« Continue Browsing

e-mail article Print     e-mail article E-mail

Joshua R. Larson, Moorhead, Published January 20 2013

Letter: Banning assault weapons won’t solve gun problems

In response to Howard Oppegard’s letter, the inconvenient fact is that in 2011, AKs, ARs, Uzis and all other semi-auto “assault weapons,” as well as all other rifles, accounted for 323 murders nationwide. That is less than 3 percent of all homicides and comes to less than one homicide a day. Not only does that mean that no one in your state will be murdered by an “assault weapon” or any other rifle this month, but likely not next month, or even the month after that.

In an April 5, 1996, column in the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer, who forthrightly supports total gun prohibition, wrote, “Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic – purely symbolic – move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.”

So you may not care when they ban “assault weapons,” but when they come for your semiautomatic hunting shotgun or rifle when the new assault weapons ban doesn’t deter mass shootings, then you might be a little more concerned. And, of course, you don’t need more than five shells hunting pheasants; they don’t shoot back. If a deranged criminal broke into your house intending to harm you or your family, which is far more likely than being a victim in a mass shooting, would you rather have five bullets or 30?

However, the Second Amendment says nothing about hunting or self-defense; it was put in place to guard against tyranny. This is not a privilege but a constitutional right that shall not be infringed.