Published: Wednesday, Sept. 18, 2013, 9:01 p.m.
Regarding the news story “Drive focuses on kids, gun violence” (Aug. 29 and TribLIVE.com): It's not political — we just want to scare you.
The Center to Prevent Youth Violence (CPYV) advises parents to ask about guns in the home and to assume their children will have access to and play with guns if a home has them.
As close as the CPYV gets to gun safety is to mimic the NRA's rules about safe gun storage — no mention of teaching kids a practical safety message like NRA's “Eddie Eagle” program.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, drowning kills 730 children per year, gunshots about half as many — 370 children. The CPYV says thousands of children die by guns each year, citing weak references.
Asking parents about guns in the home is not about improving safety; it's about shaming them for practicing a legal American birthright.
The story quoted a Brookline resident who sounds as if he assumes all gun owners are irresponsible. I hope he read the obituary for Ray C. Soergel, 81, of Cooperstown that ran during the same week as the news story — he was an NRA member whose role-model life would be considered unfit by the standards promoted by the CPYV.
The CPYV's ASK (Asking Saves Kids) program attempts to separate gun owners from the general public. The goal is to change the culture, to weaken public acceptance of the Second Amendment, funded locally by the Pittsburgh Foundation and the Falk Foundation.
The writer is a National Rifle Association pistol instructor and range safety officer, a Pennsylvania hunter/trapper education instructor and an Allegheny County Rifle Club and Logans Ferry Sportsmens Club member.
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.
- The Constitution & Ten Commandments
- Decision dubious
- Taxable minimum wage
- Ethanol & factory farming
- ObamaCare & ‘agitprop’
- Deer not the problem I
- Deer not the problem II
- Remember the animals