Mayors & guns
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Friday, Nov. 29, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
Mayors Against Illegal Guns is a bipartisan coalition that includes more than 200 Pennsylvania mayors in 55 counties — all of whom recognize that support for the Second Amendment goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns away from criminals.
Salena Zito's column “Defending their way of life” (Nov. 17 and TribLIVE.com) misrepresents our coalition's aims and ignores our successes.
Ms. Zito singled out a borough 160 miles away to argue that gun-violence prevention is bad politics. Had she looked at the results of elections in other communities, she might have learned that Pennsylvania members of Mayors Against Illegal Guns won more than 95 percent of our elections on Nov. 5. Had she included a comment from the mayor she unfairly targeted, he might have pointed out that violent crime in Chambersburg is down 21 percent since his first year in office, according to Pennsylvania Uniform Crime Reporting System.
We support the right to own guns for hunting and protection in the home. Many of us hunt or keep guns at home ourselves. We also agree with the 88 percent of Pennsylvanians who believe background checks are a sensible way to enforce our laws. Common sense doesn't always win out, but by and large, our mayors had a good election cycle.
The writer is Castle Shannon's mayor and a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
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.
- Tragedy sensationalized
- Valley musical superb
- Consequences in space
- Cover many stances
- In tragedy’s wake I