Two letter writers on June 16 made statements I disagree with [“After massacre, discussion of guns”].

One points the blame for the Orlando shootings at the National Rifle Association, suggesting that without the guns used, the killer would not have had so many victims. I ask, how many victims fell to Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh? There are weapons besides guns that kill many people.

A good person with a gun was able to prevent further violence in Ogden, Utah, in 2007; in a Philadelphia barber shop in 2015; and in a hospital near Philadelphia in 2014. I could go on, but you get the point.

Another writer claims more people with guns would make the country more dangerous. As of 2015, there were more than 12.8 million concealed-carry permit holders in the country, growing from 4.6 million in 2007. If these people were all dangerous, we’d know by now.

John Ryan, North Bellmore

 

Every time I hear a discussion of the constitutional right to bear arms, I wonder why people fail to put it into a meaningful perspective [“Make this gun very hard to buy,” Editorial, June 19]. What did our Founding Fathers mean? Did “arms” refer to assault rifles and nuclear weapons, which didn’t exist at that time?

advertisement | advertise on newsday

No, it’s not possible that that was the intention. The drafters of the Second Amendment were thinking of the muskets and rudimentary handguns of the time. Even if for the sake of argument we disregard the part about a well-regulated militia, what was meant?

It’s a very tenuous assumption, at best, that we have an unlimited right to bear arms. Why can’t I buy anti-aircraft guns, tactical nuclear weapons and a host of other armaments that didn’t exist, probably even in the imaginations of those who adopted the Second Amendment?

The advanced weaponry of today is not covered by the Second Amendment. To advance that argument is simply dishonest.

John M. Stravato, Bethpage

 

Sign up for The Point

Go inside New York politics.

While the nation mourns the senseless massacre in Orlando, one has to recognize the common thread in the mass shootings in America: The perpetrators had access to high-power rifles.

The cache of rifles, bomb-making instructions and neo-Nazi paraphernalia found during a search of a home shared by two brothers speaks volumes about the availability of weapons of obliteration [“Bomb guide, neo-Nazi items in Mt. Sinai,” News, June 17].

Due credit goes to the Suffolk County Police Department for having possibly pre-empted a shooting tragedy like Orlando.

Unless we demand immediate action from Congress to legislate commonsense gun control consistently throughout America, I’m afraid that shooting sprees will continue.

Atul M. Karnik, Woodside

advertisement | advertise on newsday

 

Because the creation of laws to regulate the ownership of guns seems to be a bridge to nowhere, maybe we should consider a new approach to retail gun sales [“Senate blocks 4 gun measures,” News, June 21].

I propose that we take the profit out of the distribution system of large-capacity guns. Because the police ultimately have to deal with these weapons on the streets, perhaps we can have police stations act as the final transfer points. They could register the guns and perform mental evaluations, having access to any information that might affect a person’s ability to responsibly own a weapon.

Additionally, the transfer of weapons in the secondary market would need to be made through the police department, helping to ensure that they wouldn’t fall into nefarious hands.

Kerry Drinkwater, Greenport

advertisement | advertise on newsday

 

Some blame the National Rifle Association for the Orlando shootings, which is not only insane, it’s dangerous [“After massacre, discussion of guns,” Letters, June 16].

Chicago has among the strictest gun laws in the country, and the city has on average a gunshot victim every three hours and a gunshot homicide each day.

You can ban all the assault weapons you want; if a criminal or some maniac wants one, he or she will get it.

To lose focus of the true threat, which is radical Islam, could be a fatal mistake for this country.

Thomas Higgins, Massapequa