Anthony Tiona, in his letter to the editor Sunday titled, "Criminals, not NRA, to blame for homicide rates," makes a valid, if obvious, point.
Law-abiding citizens, using firearms for legitimate purposes, in a safe and responsible way, seldom commit murder, armed robbery or mass shootings. It is those who are unstable, have extensive criminal histories or are radically inclined who are the culprits.
The obvious answer is to keep guns out of the hands of this element.
How to accomplish this, of course, is the crux of the gun control argument.
In general tone, Mr. Tiona presents a reasonable argument, which unfortunately breaks down when he attempts to defend the NRA.
He resorts to the misdirection of, if we blame the NRA for gun violence, ". . . we might as well blame the American Automotive Association for the large number of drunk driving deaths in this country."
That might be an accurate analogy if the AAA flooded the media with proposals to eliminate driver licensing and testing, or the "right" to get behind the wheel after ingesting the chemicals or beverages of their choice as an imagined "Constitutional guarantee of freedom."
The NRA resists any form of licensing or registration and promotes the idea that (Constitutional) freedom apparently negates responsibility.
I have yet to hear a cogent argument for hunters, sportsmen or individuals to have a legitimate use for armor-piercing bullets (cop killers), assault type weapons or unlimited stockpiles of firearms and ammunition.
I have no quarrel if my neighbor chooses to own firearms for protection, hunting, sporting or even just as a collector.
I do, however, begin to get nervous if he begins to stockpile assault weapons or huge stores of specialized ammunition.