No headline

I would like to respond to the letter from Mr. John Nitcy (Daily Bee, Feb. 13, 2018).

Magazine size limits have no realistic benefit. A practiced shooter can drop an empty magazine and insert a new one from his pocket or belt clip with almost no discernible pause in firing. So what’s next, limit the number of magazines a person can own to one? How many criminals and mass shooters would obey that law? Further, the whole argument for magazine size limits is that the “pause” in firing would allow someone to stop the shooter. Who? Most mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. And you just said we shouldn’t arm the teachers. So, in the approximately 1-2 second pause while swapping his magazine, what is going to stop him?

The problem with placing size limits on magazines is that once everyone realizes that it makes no discernible difference (which the anti-gunners already know), then they will move on to phase two, which is banning semi-autos altogether and limiting the number of bullets a person can legally own at a time. An armed citizenry is the only way to stop/deter mass shootings.

You stated that it makes you uncomfortable to see someone wearing a gun in line in the grocery store. If that person happens to be a cop, does it make you nervous? How is one gun in a holster different than another? American citizens have as much right, and duty, to carry a gun as that police officer. The only difference is it’s also in his job description.

SAMUEL HOGUE

Sandpoint