Thoughts on classifying weapons merit response

Mr. Larry Horist’s April 16 commentary, responding to my opinion piece on a new approach to classifying and regulating weapons, contains a number of misstatements.

Horist states that there are only two types of weapons “subject to debate” — automatic and semiautomatic firearms. There are also firearms with other “actions,” such as bolt, lever, and pump action guns, still used by some hunters and sport shooters.

With regard to semi-automatics, Horist glosses over the enormous difference in capability and potential lethality of military-style weapons like the AR-15 that can be fed by magazines with up to 100 rounds of ammunition as opposed to rifles with internal magazines holding just a few rounds. The modular designs of AR-15s and their relatives can also accommodate a variety of aiming devices and other accessories.

Horist states that muzzle velocity, an important factor in the potential injuries produced by a firearm, has more to do with the ammunition than the gun, when it is really a product of both. He suggests that ammunition is already well regulated, when nothing is further from the truth. Aside from specialized ammunition (armorpiercing), federal law and most states require no licenses to sell or buy ammunition, no background checks are performed, no records are kept of sales, and there are no volume purchase restrictions.

The most egregious statement made by Horist was that the carnage in Las Vegas could have been committed with a “non-assault” weapon. It defies credibility to believe that one individual could shoot 600 people without the help of military-style weapons equipped with 100-round magazines and bump stocks for rapid firing. Firearms firing at a slower rate and requiring constant reloading would have spared hundreds of deaths and injuries that day.