As much as I sympathize with the families of the victims of this horrific event, I can't blame President Bush. It is not he who put the gun into the shooter's hand or told him to fire the weapon.
The letter writer says the current administration embraces violence.
Excuse me? How is this the case when it is looking for ways to lower crime rates?
The Second Amendment grants us the right to bear arms. The gun does not kill; it is the person who fires the gun who does the killing.
Taking the guns out of the hands of people won't change people. People will find a way to kill, if they want to kill someone.
You have to change the person, or stop the person; taking the gun out of his hands just won't do it.
These are the facts: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
It's as simple as that.
Memory protects us from past's horrors
Regarding the editorial "Found and lost" (Sept. 30), no, "memory doesn't bring the past alive." Memory is all we have, however, to fight against the recurrence of some pasts that are horrible beyond imagining.
The Great War, the War to End All Wars (World War I), saw the collision between ancient combat and modern technology. It saw weapons of ghastly effect invented and deployed and tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of young men sent in wave after wave to die horribly.
Estimates suggest that World War I caused some 10 million military casualties. Hundreds of thousands of civilians also suffered and died, victims of starvation and misdirected ordnance.
My grandfather became a driver for the American Ambulance Field Service before the United States entered the fray and stayed on many months beyond the cease-fire on Nov. 11, 1918.
His letters, diaries and photographs provide a small sense of what he endured, and he was adamant that he suffered nothing compared with the gallant soldiers he was sent to save.
I, too, have been to some of those cemeteries. I have looked at acre after acre of white markers and walked among the graves of Canadians and Americans, Germans and French, Russians, English, Scots and Irish.
Yes, the cemeteries are tidy, but why should they not be?
Yes, some of the land is once again green, but everywhere, one still sees the shell holes and stumbles over barbed wire that is 90 years old.
Stands of young pine trees have replaced the oaks and chestnuts. In their shade, birdsong enlivens the villages detruites, places devoid of any sign of the lives that once filled them.
These places are now only dots on the French map, but dots that are essential as acts of memory.
Today, when we are embroiled in a conflict destroying so many lives for such indeterminate reasons, I think we need more than ever to embrace those memories of folly and heartbreak.
When those memories are lost, how will we know that we are heading toward destruction on a road we walked before? And who should decide, when some memories are lost, that "it's good that they are"?
Ellen B. Cutler
Today's soldiers earn same acclaim
I read with great interest The Sun's article on Company D's 60th reunion after the pivotal role the brave men of this unit played in 1945 in crossing the Roer River in World War II ("The Last Hurrah," Sept. 25).
All of us owe a deep dept of gratitude to these men and others like them who ended a serious threat to freedom and the American way of life.
It is easy to sense the pride the daughter of one of these men feels as she describes her experiences attending these reunions with her father and his fellow soldiers.
But I couldn't help but wonder if 60 years from now, the daughter of one of today's soldiers fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan will voice the same sense of pride.
The war today is no less important than the one 60 years ago. American freedom and the safety and security Company D helped ensure for a half-century are being threatened.
Yet all I hear in the media is criticism of the war and of there not being a definite timetable for withdrawing.
There was no schedule for World War II.
No one said that troops would be pulled out if they couldn't win in a certain period of time. They stayed until our enemy was defeated.
We have to stay at war today until our enemy is defeated - no matter how long it takes.
I won't be around for the 60th anniversary of the defeat of our current enemy, but the young sons and daughters of today's soldiers will.
I hope they will be able to recall with equal pride the day their dad or mom helped bring today's threat to its knees.
Does history reward staying the course?
I say, good for President Bush for refusing to listen to those who suggest that we "cut and run" in Iraq ("Bush set to campaign on security platform," Sept. 30).
History is littered with the forgotten detritus of those who cut and run, while those who had the resolve to "complete the mission" live forever in history's pages.
A few examples spring to mind: