Hundreds of readers responded with considerable feeling to Monday’s editorial about growing evidence that the vast majority of licensed gun owners are far more likely to kill themselves or others than to take down an armed perpetrator. Doubters insisted there was, or had to be, evidence that contradicted the findings.  MFW of Tampa, Fl. demanded clearer data before reconsidering the dangerous implications of concealed carry. But, as the editorial emphasized, the gun lobby and Congress have severely restricted the government’s ability to collect data on the public health problem posed by the nation’s 30,000-plus annual gun deaths.  “Every year we track the flu,” said another reader, Nuschler of Cambridge, appalled at the lack of government research on firearm death and damage. “With guns? We don’t even have a clue how many are even out here!” the writer noted, adding: “13 deaths with G.M. cars gets hearings, not guns.” Another, Gfagan of Pa., said, “The surest sign that the lobby knows full well that it is hoodwinking all of us is that they don’t want research about gun violence conducted and published.”  Some readers argued that if people legally carrying guns were present at the Aurora, Colo. movie theater shooting or the Charleston, S.C. church massacre, the perpetrators could have been stopped. “Had just a few of the worshippers been armed they could have quickly defended themselves,” insisted Tom Paine of Charleston. But should church members really have to go armed to practice their religion in this country? And various readers noted that amid the panic and confusion of a mass shooting, a civilian might not be able to stop the perpetrator. “It’s not simple,” wrote Andrew Pierovich, who identified himself as a retired policeman from Bronxville, N.Y. “Just look how many police officers get it wrong.”  Readers focused more on the problem of mass shooting than the finding that citizens who arm themselves in the name of self-protection too often end up committing suicide instead. DEWC of New Castle, Va., said, “My weapon gives me the ability to go hiking alone in the woods, drive late on interstates, and sleep at my farm without constant fear.” He did not specify whether he had a simple revolver or shotgun rather than the fast firing pistols and rifles the industry now markets for sport and self defense. W. A. Spitzer of Faywood noted that wide access to such war weapons gives ordinary Americans the power to do great damage in a short time before they can be stopped: “When you permit Joe Public to have an assault rifle or an extended magazine you are sending the message to the good, the bad and the crazy, that they might need to kill lots of people very quickly.”  The responses provided a measure of the intensity of America’s debate about gun rights, something that has always puzzled people in countries where gun control is far more effective than it is here. Shawm of London wrote as an American living abroad for 30 years, asking: “Why do so many Americans seem to think that guns equal freedom? And why do so many Americans consider it so important that they be able to shoot each other?”
Some readers asked for more data on gun violence, while others criticized American attitudes on the issue, in response to a recent editorial.