Common-Sense Gun Safety

Dear Editor,
    I read the letter from Jason Meador [Postmarks, July 12] and felt the need to write. He says in his letter that “Gun control costs lives.” Just like that, with no qualifications or specifics. I understand we have to sometimes generalize for efficiency when writing; however, gun policy is too important in the long term to be set by huge generalities. Gun control is an unspecific term. It is similar to the term gun safety. To be against gun control of any kind is to be for what? That is the question that has to be answered.
    As a responsible person, I have to be for some gun control because it reflects common sense. It has only been the last few hysterical years that some gun owners are asking for no gun control. Without specifics, that means anyone can own a gun for any reason and buy it any way? Is that logical, intelligent, or responsible? No. It means a child can get a gun; would you want your 5-year-old to be able to buy a gun? I am not exaggerating, you asked for no gun laws.
    What thinking, feeling person asks for this without qualifiers? I, for one, am happy and content with things like the Youth Handgun Safety Act from the Gun Control Act of 1968, which works to safely store firearms away from children and prohibits the selling of firearms to those under 18 years of age. I am also for gun safety locks.
    On an average day, 14 American children under the age of 20 are killed and many more wounded by guns. My conscience as a parent alone won’t let me be for "no gun laws" because of this.
    The majority of Americans, including gun owners and NRA members, support common-sense gun safety regulation.