To the editor:

On Dec. 14, 2012, Adam Lanza walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and killed 20 six- and seven-year-old children with a semi-automatic rifle that was legally owned and registered.

The Sandy Hook shooting, the deadliest school shooting in US history, did not happen in a city awash in illegal guns or plagued by economic inequality and violence. It happened in an affluent town about twice the size of Barrington, 2.5 hours away from here by car. There had been only one homicide there in the decade prior to the shooting.

Statistically speaking, Newtown is still relatively safe, as are all small towns in the US. Mass shootings like Sandy Hook, Parkland and Columbine make headlines, but, in our cities, gun deaths are a grim fact of life that disproportionately impacts communities of color and African-American men in particular.

Whether they admit it or not, our elected leaders in Washington know exactly how to end this epidemic that kills tens of thousands each year: restrict access to guns. Deep down, they also know, or they should, that even restrictive gun laws do not conflict with the Second Amendment. So far, thanks largely to the gun lobby, they have failed us. Even those acting in good faith seem powerless.

A sense of powerlessness is understandable, but their inaction is no reason for us to sit idly by. Other communities have already taken the obvious first step that the federal government will not: banning the weapons typically used in mass shootings. Two Illinois towns, Highland Park and Deerfield, have passed ordinances outlawing assault rifles. Deerfield’s law, which levies fines against owners of guns such as the AR-15, went into effect in June. Lanza used a gun like the AR-15 at Sandy Hook. A similar ordinance in Highland Park survived an appeal to the US Supreme Court.

These laws represent an important precedent: communities can take steps to protect themselves from the threat of mass shootings, even if some have argued that such steps conflict with federal law.

The editors of this newspaper have argued that we should put pressure on our elected leaders to take reasonable steps to reduce gun violence. While this is important, Barrington can do more. Our town council can enact an ordinance banning semi-automatic rifles, subject to fine and forfeiture. Local ordinances like this could cause a ripple effect in the region, the state and even the nation. If our national leaders won’t lead on this issue, we have no choice but to act.

Barrington has invested heavily in maintaining a way of life that supports families and gives children a strong start in life. We have led by example in the area of education funding, for example. This includes spending on school security. But the trend of militarizing school security runs counter to the very way of life in which Barrington has invested so heavily. A school perfectly safe from any shooter would ultimately be a prison, not a school.

If we truly care about education and Barrington’s future generations, we should take common-sense steps to address gun violence. As a first step, let’s get an ordinance passed banning semi-automatic rifles from the town.

Sincerely,

Michael Robinson

Barrington