Gun Control

Given the typically biased and incomplete information given out by the media on liberal progressive issues such as gun control, it's no wonder Marylander voters polled strongly in support of controls on assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines are needed to prevent killings like those at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. ("Marylanders strongly support two gun control measures," Jan. 14). But before any new restrictions on rifles and ammunition clips are passed in Maryland, everyone, especially the governor and state lawmakers, should step back, take a deep breath and review the statistics on the weapons used in Maryland homicides.

How low will President Barack Obama go, using children and parents of murdered children from Sandy Hook as props to give a speech about gun control ("Obama pledges fight for gun laws," Jan. 17)? Why has he protected the people that work for him from the public finding out about Fast and Furious and who made the decision to let thousands of guns go to Mexico without a way of tracking them? Joe Heming Text NEWS to 70701 to get Baltimore Sun local news text alerts

It seems that gun control should be a no-brainer. Our city and other communities across this country have recently seen the tragic results of the misuse of guns by ordinary citizens, including by young teens. When I was a growing up in Baltimore people felt safe. We went out alone at night; I often went to the library alone after dark at age 10. We never heard about shootings. They seemed to be only in cowboy movies. The availability of guns to any two-legged creature who could talk changed all that.

Instead of "People, not politicians killed gun control," Doyle McManus should have titled his July 27 op-ed "people and politicians reduce crime in America. " Not until the middle of his commentary does he admit that crime is down, and he attributes the lack of interest in gun control to this fact. But he does not say, or ignores the fact that, crime is down because of the increase in gun permits allowed by at least 35 states. As a newspaper columnist, he could have discovered this by reading John Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime.

I am writing to you to voice my opposition to Gov. Martin O'Malley's extremist gun bill ("O'Malley battling for gun controls," March 22). I oppose it in any and all forms. I was in Annapolis on Feb 6, March 1 and March 5, along with thousands of other lawful gun owners, to register and voice my opposition. There is no crisis of rifle violence in this state, only a crisis of fear driven by opportunistic legislators. The governor's claim that an overwhelming percentage of Marylanders support this bill is a lie. Over 1,300 people testified against this bill, and fewer than 40 were for it. Even a recent online poll in the left-leaning Sun showed that 95 percent of people thought that the AR-15 modern sporting rifle should be removed from the banned list.

Outside observers must wonder what goes on in our state legislature. On one hand, the majority restricts citizens' ability to defend themselves against multiple armed assailants, thus implying the executive branch's competence to protect us. On the other hand, the same majority eliminates capital punishment, thus implying the incompetence of the judicial branch to arrive at accurate verdicts. Perhaps now victims of multiple armed assailants can mount a class action lawsuit against the legislators who voted to give the advantage in firepower to criminals.

The recent mass shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin have produced the usual response to gun-control advocates: That this is not the "proper" time to discuss such a serious issue. But now is precisely the time to have that discussion, and for the President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, to show they can be the statesmen the country needs and deserves. The candidates should hold a joint news conference and announce that whoever wins the election will back legislation to stop the proliferation of military-grade weapons and accessories.

The politicians, pundits and public will debate until we're blue in the face about who is to blame for the tragedy in Tucson, Ariz., and like the political discourse of the past decade, there will be no winners. What is not debatable is the fact that if Jared Lee Loughner hadn't been able to purchase a Glock 19 semiautomatic handgun with four magazines capable of holding 33 rounds, there would be six fewer lives lost to handgun violence and 14 fewer injured. As long as our country allows lax laws governing the ownership of handguns, the American people must take collective responsibility for these deaths.

I am writing to share my perspective on the rush by President Barack Obama and Gov. Martin O'Malley to enact more gun control legislation ("Gun control at front of O'Malley's legislative list," Jan. 19). I feel that both are using the school shooting tragedies to further their political agendas. Background checks and gun show loopholes had nothing to do with the Sandy Hook, Conn., school shooting. The gun that was used was owned by the perpetrator's mother, and he killed her with it. The president and governor want to limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.

Responding to gun control loopholes that have proved vexing for police in Maryland and elsewhere, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings will introduce bipartisan legislation Tuesday to impose tougher penalties for people who traffic guns across state borders or buy them for someone else. The legislation, which has support from at least two Republican lawmakers, would make firearms trafficking a federal crime and would stiffen penalties for so-called straw purchases, in which people buy weapons - sometimes in large volume - for another person who would not clear a federal background check.