A.L Pearson (11/17, Letters) wonders who really needs an assault rifle. I’ll skip the semantics of assault rifle definition and ask Pearson a question: Who decides who needs an assault rifle? Who decides if a rifle is attractive enough, or if its intended use is worthy enough for ownership? The last thing this country needs is a committee or an appointed bureaucrat sitting in judgment of what is appropriate for an American citizen to own.
Owning a firearm labeled as an “assault” rifle does not make the owner commit a crime. The old “assault” rifle ban was nothing but a token victory for the gun-control crowd and did absolutely nothing to lower crime rates. The percentage of firearm-related crimes committed with “assault” rifles is so low it’s statistically insignificant, which makes sensible people wonder what all the fuss is about.
Ward Weber of Olathe (11/10, A-1, “Election’s outcome triggers record sales at gun shops”) can hunt with his “assault” rifle, or hang it on a wall, or stir paint with it. It’s his business, not mine, and certainly not yours.
We Americans do not need most of the things that we own. We don’t need swimming pools or sports cars, either — each of which cause more deaths than assault rifles.
Having said that, I own several assault rifles myself. I own them because I enjoy shooting them at the range. Although some people do use them for hunting, they are actually less powerful than most hunting rifles.
Why do people buy them? Some people collect stamps, some collect baseball cards, and others collect firearms.