Regarding the latest (as of 9:55 pm on 5/26/2022) mass murder of children and teachers at the grade school in Uvalde TX, a few questions came to mind that I don't have answers to.

When various gun restricting legislation comes up, it is often opposed by law enforcement agencies and individuals within the agencies. In this mass shooting as in a handful of others, the shooter has an automatic weapon with a large magazine and is wearing armored clothing, whereas the officer(s) on hand have inferior weaponry and are afraid to confront the perpetrator for fear of being outgunned. Those that do confront often lose their lives. It would seem logical to me that law enforcement would not want any individual who is committing a crime to have higher weaponry than the officer on the scene. I don't understand the reasoning (unless those in charge are "owned" by the NRA and told what to say).

Next confusing issue is the big NRA convention not allowing any firearms, knives or weapons inside. The NRA's whole political stance is ensuring the right to bear arms anywhere anytime, apparently without limit. Why should members be forbidden to pack a gun concealed or not, at their own convention? I grew up hunting and have owned many guns but have never been an NRA member nor seen the need to have military style weapons sold to citizens so casually. I believe there is "No Right to Assassinate" (NRA).

Michael Sauber
Silver City