Civilians shouldn’t have semi-automatic weapons; they have no place in hunting (letter)
I do not agree with Richard Carnes’ position on guns (“Fewer (or more) guns not the answer,” Tuesday, Feb. 20).
For the first several years in Vail, starting in 1962, I hunted deer, often in places where there are ski trails now. The meat was good and helped my budget. I even gave other Vail visitors like Fred Lazarus venison roasts, as he was a gourmet cook and liked wild game. I was always successful.
One winter, I hung the deer in the unfinished living room of my house on Forest Road. I would cut off pieces when needed. I got a freezer the year after that.
I used an old lever-action 300 Savage rifle that held six shots (maybe more, but I didn’t push it). I figured if I couldn’t hit the deer with six shots, I didn’t deserve to be successful. I don’t think I ever used more than three shots at a time.
My point is that semi-automatic weapons have no place in hunting. Only really poor sportsmen would find a need for them. This then begs the question, what are semi-automatic rifles good for other then law enforcement and war? There is one answer: fun.
They make the shooter feel good, like the guys they see in the movies. This is no excuse for the killing of innocent people that’s going on. These weapons should be banned and only available to law enforcement officers and the military.
As long as semi-automatic weapons are easily available, they will end up in the wrong hands. The result has been and will be tragic.