I read your recent editorial on gun violence and wondered why cities like Chicago and Washington were not mentioned ("Reducing gun deaths," Dec. 10).
These locales historically have had draconian gun laws, yet also high levels of gun violence. If the logic in the article was valid, these locations should be the safest in the country, but they are not.
The last section discussing the mental health restriction on gun ownership suggests it could prevent a tragedy like the one at Sandy Hook. But it failed to mentioned the weapon used was legally purchased by the shooter's mother and was stolen from her by him.
The editorial makes one wonder whether the writer was reporting a politically correct position instead of unbiased information.
Don't misunderstand me, I agree with the fingerprinting and the mental health exclusion. I believe anyone who has a Maryland handgun permit should have to qualify with the weapon before the permit is reissued.
I do have concerns about the license provision, however. You have to pass the background check before you get the license, so what is the point of the license?
If you fill out all the required forms, the information on the weapon's ownership is easily available to those who need it. Requiring a license appears to be redundant and simply another "tax" explained away as a fee.
John Laing, Baltimore
To respond to this letter, send an email to email@example.com. Please include your name and contact information.