Speak Out: Judging unintended lethality
by our readers
Jul 10, 2013 | 1634 views |  0 comments | 36 36 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Re “Rawlings baseballs and Ruger guns” (Phillip Tutor column, July 5):

By reading Star Commentary Editor Phillip Tutor’s column about the Huntsville gun giveaway and the re-enforcing of The Star’s anti-gun agenda, I’m taken with the consistency of The Star’s position.

Oh, not really. Why is it that Star Publisher H. Brandt Ayers bragged of carrying his gun once during the civil rights era? It seems to push the thought of some that liberal progressives only want civil rights for themselves as many of the mouths of the anti-gun crowd are guarded by armed security.

Why are their lives so much more important than, say, yours, to the point of denying you the ability of defending yourself? Guns are used more than 7,000 times daily the right way; why doesn’t The Star ever report on this?

Gun violence, according to the FBI, is going down and media like The Star have to keep the pot stirred for fodder for its most irrational position of disarming those who are supposed to survive in violent armed conflicts with criminals.

You judge items by the lethality, not the intended purpose — cars and wading pools come to mind as examples of unintentionally lethal items. Where are The Star’s editorials of warnings or preaching against these?

David Duncan
Comments must be made through Facebook
No personal attacks
No name-calling
No offensive language
Comments must stay on topic
No infringement of copyrighted material

Friends to Follow

Most Recommended
Today's Events

event calendar

post a new event

Wednesday, April 23, 2014