Letters to the Editor: ‘But cars are dangerous too’ is a bad argument against banning assault weapons

To the editor: It was great to read a pro-gun letter describing how technology such as ignition locks and speed governors could be mandated in automobiles to reduce their lethality.

Technology could also be added to guns so that only registered fingerprints could enable them to be fired, a measure the writer would be swift to embrace, I’m sure.

Also unacknowledged was the system of licensing and registration that is in place to ensure drivers and their vehicles operate safely and can be quickly located by authorities. Such a well-regulated system for firearms would save countless lives and pose no obstacle for noncriminals to keep and bear arms.

James Clark, La Cañada Flintridge

..

To the editor: A letter writer stated that if you got rid semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15, you would still have mass shootings but with revolvers and pump-action shotguns.

How many people would have died if the shooter in Las Vegas in 2017 was firing a shotgun or a revolver from the 32nd floor of a hotel? After up to six shots, he would have had to reload, a slow process for a shotgun or a revolver.

But an AR-15-style assault rifle can fire up to 60 rounds per minute. The Las Vegas shooter had a modification that allowed his weapon to fire almost as fast as a machine gun.

I’ve heard many arguments like this saying if you take away semiautomatic weapons, people will just use something else. Fine, I’ll take my chances with someone throwing spears from a window in the Mandalay Bay hotel.

Jeffrey Teets, Lakewood