Ban would save lives

Tampa Bay Times - - Opinion -

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

af­ter 2004.

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

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.