Concerning Keith Hull’s letter of Aug. 16. His letter exemplifies why “reasonable” gun control will not occur. I believe there are three primary groups involved in the debate. The first two groups are the extremists of the “pro” and “anti” movements. Although polar opposites, both groups use the same strategy to support their respective positions ... maximize emotion, minimize the use of facts, and sprinkle liberally with clichés and personal attacks on opponents. The third group are “middle of the roaders” who actually want to formulate an equitable and effective policy, but are probably in the minority.
Mr. Hull represents the first group. Although he probably does believe he is a “reasonable” pro-gun advocate, his letter indicates otherwise. All the strategies mentioned above are contained in his letter. He inserts emotionally charged and inflammatory language such as “murdered children,” “the thugs at the NRA,” and “Columbine and Newtown.” Further, he personally attacks a distinguished judge, Larry Stirling, who wrote a letter to the editor for the Statesman arguing against certain aspects of gun control. Agree or disagree with Judge Stirling’s position, he did provide “verifiable” facts, whereas Mr. Hull did not.
Prognosis ... implementation of a reasonable gun control policy looks bleak.
Randy Poole, Boise