Anti-gun advocates have the media
I was surprised to see letter writer Lee Drutman of Washington, D.C. (“Gun laws: Follow the money,” Dec. 20) is a regular reader of the Valley News Dispatch. While his facts are reasonably accurate, they are misleading.
His statement ”While the NRA boasts a grass roots advocacy list of millions of voters — and the resources to mobilize these voters at the slightest threat of gun control — anti-gun advocates have nothing that comes close” is pure baloney.
Watch the TV network news and talking heads. Read the articles in various newspapers and magazines. Listen to which politicians get airtime and print exposure. Listen to the news anchors who believe more firearms legislation will make the problem go away.
Mr. Drutman calls this an “imbalance of resources.” The anti-gun news coverage is worth far more than any pro-Second Amendment organization spends.
How many mass shootings have been thwarted because there was an armed presence? Who knows? The media barely mention them.
Starting in the late 1960s, a “guns are the problem” mentality arose. The 1994 assault rifle ban had no effect on crime. The lapse of the assault rifle ban in 2004 had no impact on crime.
Perhaps if there had been an armed presence at the elementary school in Newtown, few, or none, would have died.
Michael A. McGinnis
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Seek ‘post-combustion future’
- View from Florida
- Hazardous ride
- Terrorism & immigration
- AG’s office no place for porn
- Follow King’s words
- Rethink NFL fandom
- More simply put
- Finally, like Bush
- Don’t forget Highmark patients
- Hope for spinal cord injuries