Trump was shot. Why didn't that spark a debate about gun control?


To the editor: It is important that we know the motive of the shooter in the attempted assassination of the former president at the political rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, last month. One person was killed and many more could have perished at the hands of the gunman. (“Gunman in Trump assassination attempt also searched online for Biden events, FBI official says,” August 28)

But it is surprising and frustrating that this tragedy has not led to any meaningful debate about legislative measures to curb the proliferation of AR-15-type weapons. Few have spoken of the need for reasonable measures, such as banning assault weapons or even red flag laws.

This issue is divisive. None of these measures would have made a difference in this particular case. I understand that.

But when will we have the awareness and will to do something to limit the availability and ubiquity of these weapons of war among the civilian population? Why should we accept that assault rifles are routinely used in mass shootings?

America's reputation around the world is being tarnished by the recklessness and inhumanity of these shootings. If we don't do something now, when will we do it?

Mark Carrie, Laguna Niguel

scroll to top