Regarding Bill Richardson’s latest guest commentary, “No one is coming for your guns” (AFN, Jan. 22) — two points.

1. The editorial did not address my overall point that regulation could reduce gun violence. Instead, Richardson’s commentary polished a tin foil hat logic through non-sequitur discussion of the ACA. I believe his idea was that regulation must mean confiscation, but I’m not sure. The connection was lost on me, perhaps Richardson can clarify.

2. Richardson asked the reader to do research. Well, that’s not easy because the NRA effectively eliminated CDC funding to study effective policy. I believe the gun lobby didn’t like reading recommendations that gun regulation could save lives — over and over again. No matter, the president, on Jan. 14, signed an executive order allowing research to continue that will greatly broaden the available data we have with guns — what works and what doesn’t. Even though funding has been limited, research has been going on at John Hopkins, Harvard and others institutions and the overwhelming evidence suggests that regulation saves lives.

Regulation does not equal confiscation. Put the tin foil hat down. We don’t need that here. We’ll get evidence soon as to what works.

Brian Beck

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.