Arguing over semantics of ‘assault weapons’ won’t reduce mayhem

A couple of points in response to a recent letter asserting that the AR-15 is not a weapon of war. The statement that “the weapon did not commit the murders” misses the point entirely. This sophomoric argument has been around forever and is trotted out every time the subject of reasonable gun controls are broached. In mass shootings there is no doubt that the disastrous combination of easily obtained weapons and disturbed individuals produce the murders. The semi-automatic weapons and extended capacity magazines make it possible to kill more people more quickly. We need to address both issues (the shooter and the guns) if we hope to make any progress.

The writer also objects to calling the AR-15 a weapon of war or an “assault rifle.” Perhaps he prefers the term “modern sporting rifle” proposed by National Shooting Sports Association in 2009. He contends that if it is not fully automatic it is not a “weapon of war”or an “assault weapon.” This kind of pedantic argument also is not helpful. I don’t care what you call it; if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck … .

Let’s stop nit-picking about terms and start trying to address the problem that left 31 dead and 20 injured in two mass shootings just last month.

Mike Boyd

Everett