooting

are frightening......

Jim Cyr's picture

Frightening, especially

if you live in Chicago. How does "gun control"work in your home town ?

RONALD RIML's picture

Gun Control? Easy.....

Firmly grip the weapon with both hands while taking up a combat shooting stance; (Preferably 'Weaver')

Maintain optimum sight picture and avoid lateral pressure to the weapon until the hammer falls and the firing process is completed.

Exert a smooth trigger pull while maintaining constant pressure without anticipation of the point at which the hammer falls.

Employing these techniques I consistently scored Master Class in Police Combat Competition Shoots.

It would take much more concentration, practice, and commitment than you are probably capable of; that is why I was also assigned as a Firearms Instructor. I don't have to play with guns as amateurs do to get my Jollies.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

You were once an amateur and,

You were once an amateur and, you had to practice to become proficient and maintain your proficiency.

How do I know? I shoot competitively in local competitions. To be proficient one must practice; practice makes perfect. Since I don't earn my living through the sport, I guess you can consider me an amateur.

To think one can master the skill without transitioning through the ranks of amateurship is poor thinking. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with remaining in the ranks of amateurship. That is, one does not have to make a career out of shooting to enjoy the sport.

Your response is not sensible.

RONALD RIML's picture

It wasn't merely 'earning a living' for me

But being instantly ready to project force and survive.

One must transition from dead calm through threat to response almost instantaneously - as a reflex.

So how little are you assuming I practiced??? You're the one not being sensible. Do you do adrenalin dumps when you target shoot? Of course not??

MARK GRAVEL's picture

What part of practice makes

What part of practice makes perfect do you have trouble understanding?

Perhaps in your haste to criticize you misread what I stated.

RONALD RIML's picture

You are always 'Practicing'

While I was a 'Practitioner'

Now it's nice to be Retired.......

MARK GRAVEL's picture

But do you still shoot now

But do you still shoot now and then?

RONALD RIML's picture

You'de be surprised what I shoot......

But then again, I'm merely one of those 'Liberals'

Assume at your own risk.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Okay I will assume. Let’s

Okay I will assume. Let’s see, given your age, I’d say what you shoot requires an enema bag.

Did I assume wisely?

RONALD RIML's picture

You do nothing wisely, Mark.

Why start now.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Oh, that is a loaded question

Oh, that is a loaded question because we all know that gun control does not work in Chicago. Let's see of Ronald goes off half-cocked.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

“Frightening” is subjective,

“Frightening” is subjective, not quantitative. Be a man of science and give me the odds. For example, you have a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of begin shot in a Connecticut style shooting.

Please remove the emotion and look at the risk scientifically – where is the beef?

RONALD RIML's picture

A 'Connecticut' style shooting???

Scientifically shootings are binary. They either kill you or they don't.

How many have you been to???

MARK GRAVEL's picture

You are mixing apples and

You are mixing apples and oranges. The probability of being shot while in public (assuming one is not engaged in illegal activity) is not the same as the probability of being killed once shot.

Which is different than the probability of being killed once shot.

Again you are injection emotion into the discussion, which is not scientific.

So tell me, what is the probability of one being shot in school? A very low probability right? Don’t deal in emotions, deal with the facts.

For the readers education and yours, the probability of being kill with a gun in school is the probability of being shot in school times the probability of being killed once shot. We call this a conditional probability.

Your last sentence is irrelevant to the discussion.

RONALD RIML's picture

I dealt in facts.

Either you're seen someone die as a result from a gunshot - or you haven't.

That's relevant to any discussion concerning guns.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Not really

That is only in your mind Ronald. How do I know? Because millions of Americans and millions more throughout the world own guns, use guns, but never have shot nor seen anyone die from a gunshot.

Your own personal choice put you in that situation to witness such things. If that disturbed you, then I would say you made the wrong personal choice. Since you stuck with it for 20 years, then you were okay with it. Correct?

RONALD RIML's picture

.So you've been desensitized by your greed?

Or you have no soul.

Which is it?

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Not sure that I’m following

Not sure that I’m following the chain of logic you are following but whatever - I guess.

Jason Theriault's picture

Yes they would.

They surely would find other ways to hurt each other. Matter of fact, on the very same day as the Newtown tragedy, a Chinese man attacked a school in Chengping in Henan Province. He attacked 20 kids with a knife.

Of course the difference is that all the kids survived.

More guns is not the answer.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

More knives?

More knives?

This is so absurb.

This is NRA dribble which is copied over and over. There are many questions of late which none are answered with this comment. I have a question .... why is it a bulletproof vest is a choice of wardrobe lately? Maybe he didn't know/care it was a gun free zone? Maybe he was expecting to be shot at? Questions we'll likely never be able to answer unless a violator chooses not to be a coward and taken alive. Assuming and "what could have been" is just what it is, theory. Bending theory to meet NRA "principles" is not the answer. Lessening the laws is NOT the answer either and flies in the face of sanity and common sense.

RONALD RIML's picture

Dennis Lafontaine: Ask yourself:

If you were mentally unstable, would you use logic???

There goes your argument......

Norman Mitchell's picture


Now I understand you ! So if Guns kill people not people then we should stop sending tropes to Afghanistan or anywhere for that matter just send the guns they do the killing we dont need the military just the weapons Right wrong !

Norman Mitchell's picture


I meant troops oops , Ever read the second amendment when some breaks into your home or ties to harm you the first thing you will do is call someone with a gun and thats a fact !!!

RONALD RIML's picture

Norman, Norman, Norman......

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with the 'Police Powers' granted to Government.


Logic in the gun culture is commonly referred to as "legal" & "law abiding" and some other descriptions .....

 's picture

And there's the rub...

Why should Law abiding, legally licensed, and registered gun owners be the ones who pay the cost of protecting the rest of society from criminals and the insane?
Now before you go all "holier than thou" on me and say "what about the victims? They paid." , I know that. That is not the argument here. The question is whether or not harsher gun control laws would prevent this from happening again and the answer is, no.
Just because the government bans specific weapons or clip types, doesn't take them off the market. They will still be out there because even the government isn't stupid enough to try to take legally owned weapons away from their owners. There'd be a lot of dead federal agents if they tried, I'm afraid. So, the weapons in question would still be out there, private sales would still happen and people with enough money and bad intentions would still be able to get weapons from non regulated sellers ie: private citizens who don't have the resources to check the backgrounds of purchasers.
So, how bout we do this instead? Enforce the laws already on the books, and make any over the counter sale contingent on the state of residence providing ALL background information to the seller before the weapon even leaves the shop, criminal and mental health records, not just court records. How about having private sellers fill out a form for every gun sale, free of charge, that has the name and address of the buyer on it, so that the state can then have a listing of all gun sales. If a crime occurs with a weapon and the paperwork hasn't been filled out, the last registered owner is held responsible as an accomplice for any crime committed with the weapon.
It might take a little longer, and the state might have to work a little harder to provide what they should be providing already, but it would go a long way towards making sure that crazies had a harder time to get guns. Make it illegal for the families of crazies and felons to own guns as long as said crazy or felon was residing in the household, and have mental health workers and parole agents actually monitor their charges instead of taking their word for it.
Actually, wait a minute, most of these laws are already on the books!!! So, in reality, it's the governments fault if crazies and cons get guns because they're not enforcing their own laws. Imagine that?!?!
It's so much easier just to take the weapons away from even law abiding citizens than it is to make sure that sales are regulated properly to begin with. So much less work to do...

AL PELLETIER's picture

Here, here Ed

Great letter!!!

Imagine ... what?

So ... let me try to understand what you're saying. It's the government's fault in all of this. I beg to differ, it's a shared responsibility by many. You should know mental health records and confidential and for good reason. That can't be easily changed. Registering of any weapon under any circumstances, unless covered under federal law, is completely out of the question with the NRA. They are the reason reasonable laws are either revoked, prevented from becoming law or are so watered down that they become pretty much useless. So, here's where we approach your statement about "it's the government's fault". Imagine that! Any registration, as you suggest would go miles to help law enforcement, just allow it!
Your statement regarding a lot of dead federal agents speaks volumes as to where your coming from. You sound like a clone of the famous actor C. Heston. My suggestion would be to use it less or not at all. It doesn't foster good discussion.
No one is saying anything about stopping and preventing this from happening again. The word here is "improving". You can't stop anything, YOU know that, and WE know that. To do nothing is not acceptable, to improve is necessary. Try taking your white knuckles off the 2nd for a bit and help push the NRA towards some more reasonable laws without loosing your "rights". It can be done.

Norman Mitchell's picture


Nanny laws nanny state communism , Marxist must have an unarmed people to subdue them look at history the 2nd amendment was written to protect us from the Tyranny of government ! Laws dont prevent crime they often increase it just look at prohibition as an example it created Al Capone and many others . Take a look at the Gun politics in Switzerland Each individual is required to keep his army-issued weapon at home these are about 420,000 assault rifles also they have about 320,000 non military weapons in private possession as well as hundreds of thousands of other semi-automatic small arms in private possession and the for the year 2010 only 40 homicides involving firearms! Switzerland the painful truth more guns low crime rate. Just look at the facts In the United Kingdom firearms are tightly controlled by law and they never include Northern Ireland in their statistics . Just one example of how their gun laws have worked for them why didn't the UK gun laws stop this , The Cumbria shootings in 2010 led to 13 fatalities and 11 injured when Derrick Bird shot people in an apparently random shooting spree before turning the gun on himself. Bird held legal permits for three shotguns and a .22 cal rifle . or the Dunblane school massacre where Thomas Hamilton entered the school armed with four handguns, shooting and killing sixteen children and one adult before committing suicide. their gun bans dont work and thats a fact ! When I was a kid the NRA was a club at school people need to be raised again not just allowed to grow up ! We need to stop the nanny laws and allow people to take responsibility for their own actions and be punished for their own actions and stop looking for others to blame !! I think we should ban planes after all the planes that where flown into the twin towers killed 2,996 people a good reason to ban planes I mean look at how many people they kill !!! Of the 31,000 firearm-related deaths in the U.S for 2007 17,000 from suicide and 13,000 from homicide/police involvement.leave only 1000 from other sources get the facts get a clue what the Gun law, gun bans is all about the US becoming a communist country wake up America before its to late !!!!

RONALD RIML's picture

Get a clue......

Sure, Norman.... "get a clue what the Gun law, gun bans is all about the US becoming a communist country wake up America before its to late !!!!"

Communism has failed, Norman. Wake up, smell the flowers, and read your history. And it wasn't overthrown by 'Guns' - Have you any realization of how the world has changed in the last forty years or so?

Norman Mitchell's picture


Communism has failed so why take America down the path to failure we have been on this path since Wilson, then threw FDR and his new deal and KKK Harry Truman, Then Johnson and his great society, Now we have Dictator Obama get a clue every civil rights law passed in this country was passed with republican support and fought tooth and nail by the liberals. Every right you have lost every freedom taken from you was supported by the Democratic party! My freedom comes from my creator not government. Have you any realization of how the world has changed in the last forty years or so? or any realization of the socialist agenda slowly invading every aspect of your life over the last 100 years or so Clearly you dont . and clearly have no knowledge of history at all Adolf Hitler - Promoted Gun Control, Joseph Stalin - Promoted Gun Control, Benito Mussolini - Promoted Gun Control, Mao Tze Tung - Promoted Gun Control, Pol Pot - Promoted Gun Control, Fidel Castro - Promoted Gun Control, Hugo Chavez - Promotes Gun Control , Karl Marx - Promoted Gun Control, Barack Hussein Obama - Promotes Gun Control who enslaved their people ? The Promoters of Gun control get a clue ! Lets see who comes up on the pro gun list George Washington - Pro Gun, Thomas Jefferson - Pro Gun, Patrick Henry - Pro Gun, Noah Webster - Pro Gun, George Orwell - Pro Gun, Dalai Lama - Pro Gun, Mohandas K. Gandhi- Pro Gun So if you just look at the short list I have giving you it is easy to see Peace and freedom is on the side of the pro Gun group and those who would enslave you are in the anti gun group! So mahaps you should do a little more reading and get a clue you dont have to tell me Ive lived and recall more than the last 40 years !!

RONALD RIML's picture

And Norman

Has Wall Street promoted Gun Control???

Get a grip on yourself, Man. Come back to reality.

 's picture

You ask...

"Why should Law abiding, legally licensed, and registered gun owners be the ones who pay the cost of protecting the rest of society from criminals and the insane?"

Because you're the ones who want to keep the guns, that's why. Let me ask you: Why should those of us who are law abiding and without guns protect the rest of society from criminals and the insane?

Norman Mitchell's picture

protect the rest of society from criminals and the insane?

First thing you will do is call someone with a gun and that is a fact !!

 's picture


It's not. You know nothing about me. NOTHING!

RONALD RIML's picture

Property owners and wage earners

pay the cost of protecting the rest of society from criminals and the insane. Through property and income taxes.

And have gun owners pay the cost of mandatory Firearms Liability Insurance. Payable on a yearly basis as is automobile liability insurance. It should be mandatory to register and insure weapons of death.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

And you expect criminals and

And you expect criminals and the insane to pay insurance premiums? Do not people still drive without automobile insurance even though liability insurance is mandatory?

This is typical of liberal thinking – you think the criminals will obey the law and buy insurance.

Liberalism is a mental disorder according to Dr. Savage. After reading your post, I believe it.

RONALD RIML's picture

And you believe "Dr. Savage?"

That says all we need to know about you.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Just giving him credit for

Just giving him credit for the phrase. It is a form of citation, which you are always asking to receive.

RONALD RIML's picture

You're still unable to find the 'Citation' you allege for

"Liberalism is a Mental Disease" in DSM-IV-TR® - Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

Crickets, eh Mark.

You and Savage are both Liars.

RONALD RIML's picture

Then you should be able to reference and describe it in

DSM-IV-TR® Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

Else we know both you and Dr. Savage are both psychological quacks.........


Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...