This is in response to the letter by Judy Palfrey published Aug. 19 edition of The Outlook concerning the assault style weapons.
What are commonly referred to as assault style weapons are not military weapons. The military weapons are capable of being fully automatic while these assault style weapons are only semi-automatic, which means a shooter has to pull the trigger each time the gun fires. It does not fire automatically.
It is really no different than an ordinary hunting rifle in the way it fires. The assault style rifles are capable of utilizing extended magazines — that is the part that holds the bullets — which allows a shooter to fire many rounds without putting another magazine.
The benefits of the assault style rifles are they are lighter and the bullets are smaller so it is lighter to carry. It should also be pointed out some new hunting rifles are also capable of carrying an extended magazine and are being made of lighter materials than in the past.
I am not an NRA member nor do I agree with many things it believes. However, banning the assault style rifles is harder than it looks at first glance given the shooting mechanism is not significantly different than a rifle. Even the new rifles are being made lighter.
So the difficulty comes in defining a weapon that is banned while still allowing guns that are used for hunting. Additionally, most gun advocates are reluctant to open any kind of negotiation about banning anything because they know ultimately the anti-gun lobby wants to ban guns and they just don’t want to get on that slippery slope.
I am by no means an expert but I do know guns do not kill people; people kill people. Murder is illegal yet we still see murder and some of those use “assault style weapons.” But there is a legitimate market for these weapons that has nothing to do with killing other people.
I agree with you about women being able to take care of themselves. But as a former career woman if a man wants to defend me I’ll happily take it and appreciate it.