Letters to the Editor — April 9, 2021


The Issue: Matthew Walther’s argument that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect all gun ownership.

You would think that proponents of “common sense” gun laws would develop ideas that enhance what we all want — public safety (“Out of Ammo,” Matthew Walther, Post­Opinion, April 7).

However, as shown by Matthew Walther, that’s seldom the case.

What about tough sentencing for criminal misuse of firearms, irresponsible gun handling or negligent gun storage in the presence of unruly minors?

Do we ever hear an outcry from the gun-control crowd over the revolving-door justice in gun crime? Never.

All they talk about is guns and how to deny them to the millions of law-abiding Americans.

Ron Wasserman
Freehold, NJ

I disagree wholeheartedly with Walther about gun control. His missive reads like a brochure praising ever-more government control.

Responsible gun owners are not to blame for the reckless and heartbreaking surge in gun crime plaguing this country.

Would he suggest, nay demand, that all cars be taken away as punishment for impaired drivers who get behind the wheel?

The answer to this problem should be clear: increased police presence to protect and serve constituents.

N. Albanese
New Rochelle

Thank you for Walther’s column, “Out Of Ammo.”

But of what utility are stringent gun laws when the police have been defunded, bail has been “reformed” to virtual non-existence and “prosecutors” refuse to charge criminals and keep them away from the innocent?

It is amusingly ironic that Walther shares the same name as a famous German firearms manufacturer.

James E. Evans
Worcester, Mass.

In response to Walther’s column: I do not believe that the Second Amendment was merely intended to arm a militia.

Sure, many countries do not allow civilians to own firearms. But we, as American citizens, have a right to firearms for protection.

This protection is not limited to everyday crime, but includes protection from an all-powerful government.

Steve Preziosa
Deptford, NJ

Walther begins by referring to “sensible restrictions on firearm ownership” — without, as is typical of those arguing for greater limits, proposing specific changes to current law (which, by the way, he falsely characterizes as permitting “unrestricted gun ownership”).

Also, crucially, he fails to cite any data relating crime levels and firearms laws — because studies have shown there is no correlation.

In fact, the dramatic decline in crime rates in the United States, from the 1990s until recently, has been accompanied by a greater than 50 percent increase in private firearms ownership.

Ironically, in the same day’s Post, Michael Goodwin cites soaring crime rates, which have occurred without any change in gun laws, as leading to a New York City “death spiral.”

Changes in bail laws, non-enforcement of “minor crime” laws, defunding and disparagement of police and accommodation of “mostly peaceful protests” are the causes.

David Fischer

I’m on board with better background checks and the banning of guns capable of mass murder within one minute.

But true gun control must consider draconian sentences for possession. A model for this is the United Kingdom, where one can receive from five to 15 years for mere possession of an illegal firearm.

You have to make people think twice before carrying an illegal handgun. Nothing else has seems to work.

Phil Serpico


Want to weigh in on today’s stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to [email protected]. Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy and style.

View original post