Recently in the San Antonio paper on the opinion page the following letter appeared:

>>>Tax gun owners
With the numbers of children bringing guns to school increasing and the amount of money taxpayers are having to pour out of their pockets to help mend youth violence, we all have concluded that something must be done.
But what? For starters, how about increasing taxes for having guns and using that money for school projects. It seems only fair that the people who own guns should be responsible for paying for the protection of the innocent if these guns are used in a negative way.
Yes, I believe that guns are not killers, but rather the people behind them. But, still, how can that be argued when 6-year-olds are taking handguns to school? <<<

I couldn’t help it…I had to respond although I doubt that it’ll be printed:

Opinion

I submit my thoughts pertaining to the individual who believes that firearm owners should be taxed to foot the cost of juvenile crime. (Tax gun owners-30 April 01)

My first reaction is one of grim amusement. I cannot help but picture a police officer who, because of his personal firearm ownership, would be forced in his off-duty life as well as his professional life, to put up with the writers inability to raise her children.

I suppose it’s out of order to expect parents to say “no” once in a while to their children. After all, it “takes a village” according to our left-wing former First Lady…

My second reaction to the writers proposal is a counterproposal that actually has some chance of impacting the problem (and thus making it unattractive to them): Instead of taxing gun owners, I suggest that we tax NON-gun owners. After all, with so many people remaining unarmed they simply provide more victims. Antisocial criminals have learned that there are no meaningful consequences for their actions. At least the gun owner has provided a consequence for criminal activity.

It’s high time that the non-gun owner do his part!

David A. McKimmey
San Antonio, Texas