Recently you published an editorial titled "Alter the concealed weapons law" and one titled "Outlaw cop-killer bullets-now." It continues to surprise me that an organization that is supposed to report news in an independent and objective manner continues to make poorly founded emotional arguments. Furthermore, when citizens such as myself make comments by writing to the editor, you require that we put our name and our address so that you can publish it. It is interesting to note that your editors can publish information without having to subject themselves to the phone calls and comments that follow after any person writes to the editor.
Particularly, I am disappointed in your article that suggests that hundreds of criminals in Florida commit crimes while receiving their concealed weapons permits. How can you make such comments without making any attempt to publish the specific data to allow others to understand how you reached your conclusion? Moreover, the article indicates that four out of five cities cited experienced an increase in gun homicides. Which study was this, which cities, how were the results tabulated?In the second article you suggest that it is "utter nonsense" to oppose a bullet ban on the grounds that the ban could be expanded to include legitimate hunting ammunition. In making your suggestion you display a totally uninformed view of the issues at hand. Gun control advocates like to talk about duck and deer hunting, but the real issue is the right to keep and bear arms. Gun control groups such as Hand Gun Control Inc. and politicians like Rep. Charles Schumer do not want to ban certain bullets, they want to ban all private ownership of firearms.
Kenneth E. Bement