Edgar Brown, in the Jan. 9 edition, has (as have others) given me a short lesson on what is, and is not, an assault weapon. Mr. Brown, do I have to know the chemical composition of street drugs to have an opinion on them? I’ve never seen an assault weapon. I’ve never been in a gun shop and I don’t intend to visit one. And, yet, I know that there are currently legal weapons that are designed specifically to kill people as efficiently as possible; i.e., the most in the least amount of time. I see no reason for these weapons to be legal. There are a lot of guns available that should suffice, in a sane society, for protection and sport.
The greater our population, the less freedom we have. Our laws must keep up with technology and an increasing population even though each law whittles away a little bit of our freedom.
OK, private and public schools do have, or could have, armed guards. But day care centers, etc. do not. If having armed guards is all the NRA can suggest to prevent another massacre, then a person intent on killing children, let’s say, has many options. What about the one who’s angry at old folks? Co-workers? A particular race? I wonder just where the armed guard solution would take us.
So, you hunt with a semi-automatic rifle that has five, 10, and 20-round magazines. But the law limits you to the five-round. Why do you need the higher capacity? Are you hoping the law will someday allow you to use the 20-round magazine on a deer?