There are some truly scary gun owners out there. Reader Jason Davis asks, "Why would anyone want to restict my right to defend myself and my family by limiting access to ammunition"? ("Limiting high-capacity ammunition magazines hinders self defense," Jan. 20.)
By way of example he cites two New York officers who fired 39 and 45 rounds at a suspect respectively who was "only" hit 14 times! Is it normal and rational to believe it takes 84 rounds on one person for self defense? And hitting someone 14 times is "only"? Do hunters shoot 84 rounds at prey and hit 14 times to bring them down?
And the point that most murders are not committed with semi/fully automatic rifles beside the point. The point is said rifles can cause mass casualities in under a minute.
For example, could a knife or a handgun have wounded scores and killed 12 in Aurora, Colo.? Or killed over 70 young people in Norway?
Oh but wait! The killers could have had a big bag of bombs they could have thrown far enough to not blow themselves up!
Gun "enthusiasts" would argue the solution is to arm everyone. As experts, what would they say are the odds for people with handguns against someone in body armor with a high capacity rifle? And how many people are dead before anyone can even react? Remember the firefighters who were shot and killed at the fire In New York state had a police escort who returned fire. But not before two firemen were dead.
Michelle Alston, Baltimore