Ban would save lives
The Washington Post found to be true Sen. Marco Rubio’s statement of 2016: “None of the major shootings that have occurred in this country over the last few months or years that have outraged us, would gun laws have prevented them.”
And, indeed, Rubio had shown his conviction by voting against an assault weapons ban in 2013 and steadfastly resisting any action on gun control. There is, however, a tragic flaw in his statement involving the dimension of time. The federal assault weapons ban of 1994 was allowed to expire in 2004. The weapon of choice for recent mass shootings is the assault weapon, and there is a compelling probability that these were acquired
Let’s start by reprising the ban with the knowledge that we are saving lives in the future. Following that, we can enact the many other commonsense actions that will reduce gun violence and gun suicides without infringing on rational liberties.
G.T. Kaszer, St. Petersburg
this week was about the injuries, rehabilitation and cost the victims of the Las Vegas shooting will face. They will live the aftereffects of the shooting for years, and many for the rest of their lives. Where are their rights?
Stephen Paddock bought his weapons legally, as well as the bump stock that allowed him to alter his military-grade weapon into an automatic rifle. We have become aware of how many he purchased and the amount of ammunition and the planning that went into his rampage in recent days.
Once again we have conservatives like the letter writer voicing our Second Amendment rights. No other civilized countries in the world have the