Regarding The Post’s Aug. 11 special section “The Lives Lost”:
How can the hundreds of mothers and fathers who work at the shiny National Rifle Association building in Fairfax County look at the pictures of slaughtered children and still strive every day to put more weapons in the hands of dangerous people? The answer is tragic: They just look the other way.
Joseph David Jr., Leesburg
My one thought is we are killing ourselves. The enemies of United States do not have to do anything to destroy us; we are doing it for them.
Is this not a civil war? Perhaps different from the last one in cause but accomplishing the same thing: Americans killing Americans for a theory of a way of life that is really a fallacy. Even if we survive this war, all those who support it should think carefully about what is lost permanently and how long it will take to recover, if indeed we ever do.
Shame on us!
Ann Joseloff, Silver Spring
The Aug. 11 special section did little justice for all those who lost their lives to gun violence, whether in a single shooting or a mass shooting. All victims of shootings deserve front-page coverage. Seeing all of their faces, the carnage and loss, would be the most impactful way to show what these weapons have wrought.
Peter Myo Khin, Silver Spring
If The Post’s special section on domestic terrorism shootings in the United States doesn’t move you, what will? It contained the names and pictures of the 423 people who have been shot since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012.
Let’s be clear: Guns killed them. People in other countries play video games or suffer from mental illness. Only in this country, with its readily available guns, do these massacres occur, and all too frequently.
Judy Tinelli, Easton
I haven’t stopped laughing since reading Dana Milbank’s delightful piece on the National Rifle Association’s head honcho feeling threatened by guns, “The gun danger LaPierre cares about” [op-ed, Aug 11]. Instead of resisting all gun-control measures, as he has done all these years, NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre should address his sudden fear of being shot by applying the “originalist thinking” of our Founding Fathers to the weapons themselves. To better conform to what the drafters of the Second Amendment had in mind for the 18th-century militias, all “arms” manufactured for private use since 1775 should be turned in to the authorities, replaced by those that existed when the Second Amendment was written.
The gun companies could still profit, just not as much, by producing single-shot arms such as the Springfield and Kentucky rifles and other muskets, flintlocks or muzzleloaders. Mr. LaPierre and other human targets in malls, schools, churches and other public environs would be able to more safely flee while the shooter is forced to reload after each shot. We would all feel much safer, and the Second Amendment would be protected. A win for everyone.
J.A. Steiner, Rockville