Colorado shootings and the local sentiment on guns

The view of the world from Mankato, Minn., got pretty crazy this past week.

From the Aurora, Colo., theater shootings from the weekend to the biggest penalties ever imposed on a college football program, the wires were burning with breaking news and the locals weighed in too.

I'm always amazed how quickly gun rights supporters e-mail me when these shootings occur. I don't know if they're attempting a pre-emptive strike against newspaper editorials condemning gun laws, but there's nothing like a mass shooting to get gun defenders motivated.

The Free Press editorial board has not taken a firm stand on gun laws for some time. We'll likely discuss a response next week, but it will likely be centrist as our editorial board has a diverse political mix of thinking on most issues.

The prevailing pundit buzz is that both political parties are afraid to change gun laws, make them tougher and take on the National Rifle Association. It's a sentiment I tend to agree with.

The irony is that the assault rifle ban that was in place for about 10 years came from the shooting of the staff member - James Brady - of Republican President Ronald Reagan. It's equally interesting that Democrats and Republicans voted to end the ban or let it expire.

But even hunting and gun enthusiasts I know still can't see a need to sell multiple-shot, semi-automatic assault rifles.

Talks at a lunch this week centered around how its tougher to get a driver's license, or sign up for cable or cell phones than it is to buy assault rifles and order 6,000 rounds of ammunition online.

Of course, there are many hardcores who claim the Colorado shooter would have gotten an assault rifle even if they were illegal. That may be true, but one cannot argue it would be JUST AS EASY to get an assault rifle if they were illegal versus them being at the counter at the local gunshop.

Maybe if we made buying an assault rifle as tough as we're trying to make voting, we'd be dangerous, or, I mean, more safe.