Anthony DeGiusti (Your Views, Dec. 30) asserts that placing more restrictions on firearms will reduce gun violence. His “common sense” measures are in lockstep with those of anti-gun extremists and include reinstating the assault weapons ban, closing the mythical gun show loophole and banning high-capacity magazines. Given that criminals don't obey the law, I challenge DeGiusti to explain how those measures would have stopped the killings in Connecticut. The only thing that could've stopped the savage killer from his murderous rampage was a lawfully armed adult in the school.
Some 20,000 laws are already on the books regarding firearms. The gun industry is the most heavily regulated in the country — from manufacturer, to dealer, to buyer. Gun-ban zealots demonize inanimate objects and call for laws that affect millions of law-abiding gun owners instead of focusing on criminals.
Passing more laws would be as ineffective as in the past. Banning “assault weapons” for 10 years had no measurable effect on gun violence. Closing the gun show “loophole” is bogus and would criminalize such actions as selling a gun to your neighbor (since private citizens can't perform background checks) and banning high-capacity magazines would only force criminals to use smaller ones. I wonder if DeGiusti thinks family members of the 26 victims in Connecticut would have had a problem with a legally armed presence in the school that day.
Jim Powell, Yukon