To the Editor:
This article is opinion.
I am a firearm owner. How many, I do not say. I can tell you that all my firearms are locked away in a very secure location.
I will also tell you that I started hunting at age 6. I have used firearms all my life, so I am comfortable around firearms. I know that some people think firearms are for recreation and think nothing of blowing through 500 rifle or pistol rounds in a day. That is not me. I own firearms because they are lethal tools, not toys. I do sometimes practice to remain proficient at shooting. My principle purpose for using a firearm is to kill things. I have no use for a firearm that is not suited for the purpose it is intended, with the exception of antiques. With this disclosure, I will move on to the purpose of this opinion article.
The first question is can we and our children be safer than we are at this time, without throwing the Second Amendment on the trash heap? The question is not, can we be completely safe from firearm violence in this Country, because as long as there are firearms in society, there will be the danger of misuse. My question is can we be safer than we are and the answer is yes.
First, we must move past whether, or not, it is permissible to impose any limitations on the ownership of arms. The answer is yes. Who out there actually believes civilians should be able to own or possess dirty bombs, claymore mines, rocket launchers, hand grenades, and other arms of war and terrorism? Just as it is permissible to impose limits on First Amendments rights (not yelling fire in a crowded public venue to see what will happen), it is permissible to impose limits on Second Amendment rights. If you are certain there can be no limits on Second Amendment rights, you may want to stop reading at this point. If, however, you are open to a discussion of what might help to make us safer without outlawing all arms, then, let us talk.
We should look at what an arm is capable of doing, not what it looks like. It is not helpful to describe a rifle as an assault weapon based on it’s appearance. If my rifle does not kill, I have no use for it. Most, not all, arms used in mass shootings have been AR-15s chambered for .223 ammo. They look like the movie notion of assault weapons. The Ruger Mini 14, chambered for .223 ammo, can be purchased with a 20 round magazine. It looks a lot like a Ruger 1022 squirrel rifle. What makes the AR-15 different from the Ruger Mini 14? Only the way they look, not what they can do.
The Weatherby Vanguard , chambered for .223 ammo, holds four or five cartridges and is a bolt action, not a semiautomatic. The Vanguard is a great hunting rifle, but not so good for mass murder. Why? It is a bolt action and only holds four or five rounds. The AR-15 and the Ruger Mini 14 would be much less effective weapons of mass murder with a five round magazine. Let us consider magazine capacity as one way to make us safer.
I am 70 years old and I can not remember a time when you could hunt upland birds with a shotgun that held more than three rounds. I know that most shotguns hold more than three rounds, but you must use a plug to block off all but three rounds. I have never heard a bird hunter complaining about their Second Amendment rights being violated. Why three rounds? The answer is to limit the kill. If it works for birds, it should work for our kids.
I would suggest to those that think they need more than five rounds of ammo to hunt with are wrong. They do not need more ammo, they need more proficiency at shooting. Maybe some practice would work.
The idea that there can reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms is growing. In fact, the idea that all firearms should be outlawed is growing. If you are a firearms owner and want to have input into what reasonable restrictions are, you had better get off the side lines and participate in the discussion. Just remember, If you are not at the table, you are on the menu.
