Assault weapons ban won’t protect country

I wanted to thank Ralph Galbraith (letters to editor, Jan. 23) for his astute praise of the National Rifle Association and its incessant gun-mongering. His excellent locution is to be praised.

After all, the NRA was there from the beginning, even with the Founding Fathers back in the day, making sure that the citizens had more guns than even the army at the time.

Similarly, his wit is entirely appropriate in proving the evils of a nation with guns, as compared to nations with a complete gun ban, like the United Kingdom. It’s a great example: England has a violent crime rate that is higher, in fact, than the U.S.

Or maybe it should be pointed out that Chicago, the city with the highest gun control in the U.S., has more than double the murder rate of the entire country.

Clearly the NRA is at fault here.

We can even examine human psychology, just for fun.

The fact is that criminals will always exist; they don’t care about laws and will use every opportunity to not only circumvent the laws but to use those very laws against others.

And, being afraid of death, we now understand why nearly every mass shooting in the past 50 years has happened at a gun show with all those gun nuts instead of in a peaceful, gun-free zone.

Ten points for spotting the sarcasm.

Possibly you may notice my vitriol. I like to live peaceably. I’m not even a member of the NRA. I take issue with such poor argumentation. But I do take exception to such unqualified and malicious slander.

The truth is we will never fully eliminate crime.

What we can do is write such laws that fully enable the law-abiding citizens in this country to fully defend themselves while doing everything possible to limit criminal activity.

Trashing the NRA will do neither.

So let’s stop pretending that any form of assault weapons ban will do anything to help the law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against those who would do them harm.

Let’s find something constructive that will actually help.

Jonathan Lent