Brian Coulter has emerged from his editorial hiatus (

Forum, June 4

) just long enough to wield his poison pen by attacking Joe Biden, gun safety advocates and anyone else who doesn’t align with his radical brand of conservatism. On first reading, I was disappointed that LNJ editors didn’t take a red pen to excise some of his unsupported statements like a “study” downplaying the effect of the Brady Act enacted after a deranged John Hinckley shot President Reagan in 1981. But then, I noticed that the headline over Brian’s column described him perfectly, “Soft targets tempt hard hearts and sick minds.” It’s really difficult to take Brian seriously when he is so sloppy in reporting items as fact when he should know they’re untrue or grossly exaggerated. For instance, the claim that Biden was responsible for the military leaving $83 billion worth of weapons and equipment for the Taliban when American troops exited Afghanistan last year. A simple Google search would tell him that figure was the total of all arms and munitions spent by the military over many years. An inspector general for the Department of Defense clearly explained that when Donald Trump hyped the same complaint after our troops exited. And what about the equipment left behind? The military had destroyed or made inoperable the avionics on helicopters and other vital parts to make the equipment usable. Besides, just what does the war in Afghanistan have to do with gun safety issues in the United States? Nothing, and that seems to be the theme for his other rants such as making innocuous statements about sales of AR-15 rifles, the weapon of choice for many mass murderers. Brian explains the name of AR-15, but does he know the history of that rifle? It’s the semi-automatic version of the military M-16 that I trained with in the Army. In fact, I qualified as expert on the M-16 during basic training in 1970. I also was issued one for defense of our compound in Vietnam, but never had to fire it on guard duty. If you viewed the recent episode of “60 Minutes” on the AR-15, you learned the tumbling bullet of that rifle has a devastating effect on human tissue and bones. That weapon was designed for military use to kill enemy combatants, not for slaughtering innocent school children. The only difference in the two models is that M-16s can be set for full automatic firing. Then, some “genius” designed an attachment called a bump stock that converts AR-15s into an automatic weapon. That devastating effect was on full display at the massacre in Las Vegas in 2017 when 60 people were killed and 411 wounded by AR-15s modified with bump stocks. The result from that slaughter was a federal ban on the devices, which is being challenged in court. Brian also claims violent crime in Democrat-ran cities is attributable to defunding police after George Floyd was killed two years ago. In truth, there was a lot of talk about defunding the police but the number of cities actually cutting police budgets probably can be counted on one hand. Rather, the problem is partially due to the decreasing number of police per capita, a trend that started in 2006. In our area, police departments in many communities are reporting personnel shortages just like in other regions across the nation. Another interesting statistic Brian could have mentioned is the 43% increase in firearm deaths from 2010 to 2020. They now account for 1.3% of all deaths in America and are the leading cause of deaths in children and young men, according to the Center for Disease Control. Sadly, it didn’t have to be this way if George Bush and Republicans had reinstated the ban on AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles that expired in 2004. Congress had enacted the ban 10 years earlier when Bill Clinton was president, but Bush was faced with a tough reelection and, like Trump, caved under pressure by the NRA and the millions of lobbyist dollars it lavished on politicians, mostly Republicans, to let the ban expire. Congress, finally stirred into action by the Uvalde massacre, passed a minimalist bill palatable to both parties last week, the first such reform legislation in about 30 years. It didn’t enact a ban on AR-15 style weapons, but at least it’s a start. Interestingly, our illustrious governor is also up to old tricks beyond the usually thoughts and prayers that Greg Abbott expressed after the Uvalde massacre. Just like a couple of years ago after a mass shooting, he called for legislative action. He wants committees to study the problem that will soon be ignored when the furor dies down and the funerals come to an end. To borrow Brian’s phrasing, without substantive red flag laws, expanded background checks, more emphasis on mental health and making it a lot more difficult to buy these military-style weapons, all the talk and posturing will amount to little more than dog vomit. We’ll just have to wait a matter of days for the next mass shooting followed by more public outrage.

Brian Coulter has emerged from his editorial hiatus (Forum, June 4) just long enough to wield his poison pen by attacking Joe Biden, gun safety advocates and anyone else who doesn’t align with his radical brand of conservatism.

On first reading, I was disappointed that LNJ editors didn’t take a red pen to excise some of his unsupported statements like a “study” downplaying the effect of the Brady Act enacted after a deranged John Hinckley shot President Reagan in 1981.

But then, I noticed that the headline over Brian’s column described him perfectly, “Soft targets tempt hard hearts and sick minds.”

It’s really difficult to take Brian seriously when he is so sloppy in reporting items as fact when he should know they’re untrue or grossly exaggerated. For instance, the claim that Biden was responsible for the military leaving $83 billion worth of weapons and equipment for the Taliban when American troops exited Afghanistan last year.

A simple Google search would tell him that figure was the total of all arms and munitions spent by the military over many years. An inspector general for the Department of Defense clearly explained that when Donald Trump hyped the same complaint after our troops exited. And what about the equipment left behind? The military had destroyed or made inoperable the avionics on helicopters and other vital parts to make the equipment usable.

Besides, just what does the war in Afghanistan have to do with gun safety issues in the United States?

Nothing, and that seems to be the theme for his other rants such as making innocuous statements about sales of AR-15 rifles, the weapon of choice for many mass murderers. Brian explains the name of AR-15, but does he know the history of that rifle?

It’s the semi-automatic version of the military M-16 that I trained with in the Army. In fact, I qualified as expert on the M-16 during basic training in 1970. I also was issued one for defense of our compound in Vietnam, but never had to fire it on guard duty.

If you viewed the recent episode of “60 Minutes” on the AR-15, you learned the tumbling bullet of that rifle has a devastating effect on human tissue and bones. That weapon was designed for military use to kill enemy combatants, not for slaughtering innocent school children.

The only difference in the two models is that M-16s can be set for full automatic firing. Then, some “genius” designed an attachment called a bump stock that converts AR-15s into an automatic weapon. That devastating effect was on full display at the massacre in Las Vegas in 2017 when 60 people were killed and 411 wounded by AR-15s modified with bump stocks. The result from that slaughter was a federal ban on the devices, which is being challenged in court.

Brian also claims violent crime in Democrat-ran cities is attributable to defunding police after George Floyd was killed two years ago. In truth, there was a lot of talk about defunding the police but the number of cities actually cutting police budgets probably can be counted on one hand.

Rather, the problem is partially due to the decreasing number of police per capita, a trend that started in 2006. In our area, police departments in many communities are reporting personnel shortages just like in other regions across the nation.

Another interesting statistic Brian could have mentioned is the 43% increase in firearm deaths from 2010 to 2020. They now account for 1.3% of all deaths in America and are the leading cause of deaths in children and young men, according to the Center for Disease Control.

Sadly, it didn’t have to be this way if George Bush and Republicans had reinstated the ban on AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles that expired in 2004. Congress had enacted the ban 10 years earlier when Bill Clinton was president, but Bush was faced with a tough reelection and, like Trump, caved under pressure by the NRA and the millions of lobbyist dollars it lavished on politicians, mostly Republicans, to let the ban expire.

Congress, finally stirred into action by the Uvalde massacre, passed a minimalist bill palatable to both parties last week, the first such reform legislation in about 30 years. It didn’t enact a ban on AR-15 style weapons, but at least it’s a start.

Interestingly, our illustrious governor is also up to old tricks beyond the usually thoughts and prayers that Greg Abbott expressed after the Uvalde massacre. Just like a couple of years ago after a mass shooting, he called for legislative action. He wants committees to study the problem that will soon be ignored when the furor dies down and the funerals come to an end.

To borrow Brian’s phrasing, without substantive red flag laws, expanded background checks, more emphasis on mental health and making it a lot more difficult to buy these military-style weapons, all the talk and posturing will amount to little more than dog vomit. We’ll just have to wait a matter of days for the next mass shooting followed by more public outrage.