In response to Daniel Bednar's letter to the editor, "Weapon bans run dangerous risks" (SN 11/21), it seems that he misses the point of why there are such things as firearms bans. He uses the example of someone walking into a public place and using a firearm to commit an act of multiple murder. The reason why that scenario is so believable is because our society allows such a large volume of firearms to exist on our streets.

I (and I suspect a great many others) see nothing wrong with firearms being used for hunting or sport purposes. But don't try to tell me that we can't try to do something, as a society, to define where firearms can or cannot be possessed. Please don't try to tell me that we need firearms to protect ourselves from a hostile takeover from the government or from another Adolf Hitler. This is America, not 1930s Germany.

Ed Dougherty
1989 graduate