Readers React: Are assault weapons really just regular rifles that look scary?

To the editor: Adam Winkler, a UCLA professor of law, is an expert. He says “assault weapons” are targets for regulation because they look scary. His statistics on gun violence are correct. (“Why banning assault rifles won’t reduce gun violence,” Opinion, Dec. 11)

I suspect that AR-15-type guns are the most popular rifles in the country precisely because they are scary looking. From a psychological perspective, they are symbols, totems purchased to convince the owner and his friends that he is not to be messed with.

The problem is that millions of random civilians own semiautomatic weapons of any type. That horse is long out of the barn.

Still, if a citizen cannot effectively defend his home or himself with a six-shot revolver, he doesn’t need bigger guns. He needs to call United Van Lines.

Greg Bryce, Encino

..

To the editor: President Obama speaks animatedly regarding what he mistakenly calls assault rifles (the AR-15s purchased for the San Bernardino shooting were semiautomatic but did not meet the definition of an assault rifle).

However, of the more that 11,000 homicides each year, only about 350 involve rifles and of these only a fraction involve semiautomatic or assault rifles. Seems like he is focused on the wrong area.

Allen West, San Diego

..

To the editor: As a journalist, I am getting sick and tired of the phrase “law-abiding citizen” when writing about gun control.

Every gun owner is a law-abiding citizen until he or she shoots someone. The person who is fired and shoots his or her employer was a law-abiding citizen until then; the person who gets into an argument at home, with a neighbor, at a party, at a restaurant or at a bar is a law-abiding citizen until he or she shoots someone.

To be honest, law-abiding citizens who own a gun, and especially those who carry a gun, scare the hell out of me.

Martin A. Brower, Corona del Mar

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook