Increased Restrictions to Gun Ownership

To the Editor: 
Regarding the recent letters in the Herald supporting increased restrictions on gun ownership, the anti-positions were as expected after the Florida tragedy. The letters expressed emotions related to the NRA and the need to “limit” gun ownership. 
Please note, the NRA is not a nefarious fringe. There are legal, law-abiding taxpayers, most of whom own firearms. Firearms never threaten or kill someone. They can sit idle for decades, loaded or unloaded.  
My contrarian perception was to consider the factors after reading those letters regarding gun ownership. Possibly many Herald readers may not remember that President Bill Clinton, in his first term, addressed school homicides by implementing metal detectors in many inner city schools, and additionally passed legislation that anyone entering a school with a weapon, like knives and firearms, would be charged with a federal crime. Of the several hundred arrested for violating the law, only a few were found guilty and prosecuted.
My point is those emotional concerns demanded action from the government, and the politicians complied. My point is the politicians provided another measure, case closed, but the factual results of school carnage were higher in the 1990’s than it is today.
The Florida carnage was a result of a deranged individual. Let’s peruse the known facts: the police department responded to calls for service multiple times for the accused individual; his background check for a gun purchase was approved because the individual was never formally charged; therefore, the FBI background check never “knew of his troubled history.”
Last year, a troubled individual was discharged from the Air Force but never charged with domestic violence. Again, the actions were not part of the legal records, and the Air Force never made it part of his record. Both of these individuals received mental health counseling but stopped attending.
Today, the national average indicates there are 500 school children to one counselor. Those children developing issues have a significant chance to be overlooked.
For the history buffs who suggest that the Second Amendment applies to gun ownership by members of a militia, please research. The first adopted flag for America in 1775 had a white background with seven red stripes and a snake, with the caption, “Don’t Tread On Me.” That was the citizens’ adopted flag, not the flag of a militia. The Constitution does not indicate that private ownership of firearms is for hunting.
For those who prefer facts, why was Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) so effectual in developing a thoughtful strategy that changed individual mindsets and DUI enforcement, noting MADD did not suggest banning automobiles?
Some politicians have called for restricting “high-capacity magazines.” Well, all standard purchased shotguns for hunting have the capacity of five shells. Each shot shell that kills a deer contain nine to ten pellets. Multiply that by five shells and in comparison to the “high-capacity magazines,” it’s numerically short.
Politicians use emotions to legislate mostly as a political advantage, “never let an emergency go to waste,” rarely solving the issue. Our nation has over 20,000 gun laws on the books. We just need one more to be perfect?
None of the recent letters address the increase of the growing mental health issues.