Letters to the Editor

I am the mother of three teenage boys - one of whom hunts with his father. I respect their wishes when it comes to this sport.

However, some things I do not understand. Why one needs to purchase more than one gun a month. Why we cannot limit gun sales to people who are subject to abuse orders or a risk to themselves or others. Why the police can't be notified of a theft or loss of a gun. Why one needs an assault rifle to kill a deer.

I also do not understand the NRA's argument that Mayor Nutter should be arrested for his stance on guns (Inquirer, April 18). When little children are killed walking to school, when people do not want to come to your city due to extreme violence, something drastic needs to be done. Yet, what Nutter has done is not so much drastic as it is just common sense. But that's apparently something the NRA doesn't have.

Joanne Coughlan

Broomall

I am a member of Physicians for Social Responsibility here in Philadelphia. Two years ago, PSR spearheaded a lobbying effort by local physicians and medical students for the "One Handgun a Month" law. Students, along with ER docs, trauma surgeons and other medical professionals descended upon lawmakers in their offices in Harrisburg. Lawmakers told us repeatedly that they agreed with our pleas, but that to "buck the NRA would be political suicide."

Michael Nutter is a hero for standing up to these bullies. We fully support his actions and continue working to stanch the flow of handguns into Philadelphia. What possible argument can be made against limiting the purchase of a handgun to one per month? The NRA's "slippery slope" is slippery indeed - with the blood of fallen Philadelphians.

Rosemary Harris

Drexel University School of Medicine

Department of Family, Community

and Preventive Medicine

Philadelphia

» READ MORE: Rosemary.Harris@DrexelMed.edu

The conventional wisdom regarding Wednesday's debate is that there was too much time spent on the "gotcha" and "gaffe" questions and not enough time on the issue questions ("ABC gets an earful after debate," April 18). I disagree. The issue questions at this stage are almost irrelevant and don't tell us anything about what the candidates are really about.

The fact that they have a position on an issue doesn't mean it is the "best" one or even that it's workable. They are largely just platitudes anyway, particularly when given in the sound-bite style required in a debate. And there is little difference in their positions. If people are truly interested in issues, they should visit the candidates' Web sites.

On the other hand, the "gotcha" and "gaffe" questions relate to events that have already occurred and reflect negatively on the candidates. Voters learn more from candidate reactions to negative events than by hearing more vague promises.

Peter Meltzer

Philadelphia

Our country lost an opportunity to serve justice from higher ground when enforced death was confirmed ("Justices uphold lethal injection," April 17). Just as humankind cannot determine the soul's arrival in the human form, so it should not determine its departure.

If punishment should befit the crime, let it be just and worthy, obligate some recompense to those hurt or defrauded, yet aid a soul's life lesson and refocus itself on worthiness.

The measure of a nation's compassion is evident in the treatment of its citizens.

David Marcmann

Lumberton