Ban on assault weapons would be draconian

Published: January 20, 2013
Advertisement
;

Kathleen Parker (Commentary, Jan. 15) states that a ban on assault weapons or “limit magazines” (Does that mean limit the cartridge capacity of magazines or limit the quantity of magazines a person possesses?) is “hardly draconian.” I disagree. Many people seem to think there's a huge advantage for a murderer with a large-capacity magazine. What they ignore is that if there's such an advantage to having a large-capacity magazine, then a person defending himself would also have that same advantage if he, too, has a large-capacity magazine. Since good people obey laws, if large-capacity magazines are banned, only the evil people will have them.

Also ignored are the defensive capabilities of a semi-automatic rifle such as an AR-15. Knowing beforehand that I likely would be involved in a gunfight, I would choose an AR-15 over a handgun. However, a handgun will work in most cases and it's much easier to have with you wherever you go. I certainly hope I'm never involved in a gunfight, but as a law-abiding citizen I deserve suitable weapons for defense if I choose to have them.

Lawrence Herndon, Duncan



Trending Now


AROUND THE WEB

  1. 1
    10 Most Popular Wedding 'First Dance' Songs
  2. 2
    Psychologists Studied the Most Uptight States in America, and Found a Striking Pattern
  3. 3
    Facebook Post Saves Drowning Teen
  4. 4
    Saturday's front page of the New York Times sports section is simple: LeBron James and transactions
  5. 5
    The 19th-century health scare that told women to worry about "bicycle face"
+ show more