To the Editor:

I get it. There are many who feel that any limitation on gun ownership is unacceptable as a violation of the second amendment and that an armed America is a safe America. I just don’t agree. It scares the heck out of me. So, while I go down swinging, please indulge me.

Isn’t an armed college student at a frat party or sports event, where drinking is involved, a recipe for disaster?

It is no coincidence that the AR-15 or similar weapons were used in the Newtown, Aurora, San Bernardino, and Orlando shootings. The muzzle energy of its bullet is up to 3X that of a handgun. This speed causes kinetic energy, or shock waves, on impact resulting in extreme damage to flesh, bone, tissue and organs. Should these firearms be available to civilians?

The “gun show loophole” is applicable in 41 states, and means that anyone can buy a firearm at a gun show without a background check. Federal law only requires that licensed dealers conduct background checks. A sale at a gun show is considered a ‘private sale.’ Don’t we want background checks on the buyers of any firearm under any circumstance?

If one or more law-abiding citizens in the Aurora theater or the Orlando nightclub had a gun, could they have actually made a good snap judgment decision in a heart-pounding situation without wounding or killing innocent people? Wouldn’t the police have been confused and hindered upon arrival if there was a gun fight in progress?

It has been reported 11 Newtown school children were saved by a teacher while the shooter was reloading his high-capacity magazine. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords’ shooter was tackled and subdued while reloading after firing 33 rounds. Wouldn’t only 10 rounds in a magazine give even one person a chance of survival in a mass shooting?

Has anyone’s mind been changed by this weekly debate?

George M. Cohan

Peaceable Ridge Road