Outrage over guns continues
Readers of the Los Angeles Times’ print edition probably noticed the absence of letters to the editor this week to make space available for the editorial board’s six-day series on homelessness. While there may have been no letters published in the paper, readers still shared their opinions — especially on gun control and the Feb. 14 mass shooting in Parkland, Fla.
As of this writing, nearly 300 letters on the shooting and related topics have been submitted this week, a number far greater than at similar points after past mass shootings. Two weeks after the October massacre in Las Vegas, for example, the weekly tally of letters on that topic had dipped to 102.
It’s safe to say that the efforts of the Florida students to hold the public’s attention on this issue are working — at least with Times letter writers.
— Paul Thornton, letters editor
Brian Dzyak of Northridge notes that nonlethal options are available for recreational shooters:
We should adhere to the actual intent of the 2nd Amendment and limit access to arms to people who are members of a “well regulated militia.”
As for recreational shooting, only Olympiclevel mental gymnastics would allow anyone to use the 2nd Amendment to justify owning guns for entertainment. Nerf makes many products that are designed for fun instead of killing. Nancy Kaufman of Newport Beach proposes a trade-off for gun owners:
My first suggestion would be to ban guns. My second would be to raise the purchase age to 50. Since those proposals won't fly, why not require any civilian who owns a gun to have liability insurance, as is required for car ownership? While insurance can’t cover intentional wrongful acts, it can cover gun negligence.
The insurance requirement would have the effect of putting the determination of who can possess a gun in the hands of insurance companies. They have expertise in assessing potential liability and denying coverage for excessive risk. Those who fail to qualify for insurance could have their guns confiscated.
Katie Gallagher of Chicago thinks the public needs to be shocked:
Why not cover gun violence as you would a foreign conflict — in graphic detail, sometimes with full-color photos of the injuries? This is morbid, but in the past it has been effective in exposing the public to the horrors it should understand to be made fully informed.
Think of how the public responded to horrifying images during the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War. Photos of 14-year-old Emmett Till’s mutilated body were published in 1955 with his mother’s blessing. Similarly, images from the 1968 My Lai massacre in Vietnam shocked the public.
After a mass shooting, perhaps members of the media should contact a victim’s family and request permission to publish images of the crime and its aftermath. It is easier to ignore atrocities and allow them to continue when you do not know the details of the impact.