Where do you draw the line on gun use?

A discussion continues on whether tighter restrictions on guns and ammunition could have prevented or lessoned the casualties from the movie theater massacre in Aurora, Colo., last month.

The recent mass murder was orchestrated by a man who legally acquired a semiautomatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine allowing 50-60 rounds per minute to be fired without stopping to reload. Is there any rational or sporting reason to allow someone (other than police or the military) to have such a weapon or gun clip?

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and 42 co-sponsors have introduced H.R. 308, currently before Congress, which would ban sale or transfer of these large capacity clips that enabled multiple casualties in Aurora and also in Tucson, Ariz., in January 2011. McCarthy’s husband was among those killed in the 1993 Long Island Railroad massacre. When her congressman voted against an assault weapons ban, she ran against him and won, and remains in Congress.

We can only ask ourselves, if the shooter had gone into the (Colorado) theater without a semiautomatic weapon, or a high capacity magazine, how many fewer would have been killed or wounded? If only one person had escaped injury, the law would be worth it.

We can all support the Second Amendment to the Constitution enabling us to bear arms and defend our homes. But should this right include using weapons and magazines that are only intended for multiple killings? If you don’t think so, contact your congressman and urge support of HR 308.

JAMES W. RAMSEY

Kootenai