LTE: Weapons ban would be inconsequential

February 09, 2005
Columbus Dispatch

I respond to the Jan. 28 Dispatch article "Police take shot at assault weapons."

What a joke! If Columbus City Councilman Michael C. Mentel truly wants to protect police officers and citizens, he should turn all of his effort into fund-raising for the Columbus Division of Police so it can hire additional officers and equipment to increase patrols.

Banning these types of firearms does not keep them out of criminals’ hands any more than not banning them. A ban does not affect the criminals who fire upon officers. It affects the law-abiding residents who legally own the firearms.

Let’s face it: Criminals aren’t carrying Berettas. They don’t plop down $500-plus on a firearm at a store to legally purchase it. They buy Hi-Points and other cheap $100 9 mm’s off the street.

The only thing a ban would do is give the false impression that Mentel is doing something to help the community and police force, when in reality he’s not doing squat except wasting taxpayers’ money.

Shane Zatezalo
Hilliard

Commentary:
This issue is still being debated in Columbus. An advisory on the issue is posted at the Columbus City Council website:

Columbus City Council member Michael C. Mentel, Safety Committee Chair, continues his in-depth investigation of unsafe and unregulated weapons. Mentel hosted a public briefing to kick off the effort December 9, and a demonstration of specific assault weapons was conducted on January 27th. This initial briefing session included City Attorney Richard Pfeiffer and Division of Police personnel providing an overview on the types of weapons that have recently surfaced in Columbus, and relevant legal issues raised by any attempt to limit their availability and use.

Click here for information on upcoming meetings.