Trying to understand the reasons behind gun ownership
To the editor:
Because I don’t personally know anyone who is opposed to a ban on automatic assault weapons, I’m writing this with the sincere hope that a Gazette reader who does oppose such a ban can help me to understand their reasons. If it’s simply a matter of principle (one’s right to bear arms), why does this right have to include assault weapons? Should civilians be allowed to possess other weapons of mass destruction such as bombs?
Assault weapons obviously have nothing to do with legal hunting, and it seems to me that if one feels the need to defend oneself against a home invasion, a pistol would do just as well. As I try to wrap my mind around why a civilian could possibly see the need for an assault weapon, I can imagine a collector who is really into guns of all types just to have around the house; but are there really such people who want to possess guns with no intention of ever using them?
In that case, why would they need to possess ammo? The only other scenario I could come up with is someone who imagines they might be part of some uprising against our local police or the government. How and why do you imagine such a scenario would unfold? Who exactly do you imagine you would be shooting? Your neighbors?
To anyone in the Valley who defends the right to own assault weapons, are you actually prepared to mow down dozens of people in a matter of seconds? Please help me to understand your thinking.