Gun control debate

Dear Editor,

In reply to Mr. Buonocore(‘s recent letter to the editor): As I interpreted (the) letter about the lack of gun laws, I saw nothing rhetorical about what (he) implied. It read like we live in the wild west in anarchy with no rules, which is untrue. I pointed out a plethora of laws. Both the NRA and I would like to see crimes that include guns adjudicated to the maximum punishment of the criminal code.

In rebuttal of (his) implying a law was blocked that would prevent the sale of firearms to some seriously mentally ill by the GOP in February, the liberal ACLU agreed with the NRA it was a bad bill. The bill would affect 75,000 people on Social Security. The object was to report those who needed help with their finances as mentally unstable. The ACLU said, “We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent.” It was opposed by the NRA because it eliminated the right to due process. These valid reasons are vastly different than (his) portrayal of the defeat of the bill.

To (his) credit, the silencer bill was dropped several weeks before (his) 11/13 editorial. House Speaker Paul Ryan on October 3, 2017 said the NRA-backed bill to ease regulations on gun silencers is shelved indefinitely.

There is no gun show or buy-over-the-internet loophole. That rhetoric is repeated ad nauseum and is just not true. Should this exist without my knowledge, please, point it out specifically. I would be glad to discuss it.


Daniel Reiff,