January 21, 2011
Ron Smith, in his rush to defend lax gun laws ( "Face the facts: Gun control laws don't save lives," Jan. 22) appears to have stumbled on his own reasoning when he pointed out that Congresswomen Gabrielle Giffords also owned a Glock like the one used in the assassination attempt. What good did her Glock do her? Was she able to protect herself or any other victims? If neither she nor the assassin had access to such lethal weapons, would not many of lives have been saved? It appears that many advocates for lax gun laws ignore the obvious: A handgun is an offensive and not a defensive weapon.
April 18, 2013
I have several comments on the commentary written by Peter Morici ("The false security of gun-control measures," April 16). The common conclusion from gun rights advocates, one that has become quite wearisome, seems to be that if every shooting incident, injury, or death cannot be precluded by gun-control measures, then why even bother. This is a bankrupt argument. Were one to follow this philosophy to its (il)logical conclusion, one would stop brushing one's teeth upon the discovery of a cavity.
December 19, 2009
A recent poll shows National Rifle Association members overwhelmingly favor closing the gun show loophole, and that has the NRA fuming. Never mind that the poll was conducted by Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster who is on Fox News so often that he may as well be considered a network personality. Or that the same poll shows NRA members do support many pro-Second Amendment positions (against a national gun registry, for example). Once again, the NRA's leadership is out of step - not only with average Americans but even with people who identify themselves as NRA members.
March 22, 2013
Why didn't Jules Witcover use President Barack Obama's quote to the effect that "control measures as I have presented would most likely have not affected Newtown" ("Obama settles for half measures on gun control," March 19)? And another question: How much will the homicide rate go down in Baltimore with the Nanny-Governor Martin O'Malley's new gun control laws? Let me help you - zero. But good citizens will pay more and be fingerprinted. That's a big whoop! The disingenuousness is palpable.
February 5, 2013
Can somebody explain how is it that a couple of guys in a pick-up with assault rifles on the gun rack constitute a well-regulated militia? And how is it that law-abiding citizens who follow all the rules, keep the gun locked up, and the ammo locked up separately, can get to the gun in time to "protect" their families? And how about using assault rifles to hunt? Wouldn't the game be too destroyed to eat? Barbara McCord, Annapolis Text NEWS to 70701 to get Baltimore Sun local news text alerts
January 18, 2013
Regarding the seven-point plan to reduce gun violence proposed by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and others ("Scholars drafting new gun policy," Jan. 15), this is an issue in which I have vested interest. Aggravated by such events as the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, gun control is currently a hot topic in the United States. Personally, I believe that it is acceptable to own a gun strictly for hunting or protection, but this does not extend to large-scale assault weapons.