Opinion

Steps We Can Take to Reduce Gun Violence

More from our inbox:

  • Reacting to the Verdict in the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard Trial
  • Appalled by a Supreme Court Ruling
  • Find a Diplomatic Solution to the Russia-Ukraine War

“The fact that the majority of the Senate Republicans don’t want any of these proposals, even to be debated or come up for a vote, I find unconscionable,” President Biden said on Thursday. “We can’t fail the American people again.”Credit…Doug Mills/The New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “‘Enough,’ Biden Asserts, Demanding Law to Ban Assault-Style Weapons” (front page, June 3):

President Biden must be congratulated for stating in public what far too many political leaders are afraid to even whisper in private. There is no rational basis for untrained civilians being in possession of a weapon designed for use on a battlefield.

Assault rifles are a form of weapon of mass destruction. With high-capacity bullet clips and rapid-fire mechanisms, these devices are intended for one purpose: to kill or maim as large a number of human targets as possible in as short a time as possible.

Members of Congress, particularly Republican members, must abandon their fealty to the gun lobby and come to the realization that their prime duty is to protect the people of America from all violence, foreign or domestic.

Dan Donovan
Brooklyn

To the Editor:

Even in his distress and anger President Biden is too nice. May I suggest an alternate speech:

“My fellow Americans: With all the problems in the world, we have a very serious, self-imposed one at home: gun use that’s out of control. The Senate has continued, and will continue, to block all attempts to rectify this problem.

“If you want to go shopping, go to the doctor or go to your place of worship without fear of being killed, and if you want to see your child or grandchild go to school without fear of being killed, the only solution is to get the Senate to pass gun control bills. And it appears that the only way to get the Senate to support the will of the people is to vote the Republican senators out of office this fall.

“The safety of this country is in your hands.”

Kevin Silson
Charlottesville, Va.

To the Editor:

Re “These Gun Reforms Could Save Lives. We Can Achieve Them,” by Nicholas Kristof (Opinion guest essay, May 29):

Mr. Kristof lists myriad gun safety measures that could save lives but leaves out one promising idea: Take steps to ensure that “smart guns,” which can be fired only by their lawful purchaser, become a major part of the gun market.

According to a 2019 Justice Department survey, only 10 percent of guns used in crimes were lawfully purchased from a retailer by the criminal. The rest were obtained through the black market, relatives, etc. And of course many teenagers die by suicide with their parents’ guns. Smart guns would make a big difference.

The technology exists to make smart guns, but U.S. gun manufacturers have been cowed by resistance from the N.R.A. because it fears a smart-gun mandate. Polls show that many people would prefer to buy smart guns, and a number of Midwestern mayors have said they would buy smart guns, if available, for their police forces. If other law enforcement agencies, including the F.B.I., followed suit, there would be a guaranteed market for smart guns, and manufacturers would start making them.

Steve Novick
Portland, Ore.

To the Editor:

Nicholas Kristof offers sensible proposals to reduce gun violence. I would add this: Require that anyone who wants to own a gun must first pass a gun safety course. Not even the N.R.A. should object. After all, teaching gun safety has been one of its missions.

Thornton Jordan
Columbus, Ga.

To the Editor:

Nicholas Kristof is correct. Thoughtful restrictions can and do save lives.

The Uvalde gunman didn’t kill 19 students and two teachers at Robb Elementary School when he was 17 years 11½ months old. Texas law prohibited anyone under 18 from purchasing rifles. After turning 18, he purchased two assault rifles and a large quantity of ammunition and carried out his plan.

If Texas had adopted Florida’s age restriction of 21, arguably the Texas tragedy would not have occurred.

Gary Mullins
Surrey, British Columbia
The writer is a former deputy minister of advanced education for British Columbia.

To the Editor:

Military-style semiautomatic assault weapons were specifically designed to kill as many people in as short a time as possible. That is their only use. Why then do we continue to allow them to be manufactured and sold to the general public? Only by outlawing their manufacture and sale will we prevent massacres like those in this country from happening again and again.

Jane F. Thornton
Queens

To the Editor:

Perhaps now is the time for all patriotic Americans who own assault weapons to donate them to Ukrainian soldiers.

Sebby Wilson Jacobson
Rochester, N.Y.

Reacting to the Verdict in the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard Trial

Credit…Illustration by The New York Times; photographs from left by Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images and Jim Watson/Getty Images

To the Editor:

Re “The Heard Verdict Was a Travesty,” by Michelle Goldberg (column, June 3):

The jury’s verdict in the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial is not a travesty. Men lie. Women lie. The jury listened to six weeks of evidence and did not believe Ms. Heard and concluded that she made horrible, false claims maliciously to damage Mr. Depp’s image and attempt to bolster hers.

I did not see all of the testimony or hear all of the evidence, but after listening to a lot of it, and especially Ms. Heard’s cross-examination, I can easily understand why they did not believe her. I don’t believe her.

That doesn’t mean that other claimants will be disbelieved automatically. They will be judged based on the testimony they give and the evidence they introduce. That is the way the justice system works, as it should. No person should be believed merely because they make allegations of abuse. They need to prove those allegations to a jury.

Edna Ayliffe Latchem
Baton Rouge, La.

To the Editor:

Re “Heard Defamed Depp in Abuse Claim, Jury Finds” (front page, June 3):

While I’m sure that the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial was compelling in many ways, speaking as a citizen who is gravely worried about current domestic and foreign events, I’d question the assertion that the trial “transfixed the nation.”

I’d hope that our national focus has recently been elsewhere: Buffalo, Uvalde, Tulsa. Washington. Ukraine. Then, maybe I’m wrong and The Times is right, which would go a long way toward explaining our seeming chronic inability to right this damned ship.

Peter Richmond
Millerton, N.Y.

To the Editor:

Now that the curtain has fallen on the Heard-Depp trial, the only thing the verdict really tells us is who is the better actor.

Tom Dey
Beverly Hills, Calif.
The writer is a film director.

Appalled by a Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court vote was split along ideological lines.Credit…Kenny Holston for The New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “Justices Cut Challenges on Counsel” (news article, May 24):

As an attorney who represented a defendant who endured 22 years on death row before a federal court issued a writ of habeas corpus to overturn his sentence, I am appalled by the Supreme Court’s latest assault on the Great Writ.

Habeas corpus is the centerpiece of the Constitution’s protection of the rights of those accused of crimes. Yet conservative justices, ignoring their supposed fidelity to the Constitution, have repeatedly invented legal doctrines to whittle away and negate habeas corpus.

In their latest attack, the court’s right-wing majority decided that prisoners who may have been erroneously convicted or wrongfully sentenced to death — because their lawyers failed to do their jobs — will not be allowed to present evidence to a federal court to show that their constitutional right to competent counsel was violated.

Once again, the Supreme Court’s commitment to the G.O.P.’s “tough on crime” political agenda overrides simple fairness as well as basic constitutional rights.

Mitchell Zimmerman
Palo Alto, Calif.

Find a Diplomatic Solution to the Russia-Ukraine War

To the Editor:

The United States should not give in to those calling for weakening Russia by going beyond helping Ukraine defend itself. Instead, the United States should focus equally hard on finding a diplomatic solution and continue to show the restraint and control needed in what is an extremely volatile conflict that could easily erupt into something far worse.

In spite of the provocation, I’m sure President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine would agree that peace with Russia is possible and should remain the primary goal.

Tom Miller
Oakland, Calif.

Related Articles

Back to top button