Regarding The Washington Post editorial that was printed in The Japan Times on April 20 under the headline "U.S. Senate misfires": In spite of recent mass shootings, a gun background-check proposal failed to win a sufficient majority in the U.S. Senate, apparently because of pressure from the National Rifle Association.
Now, the tragedy at the Boston Marathon. This time the media is not decrying lack of weapons control, but taking a different approach, insinuating this was an act of terrorism.
With hundreds of murders occurring daily in the United States due to handguns, knives and other means, does terror not already exist in the U.S.? Perhaps the NRA would like to take a stand on the right to bear bombs since the Second Amendment to the Constitution refers to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"? My dictionary states that "arms" include more than guns.
Why is there the media disconnect between media coverage of gun carnage and what should be done about it, and what has happened in Boston? Aren't the bombings a chance to spur debate on how to reduce violence in the U.S.?
The opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are the writer's own and do not necessarily reflect the policies of The Japan Times.