Baltimore Sun’s BEST party in 2 weeks

How would The Sun's Second Amendment haters feel about some First Amendment restrictions?

While your editorial bias is well known, couching your editorial, “The gun laws we need” (May 29) as “sensible” is over the top. I agree that the level of U.S. gun violence is not inevitable, but your recipe for legislation and action on the federal level will not make any real difference to gun violence other than to further infringe on my rights.

The First Amendment to the Constitution provides that Congress shall not abridge the right of the people’s “freedom of speech, or of the press,” which entitles you to make money exploiting these tragic events. But maybe the same scrutiny that is being applied to infringe on the Second Amendment ought to be applied to the First Amendment, like make it illegal for the press to humanize shooters, or illegal to glorify certain types of firearms, or illegal to give the shooters the publicity they seek with their nefarious acts, or illegal to blame everyone else but the shooter, etc.

Except for your second point, effective background checks, and sixth point, secure storage, each of your other listed points (universal background checks, handgun licensing, assault weapons ban, limits on magazine size and federal funding for gun research) would have no effect on reducing either mass shootings or handgun homicides (the two bogeymen of gun violence). Despite the anti-gun manipulation of data, firearms (33,000 U.S. deaths per year with over 400 million firearms in private ownership) are much less of a threat to humanity than automobiles (35,000 U.S. deaths per year with only 280 million vehicles in private ownership.)

Phillip W. Worrall, Baltimore

Send letters to the editor to talkback@baltimoresun.com. Please include your name and contact information.

Copyright © 2019, The Baltimore Sun, a Baltimore Sun Media Group publication | Place an Ad
66°