Assault weapons not answer to nation's mass murders

In his letter to the editor titled "Assault weapons cited in only a very few shootings," Mr. David Kraner chose to defend personal ownership of assault weapons.

The question is obviously not one of numbers but of potency.

We deny private ownership of hand grenades, bombs and similar devices because there is no legitimate, private use for them beyond killing as many people as possible at one time. Assault-type weapons clearly fit that description.

I have yet to hear justification from hunters or sports-shooters as to why such weapons are necessary. I've never seen a deer or a rabbit or a pheasant wearing armor.

As for the mental stability of those who commit these horrendous mass murders, how mentally stable should we consider someone who stockpiles dozens of these weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition?

It's time to step away from the fantasy world and stare reality in the face. It's been pretty well proven that we cannot completely keep guns away from the mentally unbalanced and the criminal elements.

We can, however, try our best to limit their ability to obtain them. Sensible laws, properly enforced, cannot entirely solve the problem, but every bit helps.

The popular analogy of arming all Americans in order to protect ourselves is like giving nuclear weapons to all nations to level the playing field.

After all, the only way to stop a "bad" nation with a nuclear weapon is a "good" nation with a nuclear weapon.

Makes sense, right?

Stan Anderson

Bradenton

This story was originally published December 27, 2015 at 12:00 AM with the headline "Assault weapons not answer to nation's mass murders ."