The Star tries to come off as “reasonable” for the push for more gun control. The Star says laws must protect the rights of those legally able to have guns — yet never does The Star give any idea how or where such a law is currently on the books.

The Star pointedly gives the impression that guns were the only thing used in the recent Santa Barbara, Calif., killings, yet a knife was also used. This is a smoke-and-mirror technique to get any rational person on the side of “reasonable gun laws.”

Now the question is, how has any law prevented any of these cases from happening? Until this is answered, more useless, ineffective laws are pointless. I have never seen The Star be “reasonable” about guns. Indeed,it is hypocritical in that publisher H. Brandt Ayers wrote in one of his books about “grabbing” his gun on the way to the demonstrations about civil rights. The Star has not shown itself to be a friend of the Second Amendment. Compared to the number of reported shootings, how many times has The Star published stories about justified shootings or the fact that since the Clinton ban expired and gun purchases increased, gun violence nationally has gone down.

The law should be to punish the misuse of guns, not just the possession of them. And if The Star is really serious about saving lives, then why does it not write more about the millions who die from drugs each year? Or what of the “non-dangerous” wading polls in which 3,600 people die each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention?

Just wondering. Whose side is The Star on?

David Duncan