ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Saccone dishonest on guns

| Thursday, March 8, 2018, 8:55 p.m.

In the recent televised debate with Democratic congressional candidate Conor Lamb, Republican Rick Saccone indicated he'd sponsored five pieces of legislation to reduce gun violence. Given what I know about Saccone's record (pro-Saccone PACs have praised him for wanting to eliminate the background check system and for protecting gun rights for people on the terrorist watch list), this sounded fishy. So I contacted his office for the names of the bills and looked them up.

Not one of these five bills would reduce gun violence. One makes it unnecessary to obtain a permit for concealed carry; one protects gun owners from discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodation (don't want a gun nut renting the apartment upstairs from your children? Tough luck); one exempts firearms and ammunition from sales tax; and another expands the permissible use of deadly force for self-defense. Only the last one increases penalties for gun use in criminal activity, but does nothing to address school shootings or gun proliferation.

I believe Saccone deliberately misled the debate audience, revealing a disturbing level of dishonesty — not to mention a far deeper commitment to his NRA funders than to American schoolchildren. This is not a person we want representing Western Pennsylvania in Washington.

Marie Norman

Squirrel Hill

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.

click me