State and federal buildings are required to make “a reasonable accommodation” for people with handicaps. So, is allowing people to carry weapons at the State Capitol a “reasonable accommodation” for people who are so handicapped by paranoia and their inability to overcome fear that they cannot transact business there without the security of their guns? (“Debate triggers show of weapons,” Aug. 21.)
To reverse state Rep. Tony Cornish’s disrespectful remark about people who oppose guns at the Capitol “wetting their pants at the sight of a gun,” should people be allowed to carry guns there who “wet their pants” at the thought that something could happen that authorized law enforcement couldn’t handle?
If you could handpick the people who would carry a gun at the Capitol, would you choose people who are paranoid? Or who haven’t learned to overcome their fears? Or who are so delusional that they believe that a shooting at the Capitol is a highly probable event, instead of a remote possibility? Or who believe that a mass shootout among gun owners with permits is preferable to a lone gunman encountering conventional law enforcement?
These are questions raised by a retired federal law enforcement officer who doesn’t “wet his pants” at the sight of a gun.
JOHN A. MATTSEN, New Brighton
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.