I’d like to respond to George Smith’s exhortation to vote no on Question 3, the law on background checks for gun sales (“Background check initiative complicated, unreasonable,” Sept. 7). Smith is a thoughtful guy who I admire. In fact, when I want a cogent argument, especially about something I disagree with, I turn to him.

I had not thought enough about the complications the law would cause to people like him, who want to make an occasional gun swap. Smith’s inconvenience is certainly important, but we are talking about trying to save lives here. Now this law is likely to save a few lives, who knows how many? I would like Smith to explain to me how his inconvenience is more important than that. Do the two of them really seem of similar importance?

Already the proposition has exceptions for “emergency self-defense, while the parties are hunting or sport shooting, and transfers between family members.”

I have read most of Smith’s columns for years, and he’s had the opportunity to put forward his own suggestions to address this problem and he has not. But rest assured, let’s make some reasonable effort to save some lives and trust that the sensible people of Maine will likely support some kind of adjustment to the law so that poeple like Smith will not be discommoded.

Bea Cox

Windsor


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or to participate in the conversation. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.