Chronicle columnist Ed Conant (“Politicians and the NRA,” Jan. 6) said he doesn’t “worry about anyone taking away” his guns. This is because the Supreme Court reaffirmed gun owners’ rights. By one vote. Sorry, but a 5-4 decision is not much wiggle room! I’m not a National Rifle Association member, but the NRA is right when it states that our gun rights are not set in stone.
As for large-capacity magazines “not used for hunting,” I fail to see his point. Scientific studies and real-world, after-the-fact investigations reveal that when a violent encounter occurs, accuracy suffers. Adrenaline, moving targets, multiple targets, etc., would explain this. All the shooting practice in the world cannot take away the need for more rounds, and quickly, when needed.
Even the term “used for hunting” is apples and oranges. Animals don’t shoot back. If a raccoon gets into my home, I’m guessing it isn’t intent on bodily harm. Technically, nobody needs a gun to hunt – we have bows and arrows, for example.
I do agree with Mr. Conant’s views on reducing gun violence by using a multifaceted approach.
(The writer is a retired U.S. Army staff sergeant.)