Editor:
The recent shooting at Washington Mid-School in Albuquerque has, predictably, led to more New Mexico politicians proposing gun control.

Isn’t the issue with this particular gun not that it was unlocked, but that this household possessed it at all?

Not only was the kid a thug, but the father reportedly not only shot someone at another Albuquerque Public Schools school in recent years, but also kicked a woman who was on the ground until he broke her back.

If New Mexico had a criminal justice system, rather than a criminal mercy system, this man would probably have a felony conviction on his record. The feds could then lock him up for 10 years, just for possessing the gun in his home.

But, once again, criminals are presumed innocent, while citizens are presumed guilty.

If a legitimate citizen feels the need for a gun for safety, doesn’t putting it under lock and key make the same sense as doing this to your fire extinguisher?

Speed of access is vital in both cases.

There are some people who should not own a gun, locked up or otherwise:
• If you are a felon; (federal law provides 10 years in prison, maybe more);
• If your kid is a thug;
• If you are a thug;
• If one or more people in your household are too hot-headed to have an argument without it becoming a brawl.

You know who you are, and so does everyone else, except New Mexico politicians and New Mexico judges.

But are guns “sui generis,” a thing unto themselves? Alexis Grove certainly didn’t need one to kill two people.

The difference is, for the owner of the van to be held civilly or criminally accountable, he must first be proven negligent in not better securing his vehicle.

Under gun-lock legislation, the owner of an unlocked gun would be held negligent “per se” for violating the statute, regardless of his reasonableness or unreasonableness in having the gun ready for quick access when needed.

It’s the criminals, stupid!

Ken McDaniel
Rio Rancho