Regarding "Despite House leader’s push, state has no interest in buying a gun range in St. Louis" (April 21): How could some lawmakers be opposed to House Speaker Pro Tem John Wiemann's brilliant idea of buying a gun range? Wiemann, R-O'Fallon, knows of the daily shootings and gun violence in the region. He is well aware of the number of innocent bystanders, including young children, who have been killed. By having a gun range in the St. Louis region, the shooters would have a place owned and operated by the state that would help them improve their accuracy. I guess in his mind this would cut down on innocent bystanders being killed. This is especially good timing now because Missouri has lowered the age to buy guns to 18.
Wiemann is right, timing is everything. If Missouri doesn't buy that property now, some other business will. Another business would create more jobs in the region. But we don't need that, do we? Plus, the other business would pay real estate tax on the property and personal property on the equipment. That's OK, local governments don't need the money as much as the state needs this shooting range.
Weimann points out this proposal has another great benefit, to "preserve the application of the Second Amendment rights." Even though Missouri has some of the most liberal gun laws in the United States, Weimann wants to promote more gun usage. With an idea like that, what could go wrong?