Commentary writer Ken Paulson's piece "Professor's tweet was crass, but it's his right" sparked a debate online about the NRA and free speech. Comments from Facebook are edited for clarity and grammar:

Protected speech

The professor, from the University of Kansas, can say what he wants. But when you work for a state university and say such things, the question about whether you are sane and the right person to be teaching students naturally surfaces. Those doubts are the reason he needs to be let go from the university.

— Jason Lago

I'm not questioning his right to say anything. When you are in a position of influence, your words can have greater consequences. In his case, his words might lead to more meaningful work for him, such as carrying signs in a protest march. He has that right.

I don't want someone who doesn't know when voicing his opinion is irresponsible to be teaching our youth in a university that my tax dollars support. The professor has many other venues to express his support of gun control without wishing harm to others.

Joe Wilhelm

Powerful gun lobby

The reason people put part of the blame on the National Rifle Association is that its members are the ones stopping the government from passing laws to further restrict gun purchases or increase background checks, not because they support criminals or people with mental illness carrying out these mass shootings. Their money and influence extends far in the government.

Sarah Honadel

Guns don't kill people; people who wish others dead kill people. I do think that many people in the U.S. have become obsessed with guns and violence.

Our collective conscience and thought focus an awful lot on violence. The NRA may or may not be promoting gun violence, but short of limiting everyone to flintlock rifles, gun legislation isn't going to stop the violence. If you want to, you can kill a lot of people with a revolver or shotgun or just about any modern gun.

The only way to lessen the gun violence (you'll never stop it) is to mend families and for us to focus on righteous and good things, rather than saturating our minds with violence on a daily basis.

Douglass D Watts

Letters to the editor:

How ironic that President Obama called for a "transformation" of U.S. gun laws at the memorial service for the Washington Navy Yard tragedy ("Obama Calls for 'transformation of U.S. gun laws").

Many "anti-gun" lobbyists seek more background checks for gun buyers and smaller ammunition magazine capacities for the public.

Yet, Aaron Alexis, the man suspected of committing this heinous attack at a U.S. government installation, held a security clearance and began his assault with a simple shotgun. How would any of the proposed anti-gun laws have stopped this madman?

Conversely, if there had been even one or two trained, armed citizens at the Navy Yard, Fort Hood, Sandy Hook Elementary School or the Colorado theater, how might those massacres have ended differently?

Ken Pulliam; Kingwood, Texas

President Obama has called for an overhaul of gun laws. There is a focus on preventing people with mental illnesses from possessing guns. To accomplish that will be difficult.

As an emergency room nurse, I can tell you the mentally ill often will not self-report or seek evaluation. You can't rely on family and friends to report.

Mental evaluations are detailed, time consuming and expensive.

People with mental illnesses have a very difficult time concentrating or staying seated. Requiring a gun permit obtained by taking an eight-hour course would help block many mentally ill from owning a gun.

At the same time, mental illness can appear at any time. Permit renewals should be required every four years to screen for new occurrences. All gun sellers should be required to verify that the buyer has a current permit.

With gun rights come responsibilities. The safety of the American public must take priority over the convenience of gun owners.

Doreen Suran; Bellevue, Wash.