It was reassuring to read Lane Filler's column "Law-abiding gun owners aren't the problem" [Opinion, Jan 11]. At least we have one media representative who is not infected with the hysteria generated by an anti-gun faction that mirrors the National Rifle Association in its attempts to influence the political powers that be. Publicizing legitimate license holders of firearms and their addresses only identifies those within their constitutional rights. It does nothing to dissuade a culture of violence.
In contrast, restrictions on so-called assault weapons and reduced- capacity ammo clips, from 10 to 7 rounds, would certainly have an effect on the thug or cretin who buys his or her gun on the street.
Ron Scott, St. James
Straight-thinking columnist Lane Filler must have had an off day, parroting and apparently endorsing the National Rifle Association's tired and old worn-out, whiskered refrain that limiting legal gun ownership won't cut down crime. Did Filler forget the astronomical crimes committed via legal gun ownership, including those in Newtown, Conn.?
The mystified legal gun owner cited by Filler, confused as to why legal gun ownership should be limited, should be asked why any citizen should need an assault weapon and high-capacity ammunition magazines.
Fred Barnett, Lake Grove