Thoughts on Guns and Control

To the Editor:
I don’t get this whole issue about guns. I have had guns all my life. Guns ranging from a .22 and a 12-double when I was a kid through a whole range including hunting rifles like 308, a Ruger and 357 Dan Wesson revolver. I still have two guns.
During that time, I have never had to use them for self-defense or protection of home and family.
Furthermore, I don’t know anyone who has. So what’s with all these claims about the need for protection, especially handguns?
Most handgun owners probably don’t shoot more than once a month or go through recommended home protection dry drills once a year, and probably would do more damage to a neighbor or family member than to an assailant.
A friend, vet, probably the best marksman I know, keeps his 30 guns locked up in two gun safes. He admits that he is so groggy when awakened at night that he would probably shoot himself and not an intruder.
What’s with the military-style guns with high capacity? If you can’t hit your target with five rounds, you shouldn’t own a gun.
Furthermore, I have never felt any need for guns to ward off government takeover. I’ve never seen jackbooted stormtroopers in the street, let alone at my door.
I’ve never seen nor worried about black helicopters.
So what’s with all the worry about gun control?
I’m no constitutional expert but when I taught the Constitution, I would give out the five most common legitimate interpretations of the Second Amendment, none of which claimed that there could be no restrictions placed on any sort of weapon, so all arguments are about which ones can be restricted and how and for whom.
So, what’s the deal with the people who are so against restrictions on guns and gun ownership? Therein perhaps lies the key. Certain people are more prone to be fervent defenders of gun ownership than others. Who are they? Well, mostly white, older males. Hmmm. And older white, non-hunting males with less than a BA to boot. Hmmm.
Back in the day, when I used to ride a motorcycle, my sister-in-law said (most unkindly), “motorcycles are for men who need power between their legs.” Maybe yes, maybe no, but in the world of guns, it is hard not to see the parallels in shooting bullets through a cylindrical barrel, and the males defending guns.
And that in many cases gun violence is done by men due to feelings of anger and impotence. It is hard to ignore the feeling of power that comes from shooting almost any kind of weapon.
And let’s not overlook the fantasy identification with an action movie hero when shooting from a power isosceles with a Smith and Wesson 40 at the range.
 So, let’s look again at this new “gun sanctuary” and who is pushing it and the whys, and even what it means, and let’s ask ourselves whether it’s worth arguing over given all the other issues that need attention.
Let’s take a hard look at both sides of the gun issue and just ask what is the best way to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them? That’s the issue. Not guns. Not the Second Amendment. Not which side are you on. Not mental stability. It’s how to make the U.S. safer and more comfortable for everyone.