ShareThis Page
Final straw in gun crime reports |

Final straw in gun crime reports

Letter To The Editor
| Thursday, December 17, 2015 8:55 p.m

The New York Times headline incorrectly said it all: “Weapons in San Bernardino shootings were legally obtained.” The media and lawmakers continue to perpetuate a narrative on mass shootings that is less than honest. The assault rifles used in the murders of innocent people were actually purchased through a straw party and then transferred to the killers. Is it a legal purchase, as alleged by The Times?

In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that straw purchases of guns were illegal.

A straw purchase occurs when a citizen purchases a gun legally and then transfers the weapon to a third party illegally.

While President Obama continues to lobby for “common sense” gun reform, the problem with straw purchases is never discussed. If you look at many of the shootings over the years, there is a pattern of straw purchases without any honest reporting by much of the media.

The question is what law could prevent a mass shooting if the gun ends up in the hands of a third party illegally? Arresting the straw purchaser will not prevent or deter these heinous crimes. The media are continuing to perpetuate a lie when they report “legal” gun purchases to support their anti-gun narrative.

Of course, some lawmakers may simply dismiss straw purchases with the usual “what difference does it make?”

Mike Suley

Mt. Lebanon

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.