Letter: Gun laws should allow hunting but limit viability for mayhem
To the Editor:
I never said I spoke to hunters about the AR-15, only that I never saw a hunter carrying one. So I take Mr. Falconieri’s word for it that an AR-15 is good for hunting varmints. But then, so is a bolt action .22. And let’s face it, it doesn’t matter the weapon; miss with the first shot and there is no second shot.
It’s a straw-man argument to suggest that I said the type of firearm is somehow relevant to the second amendment. I wouldn’t expect him to remember, but I phoned Mr. Falconieri a few years back and he gave me information so I could be accurate in my letters to the editor in support of hunting in Ridgefield open space. And I wrote a letter to the editor a couple months back in support of hunting.
That I can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded building doesn’t impinge on my 1st amendment rights; it’s a reasonable limitation in the interest of public safety.
I’m advocating such an approach to guns: reasonable laws that allow for hunting but limit their viability for public mayhem. Limiting the magazine size of a hunting rifle does nothing to decrease the likelihood of a successful and enjoyable hunt. Again, after a couple shots at a deer, the next couple dozen just risk finding a person.
In New York, I can’t even carry certain types of pocket knives unless I have a hunting or fishing license to establish a need. So, establish a need for an AR-15 and a 30-round magazine that can be reloaded in a few seconds and it’s yours; otherwise, it goes into the category of the bazooka and other heavily-restricted, anti-personnel weapons.
And finally — and a bit of a non sequitur — I am bemused at how fond gun advocates are of citing muzzle velocities, as though it’s OK to get hit by something going a mere 2,000 miles per hour; it’s only things going 2,500 miles per hour that are a concern.