Westwood Horizon

Gun Rights Activists are not Heartless People

Letter to the Editor

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






The recent article Jacksonville Shooting Emboldens Urgency For Gun Control by Bernice Chen is deeply offensive. It portrays gun rights advocates and NRA members as heartless people who don’t care about shooting victims. Instead of presenting tangible solutions to such mass shootings, the article repeatedly slams the opposition as greedy NRA members, disconnected politicians, and dark manipulators. It makes it seem as if everyone who supports guns rights is an evil bitter clinger and accuses the opposition to gun control of “cutting off the vital dialogue to creating change.” Seriously? Does anyone think that gun rights advocates don’t want change? This article continuously promotes the idea that the only way to be compassionate and to show that you care for the shooting victims is if you support gun control legislation.

Then, this article suggests that Americans are getting desensitized to mass shootings and that “voters will care less and less” because the frequency of mass shootings is rising. Not only is that wrong, NPR, but it assumes that Americans no longer care about mass shootings.

The article also repeatedly insists that it “remains that gun control is necessary” and that “if we want to lessen the rate of firearm-related massacres across the country, then politicians and citizens, whether Democratic or Republican, need to pull together, focus on gun control, and encourage legislation.” But it never specifies as to what it means by “gun control” and how effective it will be. Instead, the article spends all of [its] paragraphs smacking the opposition and the NRA.

Gun rights advocates are accused of yelling “distractions, conspiracies, whataboutisms, and empty promises to drown out the opposition.” C’mon. When is the last time you’ve seen a serious pro-firearms person on a major news outlet other than Fox? Are the 2nd amendment advocates really the ones who want to drown out opposition? The [number] of people in the media who want gun control legislation far outnumber those who don’t.

No one wants innocent people to die. But this article essentially says that the NRA fights for the 2nd amendment because they’re in it for the money, “contributions, revenue, and membership go through the roof, so they continue to respond to each tragedy and lobby for legislation protecting gun use.” That’s absolutely bogus. It is the author of this article who is standing on the graves of dead children to promote a political agenda and scapegoat the NRA.

Click here to submit your own letter to the editor.

4 Comments

4 Responses to “Gun Rights Activists are not Heartless People”

  1. Lanie Catuogno on September 10th, 2018 4:07 pm

    Mr. Chen,
    I notice that you do not offer any explanation for your position. You suggest that gun rights advocates “want change,” but of what kind? Apparently not anything you wish to call “gun control.” You say that the writer’s assessment of the NRA’s motivation is “absolutely bogus,” but you don’t offer any evidence.

  2. Daniel Chen on September 12th, 2018 3:22 pm

    I don’t think it is necessary to outline my position. My letter was in response to the author’s dismissal of the other side by impugning their motives rather than discussing what change should be made. Gun control is generally any law limiting who can have access to what kind of firearm. There are certainly credible arguments FOR more gun control, but the article didn’t talk about the arguments so much as attacking the NRA and gun right’s activists’ motives. As for the “absolutely bogus” assessment, I think it is ridiculous to assume that anyone takes joy in allowing people to get shot. I might have taken too harsh of a tone in my letter, but I’m trying to emphasize how the article is discouraging the necessary discussion about the future of guns rather than encouraging. If a side labels its opposition murderers, then a discussion is hard to have.

  3. Shuling Wang on September 15th, 2018 7:10 pm

    Dear Mr. Chen,

    I understand where you are coming from and I agree that your voice should be heard since to truly understand this topic, we must have arguments and ideas of both sides, but this article was more of just attacking an article. To strengthen your claim even more, I would suggest writing an article of the opposite view of the article you responded to and give a strong argument.

    Thank You for being involved!!1!1!!!!!!1!!!1!!!!!1!!!!!!11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!111

  4. Daniel Chen on September 17th, 2018 4:44 pm

    Thank you for your understanding. However, my letter was only in response to the attack the article made on the motives of the opposition. It was not intended to represent the gun rights’ arguments. Gun control and gun rights are not my forte and so I probably won’t submit a letter about my position. I might consider submitting letters about other subjects in the future though. Thanks.

If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a gravatar.