Readers React: Why both sides of the gun debate mistrust eachother

To the editor: Ken White brings a balanced viewpoint. The polarized, broadside-style discussion regarding guns has evolved over the past few decades, and it has not been created in a vacuum. On each side there are groups that benefit from avoiding rational discussion, just as there are others who gravitate to extreme viewpoints. (“‘Culture bundling’ and other obstacles to a real gun control debate,” Opinion, Dec. 11)

I am a lifelong hunter, yet I see no logic in arming a civilian with military-style weapons. And as White notes, terminology is critical. When the ignorant advocate restrictions that go beyond military-style weapons without realizing that they have done so, they fuel both disrespect and suspicion. When imprecise terms like “military-style” are used next to cultural buzzwords, the situation is analogous to gasoline poured on a fire.

We will never address guns in a meaningful way unless we separate the gun issue from cultural warfare.

Mike Gallagher, La Habra Heights

..

To the editor: To White makes some solid points about the gun-control debate. However, his allegory of a discussion about restricting pit bulls falls short of reality. Pit bull owners do not have a right to own those dogs.

White says we don’t know where these rights come from. As an attorney, he ought to realize that the right to keep and bear arms is granted by the highest law of the land, our very own Constitution of the United States.

Other than that, White’s valid assertion that neither side of the debate really understands the other hits the bull’s-eye.

David Wilson, Gardena

..

To the editor: Though White makes some good points, I wasn’t standing on the steps of L.A. City Hall with Moms Demand Action on Saturday morning for recreation, though I like a good political argument as much as the next person.

I was there because when I was a teenager assassinations became common; because after college my best friend was held up at the bank she managed three times by armed robbers; because a boy I grew up with killed himself with his father’s rifle; because my husband works at a university that’s been threatened with attack; because my daughter teaches at a public university in Texas where next fall students can carry guns to class; and because my daughter was also a few hundred yards from the shootings in Isla Vista.

I’m not imagining that I’ll ever need to defend myself from my government or shoot a home invader, but I am worried that soon I’ll have to worry that, in the eyes of many, I’ll deserve to be the victim of a gunman because I am not one myself.

Pleading for sanity in our society is hardly fun at this point; it is an obligation.

Norah McMeeking, Santa Barbara

..

To the editor: White speaks of “productive conversation” in the debate over gun control. What some fail to understand is that many of us who support gun rights view gun control with the same disdain as female circumcision. Thus, we will not even discuss compromising our rights.

This includes (especially) national gun registration, disguised as background checks. Such a requirement can facilitate wholesale gun confiscation at the whim of any renegade official.

The meaning of the 2nd Amendment is crystal clear. Patrick Henry said it best: “Unless a miracle in human affairs interposed, no nation ever retained its liberty after the loss of the sword and the purse.”

Lloyd Forrester, Simi Valley

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook