Limiting high-capacity ammunition magazines hinders self defense

A ban on any firearm or accessory represents an assault on the Second Amendment ("O'Malley to push stricter gun limits," Jan. 15). Any actions toward more gun control lead one to believe that these policies are not trying to curb gun violence, which has gone down 50 percent over the last 20 years, but rather are pushing an agenda to eliminate the Second Amendment.

In Maryland, rifles were used to commit murder only two times in 2011. Compare that to 75 murders by knives. Any talk of banning assault weapons is unjustified. Same with any talk about reducing magazine capacity. Maybe we should restrict knives instead.

Why would anyone want to restrict my right to defend myself and my family by limiting access to ammunition? Ask Melinda Herman of Georgia if six rounds were enough to stop a home intruder. She defended herself by shooting her assailant five times in the face before he ran off. Her sixth round was a miss. Add one or two more perps to this episode, and most likely Ms. Herman would be not talking to us today.

Ask New York Police Sgt. Alexander Mesa, who fired 39 shots, and Officer Joseph Robinson, who fired 45 rounds at Steven Murray, a suspect who was hit only 14 times. Did the officers have enough ammunition to defend themselves and the public?

Nationwide, police routinely discharge more than 10 rounds at suspects. To limit magazine capacity is to limit law-abiding citizens' right to self-defense.

Jason Davis

Copyright © 2018, The Baltimore Sun, a Baltimore Sun Media Group publication | Place an Ad