You can read and comment on editor Mark Schultz’s Facebook page, where he posts link to the day’s top stories.
A post with this line from an early report on the Las Vegas massacre – “There were a number of long rifles in the room, at least 8 guns, according to Las Vegas undersheriff Kevin McMahill” – elicited many comments, including:
Chris Weaver: Are you trying to suggest something by the number of weapons that he had in possession? How is that even relevant? When a person is decides to commit a crime the rest of that stuff is moot. Many of my friends on the left woke up this morning and started trying to politicize this event. Unbelievably distasteful.
Richard H. Khoragos suspects the “suggestion” is that someone who brings (at least) eight guns to a 32nd-floor hotel room is not planning a quiet weekend. Why on earth would the fact be irrelevant?
Katrina Ryan: The more ardently you demand the right to posses what amounts to a machine gun, the less likely it is that you are fit to own one. If you need one for ANY legal purpose, you’re likely a pretty [lousy] marksman, and if you think that you are part of a “well armed militia” you’re likely paranoid to the point of being a little unstable. That said, the verbiage in the second amendment is fairly clear and the Supreme Court has ruled that it includes personal weapons. However, there is NO basis at all for their being no personal liability for being an irresponsible gun owner. Fire arms should be required to be licensed and insured, like your dog, or your car, or your house. A gun owner who does not report a weapon stolen should be at least partially financially liable for crimes committed with the weapon, just like if you left your car with the keys in it and your teenage neighbor stole it and ran over someone. Bullets should have a serial number on them, and you should have to show an ID and sign for them when you purchase them, like Sudafed.
Terri Buckner: This morning’s N&O quotes N.C. Rep Mark Meadows as saying “I don’t know that more laws are going to fix a problem. ... It appears that mental illness and perhaps other reasons that we don’t even know right now created a very tragic and horrific act … Does it prompt a gun control debate? I don’t think so.” And yet, those who most ardently support everything gun-related have lessened or eliminated the barriers preventing those with mental illness to obtain guns legally. They’ve gutted mental health funding at both the federal and the state levels. They’ve worked hard to prevent people from getting necessary health care even in the face of the fact that physical illness can lead to mental illness. And they’ve perpetuated wars and military actions around the world without properly funding veterans’ health. Every elected official who has voted against mental and physical health care spending is responsible for every one of these mass murders.