I’m not sure which is more offensive — the Sportsman’s Warehouse ad featuring mostly guns on the first two pages (including several AR-style rifles) or the ADN’s decision to include it in the same paper (June 3) along with three articles on recent mass shootings.
I understand our Constitution’s Second Amendment rights to bear arms, but there is no good need for an AR-style rifle. Weapons have changed a lot since 1776. I also don’t think that raising the minimum age to purchase these weapons is a real deterrent. Many of the recent shooters have been well over the age of 18-25. The shooter in the Vegas concert was a 64-year-old man, and the shooter in Oklahoma was a 45-year-old man. The shooter in the California church was an old man. Since most (if not all) mass shootings with AR style rifles have been done by men, perhaps there is no safe minimum age for men to possess weapons like this. If a shooter had to reload after each shot, it would definitely slow down the destruction.
I am not anti-gun, but I see no need for this style of weapon to be made — period. Let alone it being readily available to anyone who wants to buy one. As for purchasing any kind of weapon I’m all for a required gun safety class, a mental illness exam and a much longer waiting period than the one we currently have.
I would rather see the combat weapons in a Sportsman’s Warehouse ad be fishing poles! If more people took time to fish, there might be less violence. It’s worth the thought.
— Vicki Williams
Anchorage
Have something on your mind? Send to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Letters under 200 words have the best chance of being published. Writers should disclose any personal or professional connections with the subjects of their letters. Letters are edited for accuracy, clarity and length.