I usually read the Post-Gazette Portfolio essays, but the blunt contrast between those written by Tony Norman and Ruth Ann Dailey has become a bit unsettling for me. I thoroughly enjoy Tony's insightful, measured, fact-based and ofttimes humorous columns, and they are a joy to read while sipping my morning coffee.
Ms. Dailey, however, writes with an abundance of acidity, sarcasm, half-truths and a mind as closed as a bank vault at night. Her most recent pronouncement about Vice President Joe Biden's efforts on behalf of President Barack Obama to address the violence committed using firearms was more of a rant than anything else, and a disrespectful one at that ("Executive Order Is Wrong Approach to Guns," Jan. 14).
She recommends reading an article in The Atlantic, "The Case for More Guns," which lays out the salient issues on both sides of the more-control versus more-guns argument rather well. However, its premise is that it's too late for any combination of gun-control measures to have much effect because we already have too many guns in America (300 million, more or less). The only alternative is to have more of the good guys and gals carrying them. This is a defeatist mentality, and one to which Ms. Dailey apparently subscribes.
Think about it. What would you feel like going for a walk in beautiful North Park knowing that more and more of those you encounter there have deadly weapons available for immediate use? Would it make you feel safer? Would you lament the fact that this is the best we could do in America?
Less Ruth Ann Dailey and more Tony Norman, please!