I would like to comment on Kathryn Minnick's article, ""Sea change needed in U.S. gun control debate after Va. Tech"" from April 25 and pose a few questions.
First, I am by no means an expert on the subject of gun control, and I would venture a guess that neither is Ms. Minnick. I am confused as to how she comes to the conclusion that the perception that ""guns can't be blamed for gun violence"" is ""widely accepted.""
Also, does Ms. Minnick believe ""radically restricting"" guns should apply to hunters as well? If so, how can she say it is not infringing upon the rights of law-abiding citizens? I agree that semi-automatic weapons should not be available for general public purchase, but I am not sure how preventing people from buying hunting rifles, etc. will help the safety of the general population.
Along the line of restricting semi-automatics—how is it possible to limit the ""illegal access to guns?"" It would seem that if one wanted to illegally purchase a weapon badly enough, the enforcement of governmental laws could make little difference in stopping all access to illegal weapons. On another note, thanks for writing an article I spent more than a minute thinking about.
Ginger Kern
UW-Madison freshman
German and Theatre and Drama
