To suggest that the AR-15 is not as dangerous as the M-16 is to try to put a pro-gun argument over on folks based on a technicality.
In light of the carnage committed in Orlando, does it really matter that the gun Mateen used was not exactly the same as a military-issue weapon? And because his weapon was not exactly military issue, are we to feel relieved that the killer didn’t kill more?
More importantly, never mind automatic firearms. What should be at issue is that with 30-bullet magazines, semi-automatic weaponry enables an individual to kill a slew of people before having to reload.
Also, should our letter writer be accurate in saying that semi-automatic weapons have been with us “for over 100 years,” it must be acknowledged that the issues of terrorism and hate crime have not been with us for over 100 years. Thus, because these are wholly contemporary concerns, to argue for the use of these weapons based on this observation alone is largely bogus.
Finally, to suggest that our president was by some means insensitive or indifferent to the shooting because he addressed the nation about it “before the . . . victims had been removed” from the club is simply appalling.
Moreoever, to suggest that President Obama sought to politicize this issue by diverting “attention from terrorrism to gun control,” in addition to the letter writer himself politicizing this event, is a flagrantly anti-patriot thing to say. At the very least, this is a time to pull together, not push apart.
TIM LANGLAIS
Concord