Letters to the editor for Friday, March 22, 2013

It would be difficult to find anything new to say in the gun control debate, which has been raging since the tragedy at Sandy Hook. The NRA has come up with every conceivable solution except more gun control. It even indicated that much more needs to be done in the field of mental health services. I believe there is a consensus on this point.

So here's what I suggest: Why doesn't the NRA divert a significant portion of its sizable campaign and lobbying funds to improving our mental health system? This will make us all safer, will make our political system less corrupt, and everyone will benefit.

Stephen Deutsch


There are two competing issues in the gun control controversy: public safety vs. corporate greed.

Gun and ammunition manufacturers are interested only in profit. They support the NRA by advertising in its publications, and by contributions. They are interested in selling their stock of assault weapons and oversize clips, and not losing profitable products. The manufacturers and NRA have spread smoke screens to hide the real issues.

There is no Second Amendment issue any more than there was when assault weapons were banned before, or when automatic weapons, silencers, sawed-offs, short-barrels and concealed firearms were outlawed or controlled.

The home defense smoke screen is more TV melodrama than reality. Far more people, including legitimate visitors, are killed or injured by firearms in the home than criminals are deterred.

Unrestricted firearms sales allow purchase by criminals and terrorists. Background checks on all firearms sales are essential for safety, but the NRA and 29 percent of its members opposed background checks.

There are decent NRA members, people who joined years ago and hung on as the organization went rogue. But today's crop of neurotics, radicals and anarchists is spreading smoke screens that hide corporate greed.

Norman Shapiro


The nearly universal tendency of Second Amendment advocates to ignore the first 13 words continues to amaze me.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is the essential and historic context of the amendment. We continue to hear wailing from the rooftops about some mythic right for everyone to keep military weapons in their homes despite the fact that James Madison didn't mean that and of course had no awareness of rapid-fire weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Many gun advocates speciously argue that good people shouldn't have their "rights" restricted because bad people will get guns anyway. Please! We restrict all manner of dangerous things in our complex society without a whimper from the pro-gun folks.

A high priority of civilized society should be to create security for its citizens. We already have a "well regulated militia." My brother is a member. He's a cop.

Universal police forces did not exist in 1789. Pretending some holy and unrestricted constitutional right to all manner of weaponry is historically inaccurate, dangerous, paranoid and frankly absurd. That unfortunate misconception has stained our nation in blood.

Don Badgley


Reader Reaction