Regarding the Aug. 6 front-page article “Shooter kills six at Sikh temple”:
Whence the gun?
When are you going to focus on what’s important but often ignored in such stories? We will all have, once again tragically, this hand-wringing debate about what this latest person had: Hatred? Disaffection? Alcoholism? Troubled relationships? Job issues? Racist attitudes? As we wring our hands, let’s agree on one thing he had: a gun.
Maybe our wonderful politicians are cowards. What about The Post? How fearful are you of the National Rifle Association?
Why not a Gun of the Week feature, in which you report on one gun death, tracing all the details of that gun: who designed it; what materials were used and where they came from; who manufactured the gun; how it was shipped; how it was displayed; who advertised it; who sold it; and oh, how much flesh and bone and blood and brain a bullet from its muzzle would displace.
There is an ongoing story here. Does The Post care?
Tom Martella, Washington
●
Because of The Post’s editorial position on control of so-called assault weapons, one of the shibboleths widely used in gun-control propaganda, I always reserve a healthy amount of skepticism when I read a news report in The Post concerning a shooting.
The front-page story [“Shooter kills six at Sikh temple,” Aug. 6] on the senseless tragedy in Oak Creek, Wis., contained seemingly contradictory information about the weapon used by the gunman. Reporters Jerry Markon and Michael Laris wrote that the gunman entered the temple and “sprayed automatic-weapon fire,” according to police. But three paragraphs later they said “a semi-automatic pistol was recovered at the scene,” according to “officials.”
While it is possible both statements are true, I suspect that’s not what happened here. Does The Post know the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic weapon? Because, as Markon and Laris informed us, the nation is still “reeling” from the mass shooting two weeks ago in Aurora, Colo. It is important that The Post gets its facts straight and clarifies any seeming contradictions in its reporting lest its reeling readership suffer further vertiginous confusion.
Daniel F. Van Gundy, Dumfries
●
In your coverage of the rampage at a Wisconsin Sikh temple, I do not see much, if any, mention of the gun-control debate. Of course, everyone continues to dance around the topic, including our two main presidential candidates (though, I don’t know, maybe an op-ed piece wouldn’t hurt). I don’t know if the silence is worse than the “let’s put politics aside and mourn together” bit of just a couple of weeks ago following the shooting in Aurora, Colo.
Will Hatheway, Fairfax
Loading...
Comments