‘Outrage in War on Guns’

In response to “Outrage Is Ammo in the War on Guns,” Part I, Dec. 28:

Every time I hear another gun lobby member defending his/her right to bear weapons such as the AK-47 assault rifle I get nauseous. These guns are not made for hunting, target shooting or any sport. Assault rifles, by definition, are offensive weapons. They are the equivalent to first-strike nuclear weapons: They are designed for those who choose to start a fight, not to defend.

“Foul!” cries the gun lobby. “It’s not the guns that kill people, it’s people who kill people.” This misguided, hollow argument has been around too long.

Of course, someone has to point the gun and pull the trigger. And we certainly must do everything in our power to eradicate the circumstances that produce individuals capable of killing people. But will someone please tell me how controlling the tool of destruction, in this case a gun, is any different from President Reagan’s admirable policy of trying to stop the flow of drugs? Sure, we must work tirelessly to control the temptation. But, we must also make at least some, however small, dent in the accessibility of certain kinds of weapons just as we must continue to slow the flow of drugs.

“It will be no more effective than Prohibition,” say the gun lobbyists. Does anyone really believe this? Just guessing, I’d say 50,000 assault weapons were sold last year. Even if it was 150,000 you could not call assault-weapon ownership a national pastime.

In the final analysis, nobody wants to see bullets fly through cars to kill people. The rigid control of these weapons is a public good, and that, my economics professor tells me, is the ultimate democratic policy. We must try.

HARRY HINER

Newport Beach